Loading...
Agenda_2018_12_4_Meeting M ayor Suzanne Jones Council M e mbe rs Aaron Brockett Cindy Carlisle Jill Grano Lisa Morzel Mirabai Nagle Sam Weaver Bob Yates Mary Young Council Chambers 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 December 4, 2018 6:00 PM City M anage r Jane Brautigam City Attorne y Thomas A. Carr City Cle rk Lynnette Beck AGENDA FOR T HE REGULAR MEET ING OF T HE BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL I tems not on the Agenda are sometimes presented to Council in weekly I nformation Packets. Those packets can be accessed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. 1.Call to Order and Roll Call A.Declaration in Honor of University of Colorado Boulder Student Serene Singh, the First C U Boulder Woman to Receive a Rhodes Scholarship 5 min B.Consideration of a motion to approve the election returns from the 2018 Coordinated M unicipal Election held on November 6, 2018 15 min 2.Open Comment 3.Consent Agenda A.Consideration of a motion to accept a correction to the J uly 10, 2018 the M arijuana Advisory Panel (M AP) S tudy S ession S ummary B.Consideration of a motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study S ession Summary regarding Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for Climate Commitment Work C.Consideration of a motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study S ession Summary regarding council discussion of guidance for the Housing Advisory Board D.Consideration of a motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study S ession Summary regarding updates on the hospital deconstruction and Alpine-Balsam Area Plan E.Consideration of a motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study S ession Summary regarding 6400 Arapahoe S ite Programming City Council Meeting Page 1 of 553 F.Consideration of a motion to accept the November 27, 2018 Study S ession Summary on the Boulder Public L ibrary M aster P lan Follow Up, Regarding F inancing Options for L ong Term S ustainable L ibrary Funding G.Consideration of a motion to approve the City of Boulder's 2019 S tate and F ederal L egislative Agenda H.1. Consideration of a motion to approve disposal of certain interests in City park land to allow realignment of an existing ditch to accommodate greater sustainability of a park amenity (Scott Carpenter Park pool), pursuant to City Charter Sec. 162, through two grants of permanent easement, and 2. Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to execute documents conveying two easements across Scott Carpenter P ark allowing proposed grantees to operate an irrigation ditch, including a) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 592 feet to the S mith and Goss Ditch and M cCarty Ditch water users; and b) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 110 feet to University of Colorado, in substantially the same forms as presented in and generally depicted on Attachment A. I.Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to disburse $4.6M for 2019 S ugar S weetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax F unding Allocations J .Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to disburse $2.1M for 2019 Human Services Fund Allocations K.S ixth reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8256 amending standards for accessory dwelling units and owner accessory units including S ection 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and S ection 10-3-19, “S hort-term Rentals,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth related details L .S econd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8299 approving annual carryover and supplemental appropriations to the 2018 Budget; and Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City Council and convene as the Boulder M unicipal P roperty Authority (B M PA) Board of Directors M .Consideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 151 amending the 2018 Budget for the Boulder M unicipal Property Authority; and Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder M unicipal P roperty Authority Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council N.Continued second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt or amend and pass, Ordinance 8295 amending Chapter 7-7, “Towing and Impoundment,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt additional regulations on nonconsensual towing and setting forth related details City Council Meeting Page 2 of 553 O.Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to adopt E mergency Ordinance 8303 adopting Supplement 137, which codifies previously adopted Ordinances 8249, 8279, 8280, 8283, 8284, 8290, and 8292, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as an amendment to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 P.Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8305 to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue and a portion of adjoining right-of-way from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL -2) (L UR2018-00011) Q.Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to publish by title only, and adopt as an emergency measure Ordinance No. 8306 approving a loan evidenced by the City of Boulder, Colorado, Community Culture and S afety S ales and Use Tax Revenue Notes (Capital Improvement P rojects), S eries 2019, in the aggregate principal amount of $4,556,250 – Series A (tax-exempt) and $3,543,750 – Series B (taxable) for the purpose of providing funds (A) to acquire land to be used for the relocation of Fire S tation 3, (B) to finance any other City capital improvement program projects identified in 2017 Ballot Issue 2N, and (C) to pay costs of issuance of the 2019 Notes; approving the form of said S eries 2019 Notes; providing for the sale of said S eries 2019 Notes; providing for the payment and redemption of said S eries 2019 Notes from and out of the City’s Community, Culture and S afety Tax (C C S), which was extended an additional four years, by vote of the people, on November 7, 2017; providing other details and approving other documents in connection with said Series 2019 Notes; and declaring an emergency and providing the effective date hereof 4.Call-Up Check-In A.Call-Up: 2920 Baseline - Use Review B.Call-Up: 2990 Diagonal Highway - Site and Use Review C.Call-Up: 5100 Reservoir Road - Amendment to Site Review 5.Public Hearings A.Second reading and motion to adopt Ordinance 8302 authorizing the acquisition of property interests used or owned by Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a X cel E nergy, for the electric distribution facilities to serve the city, by negotiation and purchase or through the power of eminent domain, and setting forth related details 60 min 6.M atters from the City M anager 7.M atters from the City Attorney City Council Meeting Page 3 of 553 8.M atters from M ayor and M embers of Council A.Call-Up: Use Review (L UR2017-00049) to demolish an existing M cDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window and construct a new M cDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window at 2920 Baseline in the B C-2 (Business – Community 2) zoning district B.Call-Up: Use Review (L UR2017-00063) to demolish an existing gas station, carwash, convenience store with a Starbucks restaurant with a drive-thru window at 2990 Diagonal Hwy. in the B C-1 (Business – Community 1) zoning district C.Call-Up: Amendment to a previously approved Site Review application for the new Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services building at 5100 Reservoir Road, to amend previous conditions of approval related to electric vehicle (E V ) charging stations and photo-voltaic readiness, and to amend the building square footage and bike parking layout and locations (L UR2018-00065) D.Discussion of the Large Homes and Lots in residential zoning districts code change project including but not limited to a proposed phased schedule/timeline, draft community engagement plan, updated scope and purpose statements, additional data, and proposed options moving forward. T he council will also discuss whether a temporary S uspension of P ermits or interim development regulations related to Large Homes and Lots should be undertaken to allow the project to be completed in phases 120 min E.M ayor pro tem election 5 min F.Reminder from Council Retreat Committee 5 min 9.Discussion Items 10.Debrief 11.Adjournment 4:40 Hours This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live on Municipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m. Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council meeting. Boulder 8 TV (Comcast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live meetings that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning service operates in the same manner as similar services offered by broadcast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with the television remote control. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on Boulder Channel8.com. To activate the captioning service for the live stream, the "C C" button (which is located at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the channel is providing captioning services. City Council Meeting Page 4 of 553 The council chambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening devices. I ndividuals with hearing or speech loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656. Anyone requiring special packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions may contact the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please request special packet preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. I f you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting, please call (303) 441-1905 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o cualquier otra ayuda con relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-1905 por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta. Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolorado.gov no later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. City Council Meeting Page 5 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E T BD P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C arl Castillo, Policy Advisor AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Declaration City Council Meeting Page 6 of 553 City Council Meeting Page 7 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C ertification of the 2018 Coordinated Municipal Election P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Lynnette Beck, C ity Clerk RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Items relating to the certification of the 2018 Coordinated Municipal Election held on November 6, 2018: 1. Motion to convene as the General Canvassing and Election Board for the City of Boulder C oordinated Municipal Election 2. Roll call of the General Canvassing and Election Board 3. Administration of oath and signing of same by Board members 4. Consideration of a motion nominating a member to chair the Board 5. Submission of the following to the Board found in Attachment: A. Statement of Votes B. Summary of Votes C . Boulder County Audit, Reconciliation Report and Certification D. Statement of Election Results and C ertification for the C olorado Department of Local Affairs 6. Open public hearing 7. Consideration of a motion to approve the election returns and, if approved, signing of the C ertificate of the General C anvassing and Election Board 8. Motion to adjourn from the General Canvassing and Election Board for the City of Boulder Coordinated Municipal Election and reconvene as the Boulder City C ouncil City Council Meeting Page 8 of 553 B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Boulder Home Rule C harter section 32 provides for the certification of election results. T he C ity Council shall serve as the General C anvassing and Election Board. T he C ity C lerk/Secretary for the General Canvassing and Election Board will present the Board with all official election documents for review (complete election returns are available from Boulder County at https://www.bouldercounty.org/elections/). After conducting a public hearing, the Board shall consider a motion approving the election returns and shall sign the official documents. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description A - Statement of Votes B - Summary of Votes C - B oulder County Audit Reconciliation D - Statement of Election Results and Certification for D O L A City Council Meeting Page 9 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 517 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 909 2181307909 561 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 489 374 25 0 909 2181307909 561 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 489 90 25 0 910 2181307910 769 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 643 462 21 0 910 2181307910 769 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 643 160 21 0 911 2181307911 944 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 821 583 33 0 911 2181307911 944 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 821 205 33 0 912 2181107912 1,153 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 1,013 725 43 0 912 2181107912 1,153 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 1,013 245 43 0 913 2181107913 675 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 589 432 29 0 913 2181107913 675 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 589 128 29 0 914 2181307914 591 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 516 381 24 0 914 2181307914 591 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 516 111 24 0 915 2181307915 393 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 314 219 15 0 915 2181307915 393 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 314 80 15 0 916 2181107916 466 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 389 243 14 0 916 2181107916 466 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 389 132 14 0 917 2181107917 1,353 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 1,172 816 46 0 917 2181107917 1,353 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 1,172 310 46 0 918 2181107918 1,170 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)YES/FOR 1,010 725 41 0 918 2181107918 1,170 Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 1,010 244 41 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 371 181 33 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 371 157 33 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 512 334 42 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 10 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 518 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 512 136 42 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 393 252 39 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 393 102 39 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 329 211 35 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 329 83 35 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 1,001 662 109 1 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,001 229 109 1 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 982 726 67 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 982 189 67 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 1,568 1,112 141 1 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,568 314 141 1 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 917 664 68 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 917 185 68 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 782 567 62 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 782 153 62 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 668 428 46 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 668 194 46 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 628 424 50 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 628 154 50 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 317 218 27 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 317 72 27 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 919 639 81 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 919 199 81 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 11 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 519 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 676 483 57 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 676 136 57 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 948 685 77 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 948 186 77 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 723 495 46 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 723 182 46 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 907 645 70 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 907 192 70 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 752 548 67 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 752 137 67 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 597 435 47 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 597 115 47 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 900 659 86 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 900 155 86 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 754 521 92 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 754 141 92 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 1,384 951 148 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,384 285 148 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 920 659 89 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 920 172 89 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 549 403 44 1 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 101 44 1 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 715 544 64 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 12 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 520 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 715 107 64 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 735 550 66 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 735 119 66 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 550 402 57 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 550 91 57 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 567 397 61 1 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 567 108 61 1 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 543 384 64 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 95 64 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 610 419 78 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 610 113 78 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 248 165 25 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 248 58 25 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 503 301 75 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 503 127 75 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 585 337 98 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 585 150 98 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 334 218 52 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 334 64 52 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 413 251 54 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 413 108 54 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 663 451 65 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 663 147 65 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 13 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 521 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 336 229 33 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 336 74 33 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 543 357 39 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 147 39 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 525 335 46 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 525 144 46 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 495 324 37 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 495 134 37 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 863 593 57 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 863 213 57 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 1,125 755 82 1 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,125 287 82 1 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 588 404 49 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 135 49 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 708 498 77 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 708 133 77 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 837 497 117 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 837 223 117 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 532 327 65 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 532 140 65 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 531 397 44 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 531 90 44 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 449 266 72 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 14 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 522 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 449 111 72 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 587 349 49 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 587 189 49 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 846 567 86 1 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 846 192 86 1 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 909 610 85 1 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 909 213 85 1 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 672 454 50 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 672 168 50 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 761 528 65 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 761 168 65 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 680 476 59 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 680 145 59 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 544 394 30 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 120 30 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 739 513 46 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 739 180 46 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 839 606 50 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 839 183 50 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 743 512 50 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 743 181 50 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 563 393 37 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 563 133 37 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 15 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 523 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 544 371 45 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 128 45 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 580 418 47 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 580 115 47 0 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 704 455 60 1 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 704 188 60 1 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 575 386 59 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 575 130 59 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 528 348 51 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 528 129 51 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 751 553 59 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 751 139 59 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 688 497 63 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 688 128 63 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 802 554 57 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 802 191 57 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 513 352 42 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 513 119 42 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 527 341 62 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 527 124 62 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 650 475 66 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 650 109 66 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 506 299 74 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 16 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 524 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 506 133 74 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 402 261 41 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 402 100 41 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 850 581 67 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 850 202 67 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 355 218 49 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 355 88 49 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 418 247 69 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 418 102 69 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 588 396 57 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 135 57 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 510 361 64 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 510 85 64 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 549 368 70 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 111 70 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 577 344 103 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 577 130 103 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 534 389 54 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 534 91 54 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 561 411 42 1 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 561 107 42 1 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 714 522 73 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 714 119 73 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 17 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 525 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 725 497 77 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 725 151 77 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 549 396 52 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 101 52 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 719 509 67 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 719 143 67 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 825 566 68 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 825 191 68 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 755 546 30 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 755 179 30 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 371 172 19 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 371 180 19 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 512 284 22 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 512 206 22 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 393 224 20 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 393 149 20 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 329 182 17 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 329 130 17 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 1,001 590 54 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,001 357 54 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 982 628 38 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 982 316 38 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 1,568 954 90 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 18 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 526 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,568 524 90 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 917 580 28 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 917 309 28 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 782 468 33 1 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 782 280 33 1 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 668 405 18 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 668 245 18 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 628 403 28 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 628 197 28 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 317 158 15 1 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 317 143 15 1 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 919 538 48 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 919 333 48 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 676 420 34 1 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 676 221 34 1 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 948 579 48 1 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 948 320 48 1 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 723 425 26 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 723 272 26 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 907 545 34 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 907 328 34 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 752 468 39 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 752 245 39 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 19 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 527 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 597 378 31 1 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 597 187 31 1 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 900 585 45 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 900 270 45 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 754 457 43 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 754 254 43 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 1,384 873 84 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,384 427 84 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 920 567 55 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 920 298 55 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 549 343 23 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 183 23 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 715 491 32 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 715 192 32 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 735 486 41 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 735 208 41 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 550 347 34 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 550 169 34 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 567 357 33 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 567 177 33 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 543 350 30 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 163 30 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 610 396 37 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 20 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 528 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 610 177 37 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 248 151 19 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 248 78 19 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 503 300 45 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 503 158 45 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 585 388 71 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 585 126 71 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 334 211 32 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 334 91 32 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 413 247 34 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 413 132 34 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 663 384 41 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 663 238 41 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 336 209 21 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 336 106 21 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 543 326 20 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 197 20 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 525 317 25 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 525 183 25 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 495 270 24 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 495 201 24 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 863 516 38 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 863 309 38 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 21 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 529 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 1,125 644 45 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,125 436 45 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 588 330 33 1 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 224 33 1 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 708 438 38 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 708 232 38 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 837 468 79 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 837 290 79 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 532 300 36 1 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 532 195 36 1 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 531 325 23 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 531 183 23 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 449 250 63 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 449 136 63 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 587 305 25 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 587 257 25 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 846 541 46 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 846 259 46 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 909 519 52 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 909 338 52 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 672 410 28 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 672 234 28 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 761 435 44 1 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 22 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 530 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 761 281 44 1 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 680 415 43 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 680 222 43 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 544 324 16 2 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 202 16 2 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 739 436 26 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 739 277 26 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 839 545 30 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 839 264 30 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 743 470 24 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 743 249 24 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 563 350 18 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 563 195 18 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 544 368 21 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 155 21 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 580 366 21 1 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 580 192 21 1 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 704 410 43 0 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 704 251 43 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 575 361 32 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 575 182 32 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 528 311 28 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 528 189 28 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 23 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 531 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 751 469 32 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 751 250 32 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 688 428 32 1 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 688 227 32 1 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 802 470 35 1 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 802 296 35 1 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 513 334 18 1 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 513 160 18 1 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 527 294 37 1 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 527 195 37 1 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 650 389 35 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 650 226 35 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 506 269 52 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 506 185 52 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 402 249 21 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 402 132 21 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 850 518 37 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 850 295 37 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 355 206 29 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 355 120 29 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 418 227 53 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 418 138 53 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 588 352 43 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 24 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 532 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 193 43 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 510 323 43 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 510 144 43 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 549 349 37 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 163 37 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 577 340 64 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 577 173 64 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 534 329 36 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 534 169 36 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 561 373 23 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 561 165 23 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 714 460 47 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 714 207 47 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 725 448 51 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 725 226 51 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 549 362 19 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 168 19 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 719 458 37 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 719 224 37 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 825 534 38 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 825 253 38 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 755 479 19 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 755 257 19 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 25 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 533 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 371 164 57 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 371 150 57 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 512 298 106 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 512 108 106 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 393 220 83 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 393 90 83 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 329 152 66 1 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 329 110 66 1 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 1,001 487 192 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,001 322 192 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 982 496 155 1 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 982 330 155 1 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 1,568 812 293 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,568 463 293 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 917 441 137 2 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 917 337 137 2 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 782 370 118 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 782 294 118 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 668 279 104 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 668 285 104 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 628 302 115 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 628 211 115 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 317 174 48 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 26 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 534 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 317 95 48 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 919 473 162 1 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 919 283 162 1 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 676 342 147 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 676 187 147 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 948 474 177 1 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 948 296 177 1 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 723 320 118 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 723 285 118 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 907 438 134 3 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 907 332 134 3 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 752 362 109 1 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 752 280 109 1 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 597 284 99 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 597 214 99 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 900 402 172 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 900 326 172 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 754 351 178 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 754 225 178 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 1,384 724 321 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,384 339 321 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 920 454 171 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 920 295 171 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 27 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 535 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 549 291 95 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 163 95 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 715 353 139 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 715 223 139 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 735 346 165 1 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 735 223 165 1 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 550 259 141 1 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 550 149 141 1 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 567 317 124 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 567 126 124 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 543 304 145 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 94 145 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 610 335 166 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 610 109 166 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 248 126 51 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 248 71 51 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 503 279 148 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 503 76 148 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 585 319 168 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 585 98 168 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 334 181 92 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 334 61 92 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 413 190 118 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 28 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 536 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 413 105 118 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 663 366 169 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 663 128 169 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 336 170 95 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 336 71 95 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 543 247 93 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 203 93 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 525 247 108 1 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 525 169 108 1 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 495 205 76 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 495 214 76 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 863 390 149 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 863 324 149 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 1,125 533 199 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,125 393 199 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 588 274 105 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 209 105 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 708 339 162 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 708 207 162 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 837 418 229 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 837 190 229 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 532 305 138 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 532 89 138 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 29 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 537 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 531 301 98 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 531 132 98 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 449 251 130 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 449 68 130 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 587 260 101 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 587 226 101 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 846 393 146 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 846 307 146 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 909 454 183 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 909 272 183 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 672 306 139 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 672 227 139 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 761 421 140 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 761 200 140 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 680 356 132 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 680 192 132 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 544 280 96 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 168 96 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 739 348 123 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 739 268 123 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 839 380 140 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 839 319 140 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 743 320 112 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 30 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 538 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 743 311 112 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 563 231 89 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 563 243 89 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 544 211 94 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 239 94 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 580 279 97 1 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 580 203 97 1 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 704 335 115 2 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 704 252 115 2 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 575 282 93 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 575 200 93 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 528 268 113 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 528 147 113 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 751 390 132 1 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 751 228 132 1 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 688 327 150 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 688 211 150 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 802 339 128 1 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 802 334 128 1 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 513 203 107 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 513 203 107 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 527 257 136 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 527 134 136 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 31 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 539 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 650 318 126 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 650 206 126 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 506 254 150 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 506 102 150 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 402 173 66 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 402 163 66 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 850 422 144 1 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 850 283 144 1 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 355 173 110 1 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 355 71 110 1 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 418 214 138 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 418 66 138 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 588 272 124 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 192 124 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 510 239 128 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 510 143 128 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 549 261 143 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 145 143 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 577 265 197 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 577 115 197 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 534 248 116 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 534 170 116 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 561 256 93 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 32 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 540 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 561 212 93 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 714 357 144 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 714 213 144 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 725 432 161 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 725 132 161 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 549 239 99 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 211 99 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 719 319 130 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 719 270 130 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 825 356 144 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 825 325 144 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 755 337 93 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 755 325 93 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 371 229 43 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 371 99 43 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 512 319 77 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 512 116 77 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 393 243 66 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 393 84 66 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 329 239 48 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 329 42 48 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 1,001 672 149 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,001 180 149 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 33 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 541 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 982 715 119 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 982 148 119 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 1,568 1,017 237 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,568 314 237 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 917 626 119 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 917 172 119 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 782 529 95 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 782 158 95 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 668 481 65 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 668 122 65 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 628 412 85 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 628 131 85 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 317 221 37 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 317 59 37 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 919 623 134 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 919 162 134 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 676 416 111 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 676 149 111 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 948 627 144 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 948 177 144 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 723 520 90 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 723 113 90 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 907 653 113 1 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 34 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 542 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 907 140 113 1 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 752 518 87 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 752 147 87 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 597 414 75 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 597 108 75 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 900 585 140 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 900 175 140 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 754 460 139 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 754 155 139 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 1,384 849 238 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,384 297 238 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 920 580 137 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 920 203 137 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 549 380 71 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 98 71 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 715 471 113 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 715 131 113 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 735 458 143 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 735 134 143 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 550 344 110 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 550 96 110 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 567 353 96 1 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 567 117 96 1 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 35 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 543 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 543 308 115 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 120 115 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 610 350 129 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 610 131 129 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 248 140 41 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 248 67 41 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 503 267 123 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 503 113 123 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 585 344 152 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 585 89 152 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 334 197 76 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 334 61 76 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 413 235 91 1 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 413 86 91 1 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 663 394 125 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 663 144 125 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 336 194 66 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 336 76 66 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 543 379 66 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 98 66 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 525 342 86 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 525 97 86 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 495 342 65 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 36 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 544 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 495 88 65 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 863 574 126 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 863 163 126 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 1,125 748 159 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,125 218 159 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 588 416 71 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 101 71 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 708 415 130 1 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 708 162 130 1 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 837 507 181 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 837 149 181 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 532 301 117 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 532 114 117 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 531 350 76 2 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 531 103 76 2 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 449 258 118 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 449 73 118 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 587 390 73 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 587 124 73 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 846 602 109 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 846 135 109 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 909 575 140 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 909 194 140 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 37 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 545 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 672 437 106 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 672 129 106 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 761 485 110 1 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 761 165 110 1 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 680 455 93 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 680 132 93 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 544 369 59 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 116 59 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 739 494 99 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 739 146 99 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 839 601 112 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 839 126 112 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 743 505 105 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 743 133 105 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 563 402 66 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 563 95 66 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 544 351 80 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 113 80 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 580 386 84 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 580 110 84 0 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 704 488 100 0 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 704 116 100 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 575 384 84 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 38 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 546 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 575 107 84 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 528 330 75 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 528 123 75 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 751 490 106 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 751 155 106 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 688 431 121 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 688 136 121 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 802 556 96 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 802 150 96 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 513 331 78 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 513 104 78 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 527 287 115 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 527 125 115 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 650 417 98 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 650 135 98 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 506 289 120 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 506 97 120 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 402 293 44 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 402 65 44 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 850 582 113 1 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 850 154 113 1 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 355 233 78 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 355 44 78 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 39 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 547 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 418 226 125 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 418 67 125 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 588 366 97 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 125 97 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 510 310 112 1 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 510 87 112 1 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 549 335 112 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 102 112 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 577 305 169 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 577 103 169 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 534 336 85 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 534 113 85 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 561 401 70 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 561 90 70 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 714 460 123 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 714 131 123 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 725 438 121 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 725 166 121 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 549 357 79 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 113 79 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 719 468 105 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 719 146 105 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 825 565 120 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 40 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 548 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 825 140 120 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 755 570 75 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 755 110 75 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 371 184 31 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 371 156 31 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 512 319 66 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 512 127 66 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 393 269 49 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 393 75 49 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 329 211 38 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 329 80 38 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 1,001 648 127 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,001 226 127 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 982 605 110 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 982 267 110 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 1,568 993 205 1 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,568 369 205 1 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 917 599 98 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 917 220 98 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 782 465 83 1 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 782 233 83 1 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 668 424 66 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 668 178 66 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 41 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 549 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 628 429 63 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 628 136 63 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 317 203 36 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 317 78 36 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 919 592 110 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 919 217 110 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 676 448 80 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 676 148 80 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 948 621 117 1 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 948 209 117 1 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 723 394 79 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 723 250 79 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 907 571 83 1 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 907 252 83 1 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 752 474 78 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 752 200 78 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 597 349 73 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 597 175 73 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 900 602 110 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 900 188 110 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 754 508 118 1 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 754 127 118 1 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 1,384 888 197 1 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 42 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 550 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,384 298 197 1 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 920 576 119 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 920 225 119 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 549 353 52 1 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 143 52 1 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 715 453 91 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 715 171 91 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 735 486 103 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 735 146 103 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 550 358 92 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 550 100 92 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 567 386 77 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 567 104 77 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 543 384 91 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 68 91 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 610 395 105 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 610 110 105 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 248 143 35 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 248 70 35 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 503 322 106 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 503 75 106 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 585 361 128 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 585 96 128 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 43 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 551 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 334 211 67 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 334 56 67 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 413 235 79 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 413 99 79 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 663 437 103 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 663 123 103 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 336 233 51 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 336 52 51 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 543 308 57 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 178 57 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 525 300 79 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 525 146 79 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 495 250 54 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 495 191 54 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 863 506 97 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 863 260 97 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 1,125 635 125 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,125 365 125 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 588 363 63 1 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 161 63 1 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 708 467 99 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 708 142 99 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 837 520 149 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 44 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 552 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 837 168 149 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 532 355 92 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 532 85 92 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 531 369 71 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 531 91 71 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 449 291 93 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 449 65 93 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 587 266 79 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 587 242 79 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 846 487 95 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 846 264 95 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 909 558 121 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 909 230 121 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 672 437 79 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 672 156 79 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 761 522 82 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 761 157 82 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 680 454 86 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 680 140 86 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 544 350 51 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 143 51 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 739 424 79 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 739 236 79 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 45 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 553 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 839 520 97 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 839 222 97 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 743 432 70 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 743 241 70 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 563 331 56 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 563 176 56 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 544 307 61 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 176 61 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 580 350 69 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 580 161 69 0 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 704 409 89 0 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 704 206 89 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 575 310 74 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 575 191 74 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 528 348 64 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 528 116 64 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 751 465 86 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 751 200 86 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 688 436 93 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 688 159 93 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 802 403 97 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 802 302 97 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 513 280 69 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 46 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 554 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 513 164 69 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 527 298 86 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 527 143 86 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 650 435 77 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 650 138 77 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 506 290 99 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 506 117 99 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 402 217 39 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 402 146 39 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 850 481 98 1 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 850 270 98 1 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 355 220 68 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 355 67 68 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 418 262 94 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 418 62 94 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 588 351 93 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 144 93 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 510 315 97 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 510 98 97 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 549 344 86 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 119 86 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 577 335 141 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 577 101 141 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 47 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 555 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 534 333 79 1 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 534 121 79 1 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 561 343 59 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 561 159 59 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 714 474 102 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 714 138 102 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 725 460 108 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 725 157 108 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 549 360 64 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 125 64 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 719 426 91 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 719 202 91 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 825 495 98 1 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 825 231 98 1 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 755 444 67 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 755 244 67 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 371 199 49 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 371 123 49 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 512 329 84 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 512 99 84 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 393 258 54 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 393 81 54 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 329 211 49 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 48 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 556 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 329 69 49 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 1,001 639 160 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,001 202 160 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 982 693 120 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 982 169 120 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 1,568 1,097 221 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,568 250 221 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 917 637 117 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 917 163 117 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 782 532 91 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 782 159 91 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 668 448 69 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 668 151 69 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 628 433 82 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 628 113 82 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 317 213 39 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 317 65 39 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 919 646 123 1 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 919 149 123 1 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 676 493 92 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 676 91 92 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 948 685 124 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 948 139 124 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 49 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 557 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 723 470 95 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 723 158 95 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 907 627 102 1 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 907 177 102 1 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 752 525 85 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 752 142 85 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 597 401 83 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 597 113 83 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 900 642 120 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 900 138 120 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 754 508 127 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 754 119 127 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 1,384 945 230 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,384 209 230 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 920 616 138 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 920 166 138 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 549 387 65 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 97 65 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 715 484 122 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 715 109 122 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 735 496 122 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 735 117 122 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 550 367 108 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 50 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 558 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 550 75 108 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 567 400 80 1 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 567 86 80 1 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 543 384 103 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 56 103 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 610 412 118 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 610 80 118 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 248 156 40 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 248 52 40 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 503 319 109 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 503 75 109 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 585 341 134 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 585 110 134 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 334 213 72 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 334 49 72 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 413 259 82 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 413 72 82 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 663 442 116 1 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 663 104 116 1 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 336 218 65 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 336 53 65 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 543 367 63 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 113 63 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 51 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 559 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 525 352 80 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 525 93 80 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 495 323 63 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 495 109 63 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 863 575 115 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 863 173 115 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 1,125 766 145 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,125 214 145 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 588 412 78 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 98 78 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 708 464 125 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 708 119 125 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 837 533 179 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 837 125 179 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 532 339 115 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 532 78 115 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 531 383 78 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 531 70 78 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 449 288 95 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 449 66 95 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 587 348 79 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 587 160 79 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 846 590 119 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 52 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 560 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 846 137 119 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 909 608 135 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 909 166 135 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 672 463 97 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 672 112 97 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 761 539 98 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 761 124 98 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 680 488 106 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 680 86 106 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 544 368 73 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 103 73 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 739 487 98 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 739 154 98 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 839 571 119 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 839 149 119 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 743 494 104 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 743 145 104 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 563 386 67 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 563 110 67 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 544 351 80 1 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 112 80 1 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 580 390 84 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 580 106 84 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 53 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 561 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 704 481 87 1 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 704 135 87 1 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 575 385 68 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 575 122 68 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 528 365 83 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 528 80 83 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 751 535 85 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 751 131 85 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 688 468 104 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 688 116 104 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 802 520 105 0 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 802 177 105 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 513 330 77 0 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 513 106 77 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 527 318 111 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 527 98 111 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 650 466 85 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 650 99 85 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 506 298 107 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 506 101 107 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 402 262 50 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 402 90 50 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 850 579 103 1 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 54 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 562 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 850 167 103 1 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 355 213 77 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 355 65 77 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 418 247 110 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 418 61 110 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 588 359 95 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 134 95 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 510 320 113 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 510 77 113 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 549 368 107 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 74 107 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 577 338 149 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 577 90 149 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 534 357 92 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 534 85 92 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 561 387 71 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 561 103 71 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 714 495 107 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 714 112 107 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 725 497 110 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 725 118 110 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 549 367 82 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 100 82 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 55 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 563 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 719 487 104 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 719 128 104 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 825 531 123 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 825 171 123 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 755 512 74 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 755 169 74 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 371 200 59 0 800 2181007800 430 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 371 112 59 0 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 512 286 90 1 801 2181007801 604 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 512 135 90 1 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 393 196 68 0 802 2181007802 465 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 393 129 68 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 329 145 61 0 804 2181007804 369 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 329 123 61 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 1,001 505 183 0 806 2181007806 1,198 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,001 313 183 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 982 480 173 0 807 2181007807 1,116 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 982 329 173 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 1,568 746 273 0 808 2181007808 1,933 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,568 549 273 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 917 464 150 0 809 2181007809 1,027 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 917 303 150 0 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 782 386 125 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 56 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 564 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 810 2181007810 915 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 782 271 125 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 668 360 104 0 811 2181007811 752 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 668 204 104 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 628 320 110 0 812 2181007812 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 628 198 110 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 317 127 56 0 813 2181007813 403 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 317 134 56 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 919 429 177 0 814 2181007814 1,081 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 919 313 177 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 676 336 113 0 815 2181007815 817 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 676 227 113 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 948 448 179 0 816 2181007816 1,119 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 948 321 179 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 723 381 123 0 817 2181007817 810 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 723 219 123 0 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 907 466 135 1 818 2181007818 1,035 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 907 305 135 1 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 752 399 121 0 819 2181007819 878 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 752 232 121 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 597 298 110 0 820 2181007820 661 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 597 189 110 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 900 410 185 0 821 2181007821 1,079 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 900 305 185 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 57 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 565 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 754 358 160 0 822 2181007822 976 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 754 236 160 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 1,384 699 273 0 823 2181007823 1,884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,384 412 273 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 920 458 183 0 824 2181007824 1,111 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 920 279 183 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 549 255 93 0 825 2181007825 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 201 93 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 715 341 147 0 826 2181007826 834 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 715 227 147 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 735 357 153 0 827 2181007827 890 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 735 225 153 0 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 550 268 149 1 828 2181007828 668 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 550 132 149 1 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 567 312 98 0 829 2181007829 720 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 567 157 98 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 543 264 145 0 830 2181007830 712 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 134 145 0 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 610 300 152 1 831 2181007831 777 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 610 157 152 1 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 248 118 58 0 832 2181007832 322 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 248 72 58 0 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 503 239 124 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 58 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 566 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 833 2181007833 674 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 503 140 124 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 585 293 157 0 834 2181007834 819 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 585 135 157 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 334 175 79 0 835 2181007835 453 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 334 80 79 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 413 201 108 0 836 2181007836 486 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 413 104 108 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 663 333 140 0 837 2181007837 924 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 663 190 140 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 336 170 79 0 838 2181007838 450 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 336 87 79 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 543 279 83 0 839 2181007839 612 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 543 181 83 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 525 259 106 0 840 2181007840 611 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 525 160 106 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 495 273 83 0 841 2181007841 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 495 139 83 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 863 442 167 0 842 2181007842 993 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 863 254 167 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 1,125 580 195 0 843 2181007843 1,272 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 1,125 350 195 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 588 295 99 0 844 2181007844 738 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 194 99 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 59 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 567 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 708 348 156 0 845 2181007845 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 708 204 156 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 837 418 216 0 846 2181007846 1,196 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 837 203 216 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 532 287 134 0 847 2181007847 789 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 532 111 134 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 531 257 106 0 848 2181007848 649 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 531 168 106 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 449 249 114 0 849 2181007849 653 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 449 86 114 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 587 315 101 0 850 2181007850 673 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 587 171 101 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 846 485 151 0 851 2181007851 995 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 846 210 151 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 909 483 166 0 852 2181007852 1,096 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 909 260 166 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 672 380 122 0 853 2181007853 841 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 672 170 122 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 761 376 149 0 854 2181307854 992 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 761 236 149 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 680 346 134 0 855 2181307855 818 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 680 200 134 0 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 544 246 97 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 60 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 568 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 856 2181307856 636 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 201 97 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 739 363 127 0 857 2181307857 849 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 739 249 127 0 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 839 412 165 1 858 2181307858 943 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 839 261 165 1 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 743 418 123 0 859 2181307859 821 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 743 202 123 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 563 284 88 0 860 2181307860 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 563 191 88 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 544 259 111 0 861 2181307861 609 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 544 174 111 0 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 580 272 97 1 862 2181307862 646 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 580 210 97 1 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 704 364 117 0 863 2181307863 792 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 704 223 117 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 575 303 89 0 864 2181307864 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 575 183 89 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 528 288 104 0 865 2181307865 647 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 528 136 104 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 751 377 137 0 866 2181307866 894 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 751 237 137 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 688 344 138 0 867 2181307867 830 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 688 206 138 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 61 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 569 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 802 394 148 1 868 2181307868 884 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 802 259 148 1 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 513 235 118 2 869 2181307869 577 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 513 158 118 2 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 527 245 115 0 870 2181307870 726 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 527 167 115 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 650 315 132 0 871 2181307871 791 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 650 203 132 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 506 256 131 0 872 2181307872 721 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 506 119 131 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 402 234 63 0 873 2181307873 462 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 402 105 63 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 850 440 149 0 874 2181307874 1,034 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 850 261 149 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 355 188 93 0 875 2181307875 558 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 355 74 93 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 418 193 128 0 876 2181307876 669 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 418 97 128 0 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 588 290 118 1 877 2181307877 675 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 588 179 118 1 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 510 251 131 0 878 2181307878 631 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 510 128 131 0 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 549 265 127 0 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 62 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Statement Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 570 of 592 Precinct Name Short Precinct Name Active Voters Contest Title Choice Name Party Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes 879 2181307879 697 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 157 127 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 577 291 160 0 880 2181307880 839 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 577 126 160 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 534 251 112 0 881 2181307881 662 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 534 171 112 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 561 288 95 0 882 2181307882 656 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 561 178 95 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 714 349 139 0 883 2181307883 811 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 714 226 139 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 725 361 142 0 884 2181307884 897 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 725 222 142 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 549 265 106 0 885 2181307885 617 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 549 178 106 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 719 358 143 0 886 2181307886 802 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 719 218 143 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 825 427 151 0 887 2181307887 965 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 825 247 151 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 755 405 110 0 888 2181307888 827 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 755 240 110 0 300 2171207300 1,453 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax YES/FOR 1,215 729 65 0 300 2171207300 1,453 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax NO/AGAINST 1,215 421 65 0 301 2171207301 1,836 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax YES/FOR 1,376 900 49 0 301 2171207301 1,836 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax NO/AGAINST 1,376 427 49 0 302 2171207302 1,533 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax YES/FOR 1,307 873 57 0 302 2171207302 1,533 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax NO/AGAINST 1,307 377 57 0 303 2171207303 940 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax YES/FOR 746 481 48 1 Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 63 of 553 2018 Boulder County General Election - Official Summary Of Votes 11/6/2018 Active Voters: 216,919 Total Ballots Counted: 178,643 4 of 5 Contest Name Choice Name Party Code Active Voters Total Ballots Total Votes Total Undervotes Total Overvotes Number Of Precincts Boulder County Ballot Issue 1A - (Alternative Sentencing Facility and Jail Modernization Countywide Sales and Use Tax Extension)NO/AGAINST 216,919 178,484 42,784 8,981 18 235 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax FOR THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 39,366 5,375 9 87 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2C - Imposition of Oil and Gas Pollution Tax AGAINST THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 12,627 5,375 9 87 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue FOR THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 34,953 3,121 15 87 City of Boulder Ballot Issue 2D - Authorize Retention of All Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Revenue AGAINST THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 19,288 3,121 15 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes FOR THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 27,940 11,437 20 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E - Charter Amendments for Initiative Referendum and Recall Processes AGAINST THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 17,980 11,437 20 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification FOR THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 37,315 9,051 9 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2F - Charter Amendment for Initiative Petition Signature Verification AGAINST THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 11,002 9,051 9 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions FOR THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 35,465 7,538 11 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2G - Charter Amendment Related to Electronic and Online Petitions AGAINST THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 14,363 7,538 11 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions FOR THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 38,495 8,664 7 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2H - Charter Amendment Related to Advisory Commissions AGAINST THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 10,211 8,664 7 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations FOR THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 28,826 11,179 10 87 City of Boulder Ballot Question 2I - Charter Amendment for Planning Department Budget Recommendations AGAINST THE MEASURE 69,543 57,377 17,362 11,179 10 87 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax YES/FOR 19,460 16,135 10,736 789 2 17 City of Lafayette Ballot Issue 2A - Oil and Gas Pollution Tax NO/AGAINST 19,460 16,135 4,608 789 2 17 Town of Jamestown Ballot Question 2B YES/FOR 216 198 154 9 0 1 Town of Jamestown Ballot Question 2B NO/AGAINST 216 198 35 9 0 1 City of Longmont Ballot Issue 3A YES/FOR 57,898 45,279 27,270 1,936 5 55 City of Longmont Ballot Issue 3A NO/AGAINST 57,898 45,279 16,068 1,936 5 55 City of Longmont Ballot Issue 3B YES/FOR 57,898 45,279 31,707 1,688 2 55 City of Longmont Ballot Issue 3B NO/AGAINST 57,898 45,279 11,882 1,688 2 55 City of Longmont Ballot Issue 3C YES/FOR 57,898 45,279 23,941 1,714 4 55 City of Longmont Ballot Issue 3C NO/AGAINST 57,898 45,279 19,620 1,714 4 55 Town of Erie Ballot Question 3D YES/FOR 7,387 6,266 5,200 260 0 7 Town of Erie Ballot Question 3D NO/AGAINST 7,387 6,266 806 260 0 7 Attachment B City Council Meeting Page 64 of 553 Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 65 of 553 Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 66 of 553 Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 67 of 553 Attachment CCity Council Meeting Page 68 of 553 Affirmation We hereby affirm that the results presented in this report are accurate to the best of our knowledge. Round 1 Audit board 1: Audit board 2: Audit board 3: Audit board 4: Audit board 5: Audit board 6: Audit board 7: Audit board 8: Audit board 9: Audit board 10: Brian lzzolena Catherine Jarrett Christiane Audi-Sammoury Ted Bainbridge Karyl Bainbridge Marshall Dawson Lois Kristjanson Glen Pepper David Murray Susan Wilkinson Emily Brake Nathaniel Garrison Mary Lennert Mary Musilek Lynne McNamara Amy Sonnanstine Donald Lewis Lois Rice Katie Wittingen James Collins Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 69 of 553 1 Boulder County 2018 General Election Reconciliation Report November 6, 2018 OVERVIEW The purpose of the canvass is to account for every ballot cast and ensure that every valid vote cast is included in the election totals. This involves accounting for every mail ballot, every in-person ballot, every provisional ballot, every challenged ballot, and every military and overseas ballot (UOCAVA). As outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 1, Rule 1-10-101.5 Duties of the canvass board: 1) The canvass board shall: (a) Reconcile the ballots cast in an election to confirm that the number of ballots counted in that election does not exceed the number of ballots cast in that election; (b) Reconcile the ballots cast in each precinct in the county to confirm that the number of ballots cast does not exceed the number of registered electors in the precinct; and (c) Certify the abstract of votes cast in any election and transmit the certification to the secretary of state. A majority of canvass board members' signatures shall be sufficient to certify the abstract of votes cast in any election. When unable to certify the abstract of votes by the majority of the board for any reason, the canvass board shall transmit the noncertified abstract of votes to the secretary of state along with a written report detailing the reason for noncertification. The Canvass Board’s duties regarding reconciliation are included in Election Rules [8 CCR 1505-1], Rule 10.3.2(a): (a) Conduct the canvass in accordance with section 1-10-101.5, C.R.S, including: (d) Account and balance the election and certify the official abstract of votes; (e) Reconcile the number of ballots counted to the number of ballots cast; and (f) Reconcile the number of ballots cast to the number of voters who voted by reviewing the reconciled detailed ballot logs and Statement of Ballots. To reconcile the election, we track both issued ballots and voted ballots as they pass through the election process. This report will present summary data regarding the overall election, a detailed accounting of ballots on a precinct-by- precinct basis, and the processes that provide the evidence to allow the Canvass Board to fulfill its statutory duty. The reconciliation process primarily focuses on the distribution and reception of ballots through the assignment of voter credit. Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 70 of 553 2 An overview of the election process is illustrated in Figure 1: Figure 1 BALLOTS DISTRIBUTED Ballots are sent to all active eligible voters; eligible voters are a subset of registered voters that are active, reside in one of the jurisdictions on the ballot, and are 18 years old or older on Election Day. Figure 2 is an overview of the process of mailing ballots. Figure 2 The Boulder County Elections Division uses a printing and mailing vendor for most of the mail ballots sent. Ballot images and addressing information are provided to the vendor several weeks before ballots are to be mailed. During the interim weeks between when this information is initially transmitted to the vendor and the mail drop date, we receive and process numerous voter registration changes. Some of these changes result in voiding ballots that have already been printed by the vendor but have not yet been mailed. As outlined in Election Rules [8 CCR 1505-1], Rule 7.2.4(a)(1) and 7.2.4(a)(2), we work with the vendor to find and secure these voided ballots so that they do not enter the mail stream. For this election, voids were pulled twice, securing 3,987 voided ballots. In addition, 370 ballots were pulled for the purposes of hand-delivery to Health Care Facilities (HCFs) and 335 ballots were pulled to perform Boulder County’s Logic and Accuracy Test (LAT). Figure 3 provides information regarding the ballot batches that were sent to the vendor for printing and the ballots that were returned, the sum of which is the net number of ballots that were expected to be mailed. Figure 3 also shows a summary of the ballots that were actually mailed based on postal receipts and documentation provided by the vendor. Based on the numbers provided by the vendor (postal receipts), Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 71 of 553 3 the ballots reported as mailed by the vendor closely match our expected-to-be-mailed counts; there is a difference of 28 due to 28 envelopes/ballots mistakenly pulled by the vendor as voids and returned to us which we then mailed from our office. Batch Date Original Number in Batch LAT Ballots Returned from Vendor Ballots Returned from Vendor Batch 02 - UOCAVA Mail 9/18/2018 1,028 4 Batch 03 - HCF 9/18/2018 370 370 Batch 04 - ID Required 9/18/2018 1,111 Batch 05 - Regular 9/18/2018 200,013 335 Void Pull #1 10/1/2018 1,861 Batch 33 - ID Required 10/9/2018 602 Batch 34 - Regular 10/9/2018 6,323 Void Pull #2 10/9/2018 2,122 Batch 53 - ID Required 10/17/2018 310 Batch 54 - Regular 10/17/2018 3,103 Batch 69 - ID Required 10/23/2018 459 Batch 70 - Regular 10/23/2018 2,219 Batch 79 - ID Required 10/25/2018 21 Batch 80 - Regular 10/25/2018 920 Batch 96 - ID Required 10/29/2018 61 Batch 97 - Regular 10/29/2018 1,751 Totals 218,291 335 4,357 Total Expected to be Mailed 213,599 UOCAVA Mailed 1,024 USPS Bulk Mailed by Vendor 211,175 Metered First Class Mailed by Vendor 1,428 Total Mailed by Vendor (receipts)213,627 Final Difference (28) Vendor Mail Reconciliation Figure 3 Most of our mail ballots are printed and mailed through our print vendor. However, if a voter registers or changes their registration after we have sent the last order to the vendor or if they come in to our office and request a replacement ballot, that voter’s ballot is printed in-house and either given to them while they are in our office or taken directly to the local USPS facility to be mailed. This process continues until the statutory deadline of 8 days prior to the election. For this election, we processed a total of 5440 in-house mail ballots. After the deadline to mail ballots, late registrants must visit a Voter Service and Polling Center (VSPC) to request a ballot. If a change to a voter’s record (address update, name change, new voter, etc.) is made after the mail deadline, they are subsequently contacted through various means (postcard, email, and phone call) to let them know that they need to visit a VSPC to vote their ballot. For this election, there were 707 voters that made changes to their voter record after the mail cut off. Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 72 of 553 4 Appendix 1 provides a precinct-by-precinct accounting of all ballots printed by the vendor (Vendor Printed), ballots printed in-house (In-House Printed), ballots voided (Voided), ballots generated after the last mailing day (Registered After Mail Cut-Off), and ballots that were processed in a VSPC (In-Person). Furthermore, Appendix 1 reconciles the number of active voters in Boulder County as of Election Day to the number of active ballots to ensure that every voter had an active ballot. Any differences are researched and are most commonly attributed to a voter moves. There are 3 ways that voter moves affect our reconciliation 1. Voter moves to another precinct within Boulder County and returns the ballot they received while at their previous residence. 2. Voter moves out of Boulder County but returns the Boulder County ballot they were issued before they moved. 3. Voter moves into Boulder County but returns the ballot they were issued while at their previous address (in another county). If this situation happens within Boulder County, it will show a discrepancy at the precinct level but will net to zero (meaning we can still reconcile an active voter to an active ballot at the county level). If a voter moves to Boulder County from another county and returns the ballot they were issued from the previous county it will show an overall discrepancy and would appear as if we have an active voter with no active ballot. If a voter moves out of Boulder County after a ballot has been issued to them by Boulder County and they return this ballot, it will show an overall discrepancy and would appear as if we have an active ballot with no active voter. Election Rules [8 CCR 1505-1], Rule 7.2.4(a)(2)(b) states that “the county must count the first ballot returned by the elector in accordance with section 1- 7.5-107(6), C.R.S.”. Therefore, since a voter may not have two active ballots, any ballot except the ballot that was received is voided, leaving a discrepancy. There are numerous situations that occur with voter records that can lead to additional differences and are explained in the Explanation of Differences at the bottom of Appendix 1. BALLOTS RECEIVED (ACCEPTED OR REJECTED) Mail ballots are received in several ways: (1) the Post Office, (2) secure 24-hour ballot drop boxes, (3) drop-off ballot boxes located at Voter Service and Polling Centers, and (4) drive-by drop-off locations. These ballots are validated by election judges, accepted or rejected, and recorded accordingly in SCORE. Voted paper ballots from Voter Service and Polling Center (VSPC) locations arrive in separate ballot boxes from the mail-in ballots. Because vote credit was already recorded in SCORE and their ID was verified at the VSPC locations, these ballots go directly to scanning, adjudication, and tallying after being batched. Figure 4 illustrates the process by which mail ballots are received, prepared, scanned and tallied and recorded in the CVR (Cast Vote Record). Figure 4 Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 73 of 553 5 Determining whether a ballot is accepted or rejected is based on several factors. For example, it may be rejected because the signature on the ballot envelope does not match the voter registration record, the envelope may be missing a signature, or the returned ballot may be missing a required ID. Letters are sent to these voters allowing them to “cure” their ballot envelope by returning a signed affidavit with a copy of their ID (due by the 8th day after the election). Only the ballots associated with accepted envelopes proceed through the process to scanning, adjudication, and tallying; there were 1232 rejected ballots and the breakdown of these numbers are summarized in Figure 8 (these numbers can also be found in the SCORE BP-012B - Mail Ballot Reconciliation Report). Appendix 2 provides a precinct-by-precinct accounting of eligible voters, ballots received, and ballots counted. To fulfill the statutory requirement of Election Rules [8 CCR 1505-1], Rule 10.3.2(a), Appendix 2 includes four sections: 1. Eligible Voters 2. SCORE Voter Credit and Ballots Cast 3. Dominion Ballots 4. Reconciliation The Eligible Voters section includes both active and inactive voters, providing the total number of registered electors. On the received side (SCORE Voter Credit and Ballots Cast), is the number of ballots accepted in SCORE for both Mail-In and In-Person voters and the number of rejected ballots; the sum of these three categories provides the number of ballots cast. On the counted side (Dominion Ballots), is a column that accounts for the number of ballots counted by the tabulation system (Dominion). The Reconciliation section provides the information to fulfill the statutory requirements and assist with the duties of the canvass board. Based on these numbers, we can confirm that the number of ballots counted (178,484) does not exceed the number of ballots cast (179,729). A summary table illustrating Ballots Cast and Ballots Counted is provided in Figure 6 below. We can also confirm that the number of ballots cast in each precinct in the county does not exceed the number of registered electors in that precinct. We have also reconciled the number of ballots counted to the number of ballots cast. At the county level, we have a net difference of -3 between Ballots Counted and Vote Credit. Of these: • 4 envelopes contained 2 ballots; these were found after opening and separation so vote credit could not be removed. • 2 ballots were too damaged to identify the Precinct-District style so they could not be duplicated; these were found after opening and separation so vote credit could not be removed. These sum to 6 ballots that were not counted leaving a -6 between Ballots Counted and Vote Credit. Then we had 3 ballots improperly issued as mail ballots by VSPC judges and after reviewing the documentation we could not identify which voters should receive vote credit resulting in a +3 between Ballots Counted and Vote Credit. Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 74 of 553 6 ELECTION RULE 10.5.1 - PROCEDURES FOR CANVASS As outlined in Rule 10.5.1, the designated election official must provide the following information to the canvass board: (a) The name of each candidate, office, and votes received; (Summary of Votes attachment) (b) The number or letter of each ballot issue or question and votes received; (Summary of Votes attachment) (c) The total number of ballots cast; (Appendix 2) Ballots Counted Ballots Counted 178,484 Figure 5 (d) The number of provisional ballots cast, including totals for: (1) Ballots accepted by each code; and Provisional Ballots Accepted AOK - Confirmed Voters Eligibility 4 Total Accepted 4 Figure 6 (2) Ballots rejected by each code. Provisional Ballots Rejected RAB - Mail-In Ballot Issued/Voted 2 RWC - Not Resident of District, County or State 8 Total Rejected 10 Figure 7 (e) The number of mail ballots cast, including totals for: (1) Ballots accepted (Appendix 2); and Mail Ballots Accepted Ballots Accepted 168,251 Figure 8 Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 75 of 553 7 (2) Ballots rejected by each code. Rejected Ballots Summary Voter is a Convicted Felon 1 Voted More Than One Ballot 28 Voter Deceased 2 Empty Envelope 2 Two Ballots in One Envelope 3 Verification Affidavit Not Complete 19 Void / Not Voted 29 No Signature 64 ID Required - Not Provided 135 Signature Discrepancy 949 Total 1232 Figure 9 (f) The number of in-person ballots counted (Appendix 2); In Person Ballots Counted Ballots Counted 10,232 Figure 10 (g) The number of emergency replacement ballots, including totals for: (1) Ballots accepted; and (2) Ballots rejected by each code. Emergency Ballot Summary Accepted 23 Rejected 0 Total 23 Figure 11 (h) The number of damaged and spoiled ballots. Damaged/Spoiled Ballot Summary Damaged Ballots 612 Spoiled Ballots From VSPCs 345 Figure 12 Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 76 of 553 8 STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Based on the research performed during this canvass and reported herein, it has been determined that the requirements of the Colorado Revised Statute 1-10-101 have been met. The number of votes counted is equal to or less than the number of ballots cast (accepted plus rejected ballots) and the number of ballots cast is equal to or less than the number of registered voters. For this election, these numbers are as follows: Accepted Mail-Ballot 168,251 Precinct Ballots Counted 178,484 Voted In-Person 10,232 Landowner Ballots Counted 159 Provisional 4 Total 178,643 Landowner ballots 159 Total Accepted 178,646 Rejected 1,242 Total Ballots Cast 179,888 Ballots Cast Tally of Ballots Counted Figure 13 Figure 14 The Active Voters number above includes 560 confidential voters and the Inactive Voters number includes 47 confidential voters. Confidential voters will not be identified in any publicly available reports. Ballots Cast includes ballots that are ultimately not counted for various reasons. The most common reasons include: the voter failed to sign the ballot envelope, the voter failed to provide ID when required, or the voter’s signature did not match the reference signature on file. Voters have until 11:59 p.m. on the 8th day following Election Day to rectify these issues. However, not every voter does so in this timeframe. If they do not, their cast ballot is not counted. * All voter registration numbers reported herein are as of Election Day and do not include Active voters under 18. **Results changed after 8th day posting due to additional research that allowed 8 more ballots to be counted. Accepted Mail-Ballot 168,251 A ctive Voters 216,919 Voted In-Person 10,232 Inactive Voters 31,573 Provisional 4 Total 248,492 Total Accepted 178,487 Rejected 1,242 Landowner ballots 159 Total Ballots Cast 179,888 Registered ElectorsBallots Cast Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 77 of 553 Attachment C City Council Meeting Page 78 of 553 Attachment DCity Council Meeting Page 79 of 553 Attachment DCity Council Meeting Page 80 of 553 Attachment DCity Council Meeting Page 81 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to accept a correction to the J uly 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MA P) Study Session Summary P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Sandra Llanes, Deputy C ity Attorney, 303.441.3020 RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to accept a correction to the J uly 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MA P) Study Session Summary AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 82 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to accept corrections to the July 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) Study Session Summary. PRESENTERS Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Thomas Carr, City Attorney Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel Sandra Llanes, Deputy City Attorney Mishawn Cook, Licensing Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a corrected summary of the July 10, 2018 City Council Study Session on the work of the Marijuana Advisory Panel (“MAP”). The corrections are identified in track changes in Attachment A. Item 3A - Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) City Council Meeting Page 83 of 553 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the corrected July 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) Study Session Summary - Attachment A. BACKGROUND Background information on the July 10, 2018 Study Session Memorandum and materials can be found here: https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/0/edoc/165906/Agenda_2018_7_10_M eeting.pdf Background information on the 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel Study Session Summary previously submitted and approved on September 20, 2018 can be found here: https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/0/edoc/166748/Agenda_2018_9_20_M eeting.pdf CORRECTION TO STUDY SESSION SUMMARY Staff and several MAP members expressed concern about discontinuing the Marijuana Advisory Panel meetings at the end of 2018. Staff went back and reviewed the study session video from July 10, 2018 and the study session summary and discovered that council intended that MAP continue through 2019 rather than ending in 2018. That correction is now reflected in the summary - Attachment A. Staff will also be asking council to schedule a study session in the second or third quarter of 2019 to discuss a permanent mechanism for providing the support that council has been receiving from MAP. MAP will have the ability to weigh in on this issue. The corrections are identified in track changes in Attachment A. ATTACHMENT Attachment A – Corrected Summary of the July 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) study session Item 3A - Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) City Council Meeting Page 84 of 553 July 10, 2018 City Council Study Session Summary Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) PRESENT Council Members: Suzanne Jones, Sam Weaver, Mary Young, Liza Morzel and Cindy Carlisle Staff Members: Jane Brautigam, Tom Carr, Kathleen Haddock, Mishawn Cook, Elizabeth Vasatka and Caroline Elam PURPOSE The purpose of this study session was to present the work of the Marijuana Advisory Panel (the “MAP”) to date and direction for the future of the MAP. PRESENTATION The MAP completed the work of its charter scope as follows: • Differences between state and local law is appropriate - o State: Focused on licensing to prevent sales to youth, out-of-state and black market; o City focus: ▪ Addressing the effect of marijuana businesses on the community and youth; and ▪ Providing appropriate enforcement to mitigate negative impacts. • Boulder Revised Code changes recommended by consensus were adopted by council in 2016 and 2017. • Identified potential changes to Title 9 of the Boulder Revised Code which affect density of land uses regarding marijuana businesses. o Council has not prioritized the Planning Department’s 2017 or 2018 work plans. • Items deferred by the MAP - o Social use clubs – the MAP will reconsider allowing after state adopts regulations. o Analysis of ways to support public safety and community health. o Address marijuana odor issues in neighborhoods. The MAP’s work was extended through 2017 to recommend changes needed to address any state law changes and any unintended consequences from 2016 code changes. The MAP provided additional consensus recommendations that were adopted by council. KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED The MAP was formed so that proposals for amendments to the marijuana code would be analyzed by a group of interested parties representing various backgrounds before being brought to council. Prior to forming the MAP, requests for changes to the code came from the businesses and went directly to council without any input from the broader community. Attachment A – Corrected Summary of the July 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) study session Item 3A - Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) City Council Meeting Page 85 of 553 Distilling the effect of the MAP: • The MAP was very successful in reaching consensus on a number of different issues and provided a platform to hear input from different perspectives. • Staff initiatives brought about by the MAP’s work have helped provide opportunities for marijuana businesses to provide input on marijuana regulations without having to bring changes before council: o Quarterly meetings with business owners, managers and staff to address impacts on marijuana businesses that do not affect the broader community. o Providing a form for suggesting changes to the code modeled after the state form for recommendations on changes to the liquor law. o Centralizing odor complaints so they can be tracked and prioritized. o Monitoring state law and regulations to identify potential conflicts. o Establishment of best practices for odor control specific to cultivation facilities. • The MAP included some individuals outside of Boulder to gain a statewide perspective which helped with its original charter but is not recommended for the future. • The current MAP will address three issues in 2018through the end of 2019, as specified by council: o The recommendation(s) from staff and marijuana businesses regarding the requirement for all marijuana businesses to offset their electricity consumed. o Identify any local changes necessitated from 20198 changes to state law or regulations. o Review the report resulting from the expenditure of marijuana excise tax funds and provide feedback. • For the future, council will determine if there is to be an advisory committee on marijuana issues, and if so, what type of structure it would be as well as . If so, it should includinge more members of the community not related to marijuana businesses. • The work of the MAP was very labor intensive for the members and staff. Community members and those representing youth issues found the time commitment to this working group burdensome. • The purpose of the MAP going forward will need to specify whether it is to address issues resulting from the current code, or to provide recommendations that may change the underlying philosophy and intent provided by council for the marijuana code. NEXT STEPS Staff will set two MAP meetings with the facilitator in 2018 to address the three issues identified by council: • Consider the recommendation(s) from staff and marijuana businesses regarding the requirement for all marijuana businesses to offset their electricity consumed and whether the requirements should be removed for retail marijuana or manufacturer-infused producers. • Identify any local law changes necessitated from 20198 changes to state law or regulations. • Review the soon to be released Housing and Human Services report detailing expenditure of marijuana excise tax funds for education and provide feedback. Attachment A – Corrected Summary of the July 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) study session Item 3A - Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) City Council Meeting Page 86 of 553 The agendas for the meetings will provide sufficient information so that members can determine how the proposed issue will affect the interests a member is representing. Prior to the MAP meetings, staff for the Energy Offset Fund will meet with marijuana businesses to come up with consensus recommendations for the MAP, and information about the expenditure of the marijuana excise tax funds and report updates from the group(s) awarded the funds will be provided to the MAP. The MAP will continue to meet twice a year or as needed until the end of 2019’s work will be complete after the conclusion of the 2018 meetings. During this time, MAP will work on addressing the three issues outlined above, and in addition, will provide feedback on if or how it should be structured in the future. In 2019, council will determine if it wants to continue to appoint an advisory commission on marijuana issuesMAP’s future. Attachment A – Corrected Summary of the July 10, 2018 Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) study session Item 3A - Marijuana Advisory Panel (MAP) City Council Meeting Page 87 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for C limate C ommitment Work P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kimberlee Rankin, Sustainability C oordinator RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for C limate C ommitment Work AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 88 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a Motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for Climate Commitment Work. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Steve Catanach, Executive Director of Electric Utility Development James Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager Kendra Tupper, Chief Sustainability and Resilience Officer Kimberlee Rankin, Sustainability Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the Oct. 23, 2018 City Council study session on Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for Climate Commitment Work. The purpose of this study session was for staff to share recent climate science and the need for accelerating emission reduction efforts; to report on the current funding gap to achieving the Climate Commitment goals; and to seek council direction on proceeding with interim action and laying the groundwork for following the 2020 municipalization vote. KEY TAKEAWAYS Vehicle Fees • Continue analysis of Vehicle Efficiency Fees and complete a nexus study in 2019. • Investigate fee options to better represent vehicle efficiency through miles-per- gallon (mpg) • Prioritize social equity in the development of fee options • Complete a public process to gather community feedback in 2019. Natural Gas Fees/Taxes • Continue analysis on natural gas taxes and fees in 2019. Item 3B - 10/23 Climate Commitment Work Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 89 of 553 •Complete a public process to gather community feedback in 2019. •Report on community feedback and revisit the timeline with Council in 2019, giving an option for a 2019 ballot measure. Other Feedback •Postpone any changes to the current Climate Action Plan (CAP) Tax until after the municipalization Go/No-Go Vote (anticipated 2020) •Ramp up efforts to address emissions sources not currently measured, especially around food choice and wasted food. Attachment A is a summary of council’s discussion of the issues and the questions presented at study session. POST STUDY SESSION STAFF RESPONSES TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS In response to Council person Morzel’s question on Radon in manufactured homes and implications from air sealing. While it is less likely for manufactured homes to have radon, it is not impossible. The city’s energy codes and energy efficiency programs attempt to address and mitigate radon whenever a homeowner is making upgrades. In the 2017 energy code updates, the city of Boulder adopted the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) Appendix F, which requires all New Construction projects to have a passive means of resisting radon gas entry and prepares the dwelling for post-construction radon mitigation if necessary. Plans examiners and inspectors are checking for compliance on all new projects and the city will adopt the 2018 IRC in which Appendix F has been heavily updated. While Energy Smart’s home assessment includes on site testing for carbon monoxide and natural gas leaks. Homeowners are also given a free radon testing kit and Energy Smart advisors will then explain the results from radon, carbon monoxide and natural gas leak testing to ensure households are safe, especially when making them more airtight. In response to Council discussion around climate change and other cities. There was also a robust discussion of what other countries and cities were doing in terms of carbon pricing, and a discussion of all of the non-energy factors contributing to climate change. Paul Hawken’s book and website, Drawdown, ranks 80 scenarios in terms of its potential carbon saving impact through the year 2050. Three of the top five most impactful solutions are related to food choice, food waste, and tropical forests. Also, on the same day as the Study Session, October 23, 2018, Canada announced that it was adopting a nationwide carbon fee and dividend program. The federal policy is a backstop to cover the four provinces that have not initiated their own carbon-pricing policies (nearly half of Canadians live in these provinces). Item 3B - 10/23 Climate Commitment Work Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 90 of 553 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study Session Summary on Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for Climate Commitment Work. NEXT STEPS Staff will continue analysis of the vehicle registration efficiency fee throughout 2019. This will include coordinating with neighboring cities pursuing similar vehicle fees and conducting a nexus fee study as well as community engagement throughout 2019. Staff will bring the results of this analysis back to Council in late 2019/early 2020. Staff will also continue analysis of natural gas taxes and fees and will revisit the timeline of these options with Council in 2019. Additionally, council will see an update from Climate and Sustainability on the Climate Commitment, focusing on ecosystems and resources, as well as an update on the greenhouse gas inventory in Jan. 2019. In the first quarter of 2019, staff will also begin to scope outreach, education and policy efforts around food choice, wasted food, and the circular economy. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Oct. 23, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3B - 10/23 Climate Commitment Work Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 91 of 553 ATTACHMENT A Oct. 23, 2018 City Council Study Session Summary Revenue Needs and Potential Funding Sources for Climate Commitment Work PRESENT: City Council: Aaron Brockett (Mayor Pro Tem), Sam Weaver, Suzanne Jones (Mayor), Bob Yates, Lisa Morzel, Jill Adler Grano, Mirabai Kuk Nagle and Mary Young. Staff Members Presenting: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager; Kendra Tupper, Chief Sustainability and Resilience Officer; Kimberlee Rankin, Sustainability Coordinator. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study session was for staff to share recent climate science and the need for accelerating emission reduction efforts; to report on the current funding gap to achieving the Climate Commitment goals; and to seek council direction on proceeding with interim action and laying the groundwork for following the 2020 municipalization vote. OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATIONS: K. Tupper introduced the purpose of the study session and outlined the current achievements of the existing Climate Action Plan (CAP) Tax. Staff also introduced the funding challenges the city faces and the need for accelerating efforts due to recent science highlighting the needs for immediate and significant climate action. K. Rankin next discussed progress against the Climate Commitment goals, including the results of the 2017 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory which show the city has surpassed the 2020 goal but require significant reductions ahead. Staff further discussed the accelerated efforts required to stay on track with goals and identified additional unfunded areas of focus that are outside of emissions tracking such as carbon sequestration, energy resilience and food choices. K. Tupper explained the annual funding gap identified by staff and how other cities are addressing funding of climate and sustainability efforts through regulation or stringent carbon pricing. Staff described the scale of options available for approaching funding and identified reasonable taxes and fees as preferred over increased regulation or behavior-changing carbon pricing. K. Rankin described the funding goals, including the ability to influence behavior, address sectors and sources equitably and provide reliable, sufficient funding. Staff showed the options that were considered during staff analysis and explained the criteria of evaluation. Staff further described the options that were identified as viable as an outcome of the evaluation. Attachment A - Oct. 23, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3B - 10/23 Climate Commitment Work Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 92 of 553 K. Tupper then described the additional timing considerations such as the 2020 municipalization Go/No-Go Vote that lead to the recommendations of moving immediately on a potential Vehicle Registration Efficiency Fee but postponing further investigation of electricity and natural gas taxes and fees. Staff provided a high-level expectation of how much of the funding gap could be met by the vehicle fee and a modeled approach to how that fee could work including revenue generation and individual impacts. Staff completed the presentation with a proposed timeline of continued analysis in 2019. COUNCIL QUESTIONS: 1. Does Council agree with the recommended options (Figure 10)? 2. Does Council agree with the proposed timeline (Figure 11)? 3. Does Council have any feedback to inform the next phase of analysis? a. For example, when setting rates for carbon taxes/fees, how should the city balance minimizing cost impacts with driving behavior change? COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Questions from Council During Presentation Council person Yates requested clarification on how the CAP Tax metrics, specifically the emission reductions achieved, were calculated. Staff Response: Tupper – responded that it is difficult to quantify given the variety of efforts funded by CAP Tax and therefore this value was the mid-point of a range between the minimum direct emission reduction the city tracks and the maximum indirect emissions reduced and emissions avoided by the city. Council person Brockett suggested staff report that range instead of a single midpoint. Council person Morzel and Council person Weaver requested sector-specific detail on Climate Commitment goal progress specifically around landfill diversion and emission reductions, in an effort to better understand where reductions are occurring. Staff Response: Tupper – responded that additional detail will be included in the reports and the Council session in Jan 2019 that will provide a more thorough update on Climate Commitment goals. Also, all of this information is provided in detail on the Boulder Measures dashboard under Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boulder-measures/community-greenhouse-gas-emissions Council person Morzel asked if staff will be looking at food sources in the future and whether student interns will be used to do so. Staff Response: Tupper – responded that staff is looking into food choices as part of the Resources focus of the Climate Commitment and will be collaborating with the University of Colorado MENV Program to have Masters students work on this. Council person Young asked whether electric vehicle charging for multifamily housing would be powered by renewable energy/solar or coal. Attachment A - Oct. 23, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3B - 10/23 Climate Commitment Work Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 93 of 553 Staff Response: Tupper – responded that it is recommended to pair solar with EV charging, but since it requires a large instantaneous power demand, battery storage is also needed. Council person Young asked how the projection model accounts for energy equity that may result in higher energy use for some sectors. Staff Response: Tupper – Staff focuses program development and funding around addressing energy and social equity – all of these programs are included in the projection model. Staff is also developing equity metrics to help evaluate program success in this area. Staff Response: Rankin – The model also has business-as-usual demand assumptions that can be changed to account for this, as well as the ability to demonstrate increased usage impacts by various programs. Council person Brockett asked for clarification around why the vehicle fee does not incorporate miles-per-gallon (mpg). Staff Response: Tupper – responded that staff would prefer to tie the fee to mpg but have been informed by the state that the registration software system will not accommodate that. Staff will continue clarifying the software capabilities and exploring options for this if directed to move forward. Open Discussion Council conceded further analysis on the vehicle fee was appropriate and that it would be preferred if the fee could focus on miles-per-gallon and efficiency of the vehicle type, rather than just value. Mayor Jones clarified whether the Vehicle fee would be a Council vote or required to go to the ballot. Staff Response: Tupper – responded that this will be a Council vote because it is a fee. Council person Adler Grano and Council person Weaver agreed the fee could potentially be higher than presented. Council person Morzel requested that staff ensure a potential fee does not adversely impact service workers. Council person Young asked if the fee would be regressive if it incorporated VMT (vehicle-miles traveled). Staff Response: Tupper: - responded that staff would be unable to incorporate VMT because that data is not tracked. Miles-per-gallon (MPG) however would be ideal and would not be regressive if the fee was applied as a percentage of the value of the vehicle. Council person Brockett agreed on the recommendation to postpone adjusting CAP Tac until after 2020 but asked the reasoning for postponing the natural gas analysis. Attachment A - Oct. 23, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3B - 10/23 Climate Commitment Work Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 94 of 553 Staff Response: Tupper – responded that the reason was largely to avoid confusing voters with the 2020 vote, and to allow time to review progress against goals and understand what funding options may be available based on the outcome of the 2020 vote. Council person Brockett followed up to clarify if CAP Tax would be eliminated once we have a local electric utility if goals are met, or if they are not met, would the city keep the CAP Tax. Staff Response: Tupper – responded that it may be eliminated or rolled into utility rates or kept as a separate tax and simply adjusted. Council person Brockett concluded that this is a good direction to go in and supports additional analysis on the vehicle fee. He would prefer MPG for the fee, but if that’s not possible, recommended that name of the fee is changed so as not to confuse what the fee is on. Finally, he stated he would be open to considering natural gas for as 2019 ballot issue. Council person Morzel, Council person Weaver, and Council person Young agreed staff should continue analysis on natural gas as well, including a public process and education. Council person Brockett agreed public process should be done in 2019, focusing on the use of the funds to ensure they directly contribute to electrification efforts. Mayor Jones qualified that it is important to understand how everything intersects and asked if state level change would impact this. Staff Response: Tupper – responded that not much would change as a result of state decisions, since the majority of that funding would be direction to transportation operations and maintenance. Mayor Jones stated approval of continued analysis but make sure to address the larger picture. Attachment A - Oct. 23, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3B - 10/23 Climate Commitment Work Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 95 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding council discussion of guidance for the Housing Advisory Board. P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J eff Yegian, Senior Project Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding council discussion of guidance for the Housing Advisory Board. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 96 of 553 Item 3C – Study Session Summary for HAB CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to accept the October 23, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding council discussion of guidance for the Housing Advisory Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the Oct. 23 study session discussion of council’s guidance for the Housing Advisory Board. Council discussed the board’s role, provided general direction on the board’s operations and identified specific work plan items. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the study session summary from October 23, 2018 on the Housing Advisory Board’s activities. ATTACHMENT A.Summary of the Oct. 23, 2018 Study Session on the Housing Advisory Board City Council Meeting Page 97 of 553 Attachment A: Summary of the Oct. 23, 2018 Study Session on the Housing Advisory Board ATTACHMENT A October 23, 2018 S tudy Session Summary Housing Advisory Board Discussion PRESENT City Council: Mayor Suzanne Jones, Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Brockett, Jill Adler Grano, Mirabai Kuk Nagle, Lisa Morzel, Sam Weaver, Bob Yates and Mary Young Staff: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager; Tom Carr, City Attorney; Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services; Jeff Yegian, Staff Liaison and Senior Project Manager (HHS) Housing Advisory Board Members: Masyn M oyer Vice-chair, Jacques Juilland OVERVIEW Council’s committee on boards and commissions requested a full council discussion of the Housing Advisory Board’s (HAB) focus. The study session provided the opportunity for council members to discuss the board’s role, how it operates and its work plan priorities. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Board Role: Council members generally agreed that the board’s primary role is to support council’s work plan. There was a common understanding that the board provides an important platform for community engagement on housing work plan items. Council supported the HAB proposing work plan items in the annual letter and potentially in a mid- year letter for council consideration. Some council members stated that the HAB is not meant to be a technical board on housing issues as technical expertise is provided by staff. Board Operations: There was general agreement that the HAB should focus its efforts more tightly on council work plan items and should work more in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order. Some members thought that one meeting per month is appropriate and that there should be fewer board committees. Board Work Plan: Council members indicated support for the Manufactured Housing Strategy and Down Payment Assistance Program as work plan items for HAB. Land use work plan items where HAB could provide input included Large Lots, Subcommunity Planning and Community Benefit. To avoid overlap with Planning Board, council members agreed that they would identify any housing-specific questions for land use projects and assign them to the HAB for recommendations. Council members identified a new 2019 HAB work plan item defined as examining the timing and process for site review approval of projects receiving financing from the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority. Staff should be responsible for coordinating HAB consideration of work plan items with project and council schedules. Council members expressed appreciation for the service of HAB members. Item 3C – Study Session Summary for HAB City Council Meeting Page 98 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding updates on the hospital deconstruction and Alpine-Balsam Area Plan P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J ean Gatza, Senior Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding updates on the hospital deconstruction and Alpine-Balsam Area Plan AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 99 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding updates on the hospital deconstruction and Alpine-Balsam Area Plan. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Asst. City Manager, Interim Director of Planning Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager Amanda Bevis, Project Coordinator, Public Works Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Michele Crane, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Jeff Yegian, Senior Project Manager, Housing and Human Services Kathleen Bracke GO Boulder Manager, Public Works/Transportation Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner, Transportation/GO Boulder Melissa Yates, Parking Manager, Community Vitality Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager, Public Works/Utilities Jean Gatza, Senior Planner, Planning Alice Huang, Administrative Specialist III, Planning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the Nov. 13, 2018 study session on the update for the hospital deconstruction and Alpine-Balsam Area Plan. The purpose of this study session was to update council on board and community feedback and solicit council feedback on key questions for site design and utilization in order to move forward with site planning, area planning, implementation, and financing, as well as for staff to provide updates on the analysis of the Alpine-Balsam hospital building deconstruction. Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 100 of 553 Staff will incorporate City Council’s feedback from the Nov. 13 discussion and move forward with the deconstruction of the hospital beginning in 2019 after BCH vacates the site, refinement of conceptual scenarios for Alpine-Balsam site development, and a draft Area Plan for adoption in mid-2019. Staff next steps include updating City Council in early 2019 on: •Results of sustainable deconstruction analysis which will include refined cost estimates, details of deconstruction work that will commence in June of 2019, further information on subsequent phases of deconstruction work, as well as community information and engagement plans. Additional information on the cost benefit of renovating the pavilion concurrent with deconstruction will be included. •Revisions to Alpine-Balsam conceptual scenarios for the city-owned site to emphasize housing as the primary use achieving 140-330 housing units with minimum to moderate space for civic facilities; varying building heights between 35-55 feet; flood mitigation that would be achieved both at North Boulder Park and on the Alpine-Balsam site; and a transportation and access approach that supports the mode share objectives of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEXT STEPS Hospital Deconstruction Deconstruction of the hospital will begin in June of 2019. Staff will continue with the deconstruction analysis and update City Council in early 2019 on the refined cost estimates for the deconstruction. A priority focus will be to secure the site ahead of BCH vacating at the end of May 2019, with decommissioning and deconstruction of the hospital and decommissioning the Medical Office Pavilion beginning once BCH vacates. Staff will further explore opportunities to engage the community during the two-year deconstruction process, from utilizing local businesses and nonprofits to options to community messaging on security and fencing. Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Staff will incorporate City Council’s feedback from the Nov. 13 discussion into an update for council in early 2019 and, in the second quarter of 2019 deliver a recommended draft Area Plan for adoption. The update in early 2019 will contain additional analysis and further refinement of conceptual scenarios and more information on potential financing tools. In early 2019, staff will present revised alternatives for the city-owned parcels that consider the following council direction: Staff requests council consideration of this memo and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the Nov. 13, 2018 Study Session Summary on the update for the hospital deconstruction and Alpine-Balsam Area Plan (Attachment A). Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 101 of 553 • Emphasize housing as the primary use on the site to achieve 140 to 330 housing units preferably with a combination of rental and ownership and the potential to serve a range of future residents (units for market-rate, middle income, low/moderate income, workforce and/or seniors); • Building heights between 35-55 feet, with a variety of heights and high-quality design to reduce the feeling of tall and boxy building density; • Flood mitigation detention both at North Boulder Park and on site to decrease flows on site and increase developable space, while preserving trees, current uses, and the character of the park; • Examine the feasibility and trade-offs of locating the stormwater conveyance flood mitigation near the center of the site rather than at the northern edge; • Explore the potential to preserve flexibility for possible future uses such as co-location of Boulder County civic facilities at Alpine-Balsam, additional city civic facilities, or additional housing. • Include an approach to access and parking that supports meeting the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) mode share objectives, including analysis of existing on-street parking supply and potential impacts to neighborhoods, and can be implemented without constructing new structured parking. Analysis will continue for the following and be shared with the City Council in early 2019: • City civic facilities cost and tradeoff analysis: o Renovation of the Medical Pavilion (including an additional story) would (combined with the already-renovated Brenton Building) roughly allow consolidation of staff currently located at the two of the buildings (New Britain and Park Central) slated for removal from the Boulder Creek High Hazard Flood Zone and staff currently located at the leased Center Green building. o Analysis of tradeoffs and benefits to consolidating civic facilities beyond the minimum accomplished with the renovation of the Medical Pavilion and Brenton Buildings. Factors that will be considered are:  Cost of leases;  Cost of required major system upgrades on currently maintained facilites;  Energy savings from replacing outdated mechanical systems and other aging infrastructure with new energy efficient and carbon neutral systems also required to meet climate commitment goals by 2030;  Value add in consolidating synergistic city services; and,  The length of time to recoup those costs.  Revenue from sale or lease of buildings currently in use. • Transportation access and neighborhood impacts: Additional analysis will include projected access and parking needs, current neighborhood parking availability, and potential investment in multimodal access, transit service, and on-going TDM programs. • Development of the Area Plan for the surrounding area by outlining desired character and scale, mix of land uses, urban design, connections, access management and parking, transportation demand management, environmental sustainability and plan implementation. Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 102 of 553 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION During the study session, several questions on the following topics were raised, and staff responses are provided below: • Boulder County Facilities o Boulder County adopted a Facilities Master Plan in May 2018 with an overarching goal of consolidation of services on one site. Similar to the city, Boulder County has identified space needs in Boulder ranging from 120,000 to 210,000 square feet that would efficiently consolidate several functions of service delivery including:  Human Services currently located at the Iris Avenue and Broadway complex and represents the county’s minimum consolidation space requirement of 120,000 square feet,  Transactions (Assessor, Clerk and Recorder, Treasurer) with 60,000 square feet, and  Permits (Land Use, Transportation, etc.) with 30,000 square feet. It is too early to know which departments from the county or from the city would consolidate to Alpine-Balsam as this is dependent ultimately on the amount of square footage made available to city and county buildings. The city will continue to explore with the county the strongest synergies between the two to help narrow options and better define the opportunity to be had between the two entities. o Boulder County anticipates beginning a community process in 2019 to further explore consolidation and relocation of the Human Services functions and the potential for changes to land uses at the Iris Complex. • Office Vacancy o The city does not prefer to lease space to meet office needs of city staff since the city is a long-term occupant. It is more economical for the city to own and operate the buildings needed to provide city services. Further articulation on the value of owning buildings from which the city provides services will be provided in future updates on city facilities. o Regarding commercial office vacancy rates, generally a “healthy” vacancy rate is around 10%, which is influenced by market factors such as rent price and type of space. • Flood Mitigation o The City of Boulder’s Design and Construction Standards specify that, “Design of public improvements for local drainageways shall ensure opportunities to provide for open conveyance corridors that may serve multiple functions, including without limitation, stormwater drainage and flood conveyance, wetlands and water quality enhancement, environmental protection and preservation, open space and wildlife areas and recreational activities and trail corridors. Storm water improvements impacting local drainageways shall be designed and constructed to respect, restore and enhance these functions in order to maintain a natural ecology, environment and aesthetic values of such drainageways.” Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 103 of 553 o The flood mitigation study for Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek is assessing a variety of alternatives to decrease flooding risks in the area of North Boulder Park all the way to Folsom. One alternative being considered is using some of the North Boulder Park for flood detention which would reduce the peak flows across the Alpine-Balsam site so they could be accommodated in a more narrow channel. The redevelopment of the Alpine-Balsam site is a unique opportunity for the city to implement a portion of a larger flood mitigation strategy to help the city reduce flooding risks and become more resilient. o Prior community engagement on the Upper Goose Creek flood mitigation included open house meetings, a community workshop, an on-line questionnaire and feedback from the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB). Property owners and residents in the flood mitigation study area are being notified of public meetings and engagement opportunities using post cards, emails, social media (Nextdoor) and the project webpage. When the process is further along, small neighborhood meetings and one-on-one meetings with property owners in the study area are planned. Community feedback from this process has indicated concern regarding existing conditions that sometimes result in standing water at 9th and Balsam, stormwater and localized drainage issues, and nearby flooding of streets and parking areas. Results from a public questionnaire about flood mitigation alternatives showed mixed support for either an open channel or piped storm drainage system. o East of the site, between Broadway and 19th, there is not a creek channel for Upper Goose Creek. Future redevelopment in this area could allow for additional daylighting opportunities. o Generally, projects such as this are evaluated at a very high level in the mitigation plan and specific project design is analyzed much later once funding is programmed. o If there is detention at North Boulder Park, the proposed greenway can direct stormwater into the existing stormwater system, although there would be some overflow during major storm events. o While a dewatering system, such as clay tiles, might be required for detention in North Boulder, the park would be dry on a daily basis. The cost would be significantly less than building new flood mitigation infrastructure on the site’s greenway. • North Street parcels o Current analysis indicates that the site area available at the two parcels would not be adequate for city facilities and would result in a higher cost per square foot than if we were able to develop on a larger footprint. The parcels will continue to be evaluated for potential other uses including the ability to recoup costs should they be sold. • Parking structure o City staff will investigate the possibility of adding another level of parking to the existing city-owned structure and will report back to council on its findings. Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 104 of 553 ATTACHMENT A: Summary of the November 13, 2018 Study Session on the update for the hospital deconstruction and Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 105 of 553 ATTACHMENT A November 13, 2018 Study Session Summary Update on Hospital Deconstruction and the Alpine-Balsam Area Plan PRESENT: City Council: Mayor Suzanne Jones, Council Members Bob Yates, Aaron Brockett, Sam Weaver, Jill Adler Grano, Cindy Carlisle, Mirabai Kuk Nagle, Lisa Morzel and Mary Young Staff Presenters: Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Michele Crane, Facilities Design & Construction Manager, Public Works; Jean Gatza, Senior Planner, Planning; Katie Knapp, Flood and Greenways Project Manager, Public Works OVERVIEW: The study session updated council members on the deconstruction analysis, approach and timeline that will inform the deconstruction analysis to begin the hospital’s deconstruction after BCH moves out in late May 2019. The study session also allowed staff to receive feedback from City C ouncil on the Alpine-Balsam Area Plan development that will inform the next phase of analysis to refine the city-owned parcel site plan and surrounding area land use. Council feedback will be incorporated into updated conceptual scenarios and site analysis that will be brought back to Council in early 2019. SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION: Jim Robertson presented an introduction and timeline of the planning, redevelopment and funding components of the project. Michele Crane presented the Hospital Deconstruction Update, including: •Summary of existing conditions at the BCH hospital; •Challenges with reuse of the hospital; •Update on analysis of sustainable deconstruction of the hospital including providing detailed information about the abatement process; and, •Phases of sustainable deconstruction Jean Gatza presented an update on the Alpine-Balsam Area Planning efforts, including: •Project overview and community engagement highlights •Tradeoffs and opportunities summary •Conceptual scenarios review •Initial economic analysis and next steps DISCUSSION SUMMARY Hospital Deconstruction Update Reuse of the hospital •Council supported not reusing the main hospital due to the lengthy abatement and dismantling of interior systems required for interim/permanent reuse or deconstruction. Attachment A - Summary of the November 13, 2018 Study Session Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 106 of 553 Analysis of sustainable deconstruction •Several council members asked questions about the abatement process raising concerns about certification due to the wide range of materials requiring abatement. •Several council members asked questions and described concerns about what is included in soil testing, how testing would be phased, and the need to dewater high groundwater. •A few council members asked questions about how deconstruction would proceed and favored a process that facilitated renovation of the Medical Pavilion. •Some council members expressed interest in securing local labor while balancing a minority/women-owned business preference during the procurement process to encourage community engagement during the process. Phases of sustainable deconstruction •Staff provided information on fencing for security purposes during the deconstruction process. Fencing will surround the site, as even the west parking lot will be necessary for sorting materials and other needs during deconstruction. •Some council members expressed interest in having community messaging and communication of shelter options be part of securing the site. •Some council members expressed a strong interest in engaging nonprofits and the recycling community to develop creative methods of reusing, selling, or donating materials. Alpine-Balsam Area Plan Conceptual Scenarios Feedback Mix of Uses: Housing and Civic Facilities •Council members supported a mix of uses between housing and civic facilities, with a high emphasis on housing and minimal to moderate civic facilities (90,000 to 150,000 square feet). •There was general Council feedback that the amount of civic facilities on site would be dependent on additional staff analysis on cost savings in leases, efficiencies, and energy usage. More than 120,000 square feet of civic facilities might be preferable if justified by efficiencies and cost savings, but more information is needed. •A few council members questioned if civic facilities is the highest and best use of the site; other council members expressed that the Alpine-Balsam site was bought for consolidation of civic facilities, especially to house current facilities that are in the high hazard zone and that the city should follow-through on previous commitments. •Council members supported a vibrant mix of uses for the future site emphasizing walkability and interior open space. •Some council members expressed that the design of civic space on the site should be excellent. Boulder County Complex at Broadway and Iris •Several council members expressed interest in new housing at the Broadway-Iris site, and some suggested exploring locating city civic facilities on the Broadway-Iris site. •Several council members supported further exploring opportunities for county facilities at Alpine-Balsam if compelling synergistic uses, such as human services, would be co- located. Attachment A - Summary of the November 13, 2018 Study Session Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 107 of 553 Housing • Council members supported a diverse mix housing, preferably with a combination of rental and ownership and the potential to serve a range of future residents (units for market-rate, middle income, low/moderate income, workforce and/or seniors); • Some council members expressed that the character of housing in the area should match neighborhood but should be interesting and attractively designed. • Several council members expressed that the site could demonstrate creativity with a mix of materials and shapes, such as a non-linear and sinuous forms. • Many council members supported the amount of future housing to be between 140-330 housing units illustrated in the scenarios. Some council members supported maximizing intensity as an opportunity for the city to increase the housing yield on site. Financing • Some council members suggested support for utilizing market-rate housing to finance portions of the project. Some council members supported maximizing more affordable housing types as much as possible as the supply of luxury townhomes which sell for $1- $1.5 million are readily available throughout the city. The ratio of affordable to market- rate housing will depend on the financial objectives of the city. Urban Form: Height, Intensity, Massing • Council members generally supported building heights between 35-55 feet, with a variety of heights to reduce the feeling of tall and boxy building density. Many council members supported shorter buildings on the western portion (9th street) of the site and taller buildings on the eastern side. • Some council members supported having the taller buildings setback further to reduce their impact. • Some council members supported maximizing 55-foot buildings to reach housing goals as 55 feet is a relatively low height. • Many council members expressed that this was an opportunity for the city to be creative with design across the entire site, from a mix of materials and shapes to aspirational character. • Some council members expressed support for the massing and character of Scenario #3. • Some council members expressed that the site should be on an urban scale, which could be accomplished by bringing buildings to the street. • Council unanimously supported that building heights not exceed 55 feet. Flood Mitigation • Some council members raised concerns about how flood mitigation on the site would align with and/or affect stormwater flows and potential flood mitigation east of Broadway, indicating a desire to work with nearby property-owners early in the area plan process to refine potential mitigation alternatives and incorporate feedback. • Council members generally supported detention at North Boulder Park to decrease flows on site and increase developable space. Council members supported the narrow (30-50 feet width) greenway on the site. • Several council members emphasized preservation of trees, current uses, and the “magic of the park” as design of flood mitigation proceeds. Attachment A - Summary of the November 13, 2018 Study Session Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 108 of 553 •Several council members asked questions about the difference in space needed and the effectiveness of underground culverts versus above-ground channels for stormwater conveyance on the site. Some council members expressed support for above-ground conveyance but did not eliminate the possibility of underground culverts to facilitate development of effective spaces. •Several council members raised questions about locating the greenway on the northern portion of the site and expressed the desire to examine the feasibility and trade-offs of locating the greenway closer to the middle of the site, possibly as part of the residential open space requirement. Some council members supported a non-linear greenway and using the greenway to create as much green and open space as feasible. Access, Mobility, and Parking •Council unanimously supported not constructing new parking structures. •Some council members expressed interest in exploring the creation of a neighborhood parking permit (NPP) program to reduce impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. •Some council members supported transit-oriented development and neighborhood nodes. •Some council members supported additional parking on site as street parking, similar to North Boulder. •Some council members expressed preference to emphasize pedestrian and bike connections within the site rather than vehicle permeability to provide more space for other uses. •Some council members supported enhancements to 13th street as a corridor connector from the site to the East Bookend, possibly with separation from the road to create a true cycleway. Attachment A - Summary of the November 13, 2018 Study Session Item 3D - 11/13 Alpine Balsam Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 109 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding 6400 Arapahoe Site Programming P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kara Mertz, Local Environmental Action Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding 6400 Arapahoe Site Programming AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 110 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a Motion to accept the November 13, 2018 Study Session Summary regarding 6400 Arapahoe Site Programming. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Kendra Tupper, Chief Sustainability and Resilience Officer Kara Mertz, Environmental Manager Jamie Harkins, Sustainability Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the Nov. 13, 2018 City Council study session on 6400 Arapahoe Avenue Site Programming. The purpose of this study session was to seek council feedback on the following questions relating to future site development at the city’s property at 6400 Arapahoe Ave. 1. Given the discussion relating to possible roles for local government to play in creating a “circular economy,” does council support the City of Boulder acting as both a facilitator as well as an incubator/market driver with a focus on zero waste? 2.Keeping in mind that we are in the very early stages of site design and concept planning, does council have general feedback on the following: a.Reuse Business Innovation Hub: Does council support exploring the Reuse Innovation Hub concept at 6400 Arapahoe? b.Parking: For the uses allowed, there is a considerable amount of parking required. Does council have feedback for staff as we may look at innovative parking solutions and other travel management strategies as a way to manage development costs? Item 3E - 11/13 6400 Arapahoe Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 111 of 553 c.Site flow: There is a trade-off between using the existing buildings and setting up the site for customer ease-of-use, efficient use of space, vehicle and pedestrian safety. Does council have further suggestions about the trade-offs between reusing existing buildings and maximizing the customer experience and full potential of the site? 3. Does council concur with creating a shared fundraising strategy for the ultimate site vision? 4. Is there anything Council would like staff to undertake prior to meeting with Boulder County in January? KEY TAKEAWAYS In general, as part of its zero waste efforts, Council supported the city playing an expanded role as a market driver to support a circular economy in Boulder. Furthermore, council supported the notion of developing a Reuse-focused Innovation Hub at 6400 Arapahoe Ave. Council also expressed an interest in avoiding construction of a parking structure on site. In addition, council supported maximum reuse of the existing building parts, giving priority to preserving the office building – as opposed to the warehouse structure. Attachment A is a summary of council’s discussion of the issues and the questions presented at study session. POST STUDY SESSION STAFF RESPONSES TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS There was no immediate follow-up required for council questions. However, council did ask for data relating to the number of customers of the existing activities at 6400 Arapahoe and how many of these customers reside in the City of Boulder as compared with other parts of Boulder County or the Front Range. This information will be provided to Council and the County Commissioners prior to the joint meeting on this subject. On another note, staff would like to clarify that pet waste is not compostable in the City of Boulder’s curbside collection program. The only places where pet waste can be composted is at the various city parks, and the Open Space and Mountain Parks’ trailheads with designated pet waste compost bins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the Nov. 13, 2018 Study Session Summary on 6400 Arapahoe Site Programming. NEXT STEPS Staff will continue to refine the site layout options, keeping with council direction. Staff will also meet with the Board of County Commissioners administrative staff to plan an Item 3E - 11/13 6400 Arapahoe Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 112 of 553 agenda for the City Council/County Commissioners meeting in January, keeping the Council Agenda Committee abreast of these discussions. As site planning advances, staff will meet with Planning and Development Services staff and the Planning Board as appropriate. Council will be updated on these efforts as well as fundraising efforts through an Information Packet memo in 2019. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Nov. 13, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3E - 11/13 6400 Arapahoe Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 113 of 553 ATTACHMENT A Nov. 13, 2018 City Council Study Session Summary 6400 Arapahoe Ave. Site Programming Discussion PRESENT: City Council: Aaron Brockett (Mayor Pro Tem), Sam Weaver, Bob Yates, Lisa Morzel, Jill Adler Grano, Mirabai Kuk Nagle and Mary Young. Staff Members: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager; Kara Mertz, Environmental Manager. ABSENT: Suzanne Jones, recused. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study session was to seek council feedback on strategic development planning for the city’s property at 6400 Arapahoe Ave. OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATIONS: K. Mertz presented an overview of the concept of a “circular economy” and the notion of the city acting as a future market driver to create local and regional markets for problem waste materials. She gave background on the city’s current recycling and composting rates. She presented the state of waste management infrastructure in Boulder County, noting that the only facility still not available in the region is a construction waste recycling plant, for which Boulder County is actively seeking sites. In addition, Boulder County is considering developing a composting site on this same property. Ms. Mertz also shared a video (https://vimeo.com/293227532) that describes the project at 6400 Arapahoe. COUNCIL QUESTIONS: 1.Given the discussion relating to possible roles for local government to play in creating a “circular economy,” does council support the City of Boulder acting as both a facilitator as well as an incubator/market driver with a focus on zero waste? 2. Keeping in mind that we are in the very early stages of site design and concept planning, does council have general feedback on the following: a.Reuse Business Innovation Hub: Does council support exploring the Reuse Innovation Hub concept at 6400 Arapahoe? Are there additional ideas or concerns that staff should explore? b.Parking: For the uses allowed, there is a considerable amount of parking required. Does council have feedback for staff as we may look at innovative parking solutions and other travel management strategies as a way to manage development costs? c.Site flow: There is a trade-off between using the existing buildings and setting up the site for customer ease-of-use, efficient use of space, vehicle and pedestrian safety. Does council have further suggestions about the trade-offs between reusing existing buildings and maximizing the customer experience and full potential of the site? 3.Does council concur with creating a shared fundraising strategy for the ultimate site vision? Does council have any additional input on future partnerships and funding? 4. Is there anything Council would like staff to undertake prior to meeting with Boulder County in January? Attachment A - Nov. 13, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3E - 11/13 6400 Arapahoe Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 114 of 553 COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Questions from Council During Presentation Council member Morzel asked about the County’s timing for siting a Construction waste recycling facility. Staff Response: Mertz clarified that the County Administrative Services Resource Conservation Division will be bringing a proposal for a property to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) by the end of this year; the BOCC will not be making decisions about funding for the purchase or development of this facility until 2019 or 2020 as part of the County Sustainability Tax budget discussions. Open Discussion Council encouraged staff to continue to pursue creation of a reuse-focused innovation hub at 6400 Arapahoe. Council encouraged staff to complete a cost-benefit analysis to ensure the investment was sustainable and helped reach the city’s zero waste and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Council supported the city acting as a market driver to help foster a circular economy. Council supported staff seeking a diversified funding strategy and seeking outside funding opportunities. Council encouraged staff to look at alternative parking management strategies to avoid constructing a parking structure on the site. Council encouraged staff and site tenants to reuse as much of the existing buildings as possible when planning for redevelopment of the site. Council members concurred that the offices were more important to preserve than the warehouse buildings. Council suggested staff work closely with the Small Business Development Center, CU, and Boulder Valley School District, among others. Council also asked about the type of composting technology and construction waste recycling being investigated by Boulder County. Council suggested that Boulder County may want to contribute to the development at this site and asked staff to provide information to the City Council and the County Commissioners about the percent of current customers to the site that live in the City of Boulder vs. non-City of Boulder residents. Attachment A - Nov. 13, 2018 Detailed Study Session Summary Item 3E - 11/13 6400 Arapahoe Study Session Summary City Council Meeting Page 115 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to accept the November 27, 2018 Study Session Summary on the Boulder Public Library Master Plan Follow Up, Regarding Financing Options for Long Term Sustainable Library Funding P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J ennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to accept the November 27, 2018 Study Session Summary on the Boulder Public Library Master Plan Follow Up, Regarding Financing Options for Long Term Sustainable Library Funding AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo City Council Meeting Page 116 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Dec. 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a Motion to accept the Nov. 27, 2018 Study Session Summary on Boulder Public Library Master Plan Follow Up, Regarding Financing Options for Long Term Sustainable Library Funding. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer David Gehr, Chief Deputy City Attorney Consultants Robyn Moore and Matthew Dempsey of George K. Baum & Company BRIEF SUMMARY OF STUDY SESSION TOPIC Staff and consultants presented the results of a detailed financial analysis including: an evaluation of funding requirements for each master plan service level, the total cost of the library, five municipal funding options and three library district funding options with associated tax implications; and information on governance, process, structure and asset allocation related to the formation of a library district that was requested by City Council at the July 24, 2018 study session. DIRECTION Council directed staff to hire a qualified polling consultant to design, conduct, and report the results of a public poll to assess community support for increasing library funding, reallocating other city general fund resources to the library, dedicating current or new city funding to the library, and forming a library district. Item 3F – Summary for 11/27/18 Study Session BPL Master Plan: Financial Options City Council Meeting Page 117 of 553 Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the Nov. 27, 2018 Study Session Summary on Boulder Public Library Master Plan Follow Up, Regarding Financing Options for Long Term Sustainable Library Funding. Nov. 27, 2018 Study Session Summary: PRESENT Council Members: Mayor Suzanne Jones, Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Brockett, Bob Yates, Cindy Carlisle, Lisa Morzel, Mary D. Young, Mirabai Kuk Nagle, Sam Weaver Library Commissioners: Chair Joni Teter, Vice Chair Tim O’Shea, Joel Koenig, Juana Gomez, Jane Sykes-Wilson Staff Members: Jane S. Brautigam, Tanya Ange, Kady Doelling, David Gehr, Kara Skinner, Hannah Combs, Bob Eichem, Janet Michels, David Farnan, Jennifer Phares Consultants: Robyn Moore and Matthew Dempsey of George K. Baum & Company, and Kim Seter and Elizabeth Dauer of Seter Vander Wahl, P.C. PURPOSE The purpose of the study session was to present the results of a detailed financial analysis and information on governance, process, structure, and asset allocation related to the formation of a library district to obtain council’s direction for further investigation and planning on the preferred option(s) to obtain stable library funding. PRESENTATION Kady Doelling, executive budget officer, presented the goal of the financial analysis project and background information about the master plan process and goals, the 2019 library budget, and the full cost to run the library system. Robyn Moore and Matthew Dempsey of George K. Baum & Company presented the results of the library financial analysis including key assumptions used for the analysis, cost estimates for each master plan service level, five funding options for a municipal library and three funding options for a library district and the associated tax implications for each scenario and service level. Council asked for clarification about the library’s capital needs included in the financial analysis. Doelling explained that capital estimates were included in the analysis to show Item 3F – Summary for 11/27/18 Study Session BPL Master Plan: Financial Options City Council Meeting Page 118 of 553 the full picture of funding needed for financial sustainability. Capital projects may be funded as part of a capital bond. David Gehr, chief deputy city attorney, presented an overview of library district formation and governance. Kim Seter and Elizabeth Dauer of Seter Vander Wall, P.C. answered council’s questions regarding library law related to library districts and the process and outcome of district formation for other Colorado libraries. Library Commissioners Joni Teter and Tim O’Shea made a brief presentation on the library’s value in the community, key goals of the master plan, and history of the discussions between the Library Commission and City Council about library funding needs. FRAMING QUESTIONS 1.Does council have questions about the financial analysis and scenarios? During the presentation council asked for clarification on the facilities and capital costs, specifically about the library’s facilities maintenance backlog. The unfunded facilities maintenance backlog is a city-wide issue. During the annual budget process, priorities are determined and decisions are made about which facilities maintenance backlog items are funded. Growth of the city’s backlog outpaces available funding. During the presentation council asked for clarification about the library’s capital needs included in the financial analysis. Doelling explained that capital estimates were included in the analysis to show the full picture of funding needed for financial sustainability. Capital projects may be funded as part of a capital bond. Council asked if the city could be the sole establishing governmental entity for a library district with boundaries that extend beyond the city limits. Seter said it is an option allowed by the statute. Council discussed options for appointing trustees to a library district board to provide representation of district constituents who reside outside the city limits. 2.Which of the increased levels of funding outlined in the master plan does council support (Maintain service levels, Meet community demand, Service expansion/vision)? Council supported funding the master plan library programs and services in the Meet Community Demand and Service Expansion levels with priority on funding the operating costs for north Boulder branch library and operating and capital for a Gunbarrel corner library. Council reserves the option for flexibility and discretion to fund other programs in these service levels. Council supported more funding for the library and discussed options to obtain dedicated funding for part or all the library’s budget. The options discussed included adjusting tax rates and/or reallocating General Fund resources and dedicating them to Item 3F – Summary for 11/27/18 Study Session BPL Master Plan: Financial Options City Council Meeting Page 119 of 553 the library. Some council members cautioned that full dedicated funding for the library could limit the city’s flexibility during an economic downturn. A holistic examination city funding priorities and the library’s needs was called for during the 2020 budget development process. Dedicating funding to the library requires voter- approved charter amendment. Several council members said they were open to further investigation of a library district because it is option to improve the quality of library programs and services and provide services to more people while distributing the costs. 3.Does council want staff to conduct public polling to determine the community’s interest in increasing library funding and support? Council supported conducting a statistically significant public poll to determine the community’s interest in increasing library funding and dedicating more funding to the library. Council discussed the importance of designing the poll to educate the public on the library funding issues, framing the options in terms of costs and benefits, and developing questions to obtain the desired information from the community. Council members offered ideas for polling methods for staff to discuss with the polling firm that is hired to conduct the poll. Council discussed the proposed boundaries in the analysis. Council asked staff to revise the expanded boundary to include the Gross Reservoir area and to focus on polling residents of the city of Boulder and the revised expanded boundary. The poll should educate the public on the issues with library funding, and how governance would change in a library district scenario. The results of the poll should indicate the level of community support for: •Increased library funding •Dedicating more city funds to the library through a sales or property tax increase •Reallocating General Fund resources and dedicating some or all of them to the library •Forming a library district and the amount of property tax increase that is supported to fund it. Council asked for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the poll before the poll is conducted. Council said the results of the poll will inform its answers to questions four and five below. 4.If council prefers the library remain a municipal library: •Do council members wish to pursue a specific financing option(s)? Item 3F – Summary for 11/27/18 Study Session BPL Master Plan: Financial Options City Council Meeting Page 120 of 553 •Should staff move forward with preparing a proposed 2019 ballot question to increase City of Boulder sales tax and/or property tax to generate revenue to fund a municipal library? 5.If council prefers the library district as an option: •Does council desire to schedule a meeting with Boulder County Commissioners to further discuss creation of a district and Intergovernmental Agreement? •Should the boundaries of the library district include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) only, or the expanded boundary that includes the City of Boulder, the BVCP area and Niwot/portions west of the city? •Should staff draft proposed 2019 ballot question language for the purpose creating a library district? KEY TAKEAWAYS •Council supports funding library programs and services in the Meet Community Demand and Service Expansion master plan service levels with priority on funding the operating costs for north Boulder branch library and operating and capital for a Gunbarrel corner library. •Council supports more funding for the library and selecting an option to obtain dedicated funding for part or all the library’s budget. •Council supports conducting a public poll to determine the community’s interest in increasing library funding and dedicating more funding to the library. NEXT STEPS •Staff will compile total costs for other departments/services for council to use during future budget discussions. •Staff will issue a Request for Proposal and select a qualified polling consultant before the end of 2018. •Staff will request council’s review and input on the poll questions in January 2019. •The consultant will conduct the poll in February 2019. •A report of the results of the poll will be provided to council in March 2019 to inform 2019 ballot discussions. Item 3F – Summary for 11/27/18 Study Session BPL Master Plan: Financial Options City Council Meeting Page 121 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to approve the City of Boulder's 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C arl Castillo, Policy Advisor RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to approve the City of Boulder's 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M T his is an annual Item. T he December 4 date is time sensitive for approval of this material because council will hold a legislative breakfast on December 10 where approved materials will be presented. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 122 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to approve the City of Boulder’s 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda PRESENTERS: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Carl Castillo, Policy Advisor EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to allow council to consider approving the proposed 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda (the “2019 Agenda,” Attachment A). Strike- through and double-underline formatting are used to highlight the changes made to the version of the proposed 2019 Agenda that council reviewed on Nov. 8. These changes are also summarized below under “Council Feedback.” The only changes made that were not discussed at the Nov. 8 pertain to position #46, Rocky Flats. This position was substantially revised to expand on the background of Rocky Flats and the city’s associated positions related to funding, land management, federal responsibilities, mineral retirement and acquisition and regional trails. Once approved, the 2019 Agenda will be available to present to the city’s state legislative delegation at a breakfast scheduled for Dec. 14, 2018 and to the city’s congressional delegation during a visit by the mayor to Washington D.C., possibly occurring on January 24, 2019. An approved 2019 Agenda will also provide city officials with the authority to actively advocate on behalf of the city for the stated positions as opportunities arise during the remainder of 2018 and throughout 2019. Beyond direct legislative advocacy and coalition building, the city will also use this authority to attempt to influence positions adopted by the many intergovernmental organizations that it belongs to. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 123 of 553 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Examples of 2019 efforts that are expected to contribute to the city’s economic sustainability goals include lobbying for continued funding for the University of Colorado Boulder and the federally funded laboratories in Boulder. •Environmental – Examples of 2019 efforts that are expected to contribute to environmental sustainability goals include lobbying for increased funding for public transit, more stringent greenhouse gas reductions and extension of tax credits for electric vehicles. •Social – Examples of 2019 efforts that are expected to contribute to social sustainability goals include lobbying for a local government option to adopt a minimum wage more stringent than the state’s standard. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – The proposed 2019 Agenda includes several positions that would protect the city’s financial resources, including one that would eliminate unnecessary employee contribution increases to the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). In terms of financial outlays, the city anticipates renewing contracts for lobbying services with the following consultants: o Smith Dawson & Andrews – Approximately $40,000/year for city-specific representation before Congress and the federal executive branch. o Headwaters Strategies, Inc. – Approximately $50,000/year for city- specific representation before the Colorado General Assembly and the state executive offices. •Staff time - Creation of a legislative agenda, and devoting time to advance it, is part of staff’s approved work plan. COUNCIL FEEDBACK Council discussed the proposed 2019 Agenda on Nov. 8, 2018 and directed staff to make several changes, all of which were incorporated into the latest version of the 2019 Agenda. These changes are summarized in the following table. Changes Since Nov. 8th Version of Proposed Legislative Agenda Position Number Position Summary Change Made 27 Support criminal justice reform New position proposed and informed by Council Member Jones 40 Support efforts to prevent gun violence Added examples b – e, relating to red flag law, securing firearms, assault weapons and local control 46 Support funding for Rocky Flats Rewrote existing position to expand on the background Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 124 of 553 of Rocky Flats and the city’s associated positions related to funding, land management, federal responsibilities, mineral retirement and acquisition and regional trails. 50 Support for new transportation funding Added example (f) which captured the previous stand- alone position on CDOT governance reform and expanded it to apply to RTD governance as well. 54 Oppose devolution of state highways Clarified existing position to note that city supports devolution where local government consent exists ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Proposed City of Boulder 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda (changes since Nov. 8th version reflected) Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 125 of 553 Attachment A City of Boulder 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda Proposed for Approval by City Council on December 4, 2018 To be Replaced with Cover Once Approved Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 126 of 553 Attachment A CONTACTS City Council NAME/ADDRESS CURRENT TERM CONTACT INFORMATION Aaron Brockett 1601 Yellow Pine Ave Boulder, CO 80304 Began 11/17/2015 Expires 11/19/2019 720-984-1863 brocketta@bouldercolorado.gov Cindy Carlisle 411 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 Began 11/21/2017 Expires 11/19/2019 303-444-2606 CarlisleC@bouldercolorado.gov Jill Adler Grano 2323 Mapleton Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 Began 11/21/2017 Expires 11/16/2021 303-954-0601 GranoJ@bouldercolorado.gov Suzanne Jones, Mayor 1133 6th Street Boulder, CO 80302 Began 11/17/2015 Expires 11/19/2019 720-633-7388 joness@bouldercolorado.gov Lisa Morzel 2155 Poplar Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 Began 11/17/2015 Expires 11/19/2019 303-815-6723 morzell@bouldercolorado.gov Mirabai Kuk Nagle 6678 Drew Ranch Lane Boulder, CO 80301 Began 11/17/2017 Expires 11/16/2021 720-352-3224 NagleM@bouldercolorado.gov Sam Weaver 2423 23rd Street Boulder, CO 80304 Began 11/19/2013 Expires 11/16/2021 303-416-6130 weavers@bouldercolorado.gov Mary Young 1420 Alpine Ave Boulder, CO 80304 Began 11/19/2013 Expires 11/16/2021 303-501-2439 youngm@bouldercolorado.gov Bob Yates 3820 Cloverleaf Drive Boulder, CO 80304 Began 11/17/2015 Expires 11/19/2019 720-310-5829 yatesb@bouldercolorado.gov City Manager Jane S. Brautigam 303-441-3090 brautigamj@bouldercolorado.gov City Attorney Tom Carr 303-441-3020 carrt@bouldercolorado.gov Policy Advisor Carl Castillo 303-441-3009 castilloc@bouldercolorado.gov Mailing Address P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306 Physical Address 1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 Legislative Website bouldercolorado.gov/state- fed Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 127 of 553 Attachment A TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ........................................................... 5 2019 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AT A GLANCE .................................... 7 2019 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AT A GLANCE .............................. 8 CLIMATE CHANGE AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE .......................................... 9 1. Implement and codify into law the 2025 greenhouse reduction goals identified in the Colorado Climate Plan as well as more aggressive goals necessary to hold global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels ....................... 9 2. Develop an updated inventory and forecast of state greenhouse gas emissions ............ 9 3. Preserve and expand the ability of local governments to engage in climate action efforts ...................................................................................................................................... 10 4. Support creation of a carbon cap and any market-based mechanisms necessary to decrease carbon emissions ..................................................................................................... 10 5. Facilitate the electrification of buildings....................................................................... 10 6. Enhance customer electricity choice .............................................................................. 11 7. Increase public access to energy data ............................................................................ 12 8. Reduce emissions from the electricity sector ................................................................. 12 9. Increase energy efficiency .............................................................................................. 13 10. Encourage widespread adoption of electric & efficient motorized vehicles .................. 14 11. Support reform of residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Finance statutes to allow for resumption of Boulder County’s residential PACE Program ............... 15 12. Promote waste reduction and diversion efforts ............................................................. 15 13. Support improvements to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s oversight of oil and gas drilling and preservation of local control to adopt regulations, moratoriums or other limits as necessary ............................................................................. 16 14. Support for building community resilience ................................................................... 17 DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE ........................................................................ 18 15. Support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing corporate personhood .... 18 ECONOMIC VITALITY ................................................................................................... 18 16. Protect core provisions of the Colorado Urban Renewal law, which provide effective redevelopment tools for municipalities such as tax increment financing and eminent domain .................................................................................................................................... 18 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 128 of 553 2 Attachment A 17. Support continued funding and support for the federally funded labs located in Boulder ................................................................................................................................... 18 HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... 19 18. Support for preservation and expansion of federal affordable housing funding .......... 19 19. Support for preservation and expansion of State and local government affordable housing funding ...................................................................................................................... 20 20. Support legislation that helps address the power imbalance between owners of mobile homes and owners of mobile home parks .............................................................................. 21 HUMAN SERVICES/HUMAN RIGHTS ................................................................................. 21 21. Support comprehensive federal immigration reform and associated state level reforms 21 22. Support for the Indigenous People of Colorado ............................................................. 22 23. Support the necessary funding for state offices to provide driver’s licenses under the “Colorado Road and Community Safety Act” ......................................................................... 23 24. Further the rights of all people regardless of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender variance status .................................................................................... 23 25. Allow municipalities to establish their own minimum wage laws higher than the state or federal minimum wage ...................................................................................................... 23 26. Oppose further cuts or policy changes to state and federally funded health and human service programs that negatively impact accessibility, availability, or cost of basic health and human service needs ....................................................................................................... 24 27. Support criminal justice reform that includes, but is not limited to, sentencing and bond reform, mental health care, addiction recovery and dismantling of institutional and systematic biasis .................................................................................................................... 24 INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ............................................................... 24 28. Protect workers’ compensation system .......................................................................... 24 29. Protect governmental immunity .................................................................................... 25 30. Support fix of SB18-200 which addressed the solvency of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) while accidentally increasing contributions required of employees in the local government division .......................................................................... 25 LOCAL CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 26 31. Oppose threats to local control and home rule authority .............................................. 26 MUNICIPAL COURTS ............................................................................................... 26 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 129 of 553 3 Attachment A 32. Fund and protect the municipal justice systems ability to combat homelessness ....... 26 33. Preserve the discretion of municipal judges to impose monetary bonding for offenses in instances of public safety or flight risk .............................................................................. 27 NATURAL RESOURCES, WILDLIFE AND PARKS ............................................. 27 34. Protect the ability of local governments and the land trust community to acquire and protect parks and open space ................................................................................................. 27 35. Support state legislation furthering implementation of the city’s ecological conservation efforts, including the Urban Wildlife Management Plan as well as the Forest and Grassland Ecosystem Plans ............................................................................................ 28 36. Support restoration of local government authority to regulate certain pesticide uses and for additional protections for pollinators, human health and water quality ................. 28 37. Support efforts that protect the Boulder community from wildfire and promote ecological forest health ........................................................................................................... 29 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ............................................................................. 30 38. Support safe use and commercial regulation of recreational marijuana ...................... 30 39. Promote health and safety concerns associated with alcohol abuse in the greater community .............................................................................................................................. 30 40. Support efforts to prevent gun violence......................................................................... 31 41. Oppose mandates for local government enforcement of federal immigration laws ...... 32 42. Oppose infringements on employment and personnel decisions made by municipal police and fire departments .................................................................................................... 32 43. Oppose imposition of onerous information gathering and reporting requirements on public safety, especially when those requirements come with substantial costs that are not supported by adequate funding .............................................................................................. 32 44. Increase the financial threshold of property damage that triggers a police investigation of non-injury traffic accidents .......................................................................... 32 45. Oppose limitations on municipal authority to operate red light or photo radar cameras to enforce traffic safety ........................................................................................................... 32 ROCKY FLATS ................................................................................................................. 33 46. Support continued funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as necessary to allow for monitoring and long-term stewardship of both the Rocky Flats’ Central Operable Unit and the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................ 33 TAX POLICY ..................................................................................................................... 35 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 130 of 553 4 Attachment A 47. Support state action to preserve and expand the authority of local governments to audit and collect taxes and to issue sales tax licenses .......................................................... 35 48. Preserve the municipal bond federal income tax exemption ........................................ 37 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................. 37 49. Expand or preserve the authority of municipalities to provide broadband services such as city-wide fiber-to-the-premise networks ........................................................................... 37 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................. 38 50. Support new transportation funding for projects that maintain existing infrastructure and that are multimodal in design ........................................................................................ 38 51. Support policies and funding mechanisms that would increase affordable transportation access for vulnerable populations, including youth, older adults, those with lower income and people with disabilities ............................................................................. 39 52. Promote legislation that encourages “complete streets” that accommodate people using all modes of travel ........................................................................................................ 40 53. Oppose limitations on the city’s ability to regulate vehicle use on sidewalks, multi-use pathways, and bike lanes, or that requires the city to alter its current code in order to maintain current policy on allowed uses of those facilities ................................................... 40 54. Oppose transferring the maintenance responsibilities for regional highways from the Colorado Department of Transportation to local governments ............................................. 40 55. Support flexible solutions and new funding opportunities to address impacts of train horn noise and support creation of quiet zones ..................................................................... 40 56. Support state and federal legislation that encourages connected and autonomous vehicle deployment in furtherance of Boulder’s sustainability goals while retaining local authority to address community-specific policy objectives that cannot otherwise be met... 41 57. Support measures that further the city’s travel Vision Zero safety objective .............. 42 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO ...................................................................................... 42 58. Support a renewed commitment by the state and federal governments to fund the University of Colorado and its capital programs ................................................................... 42 WATER .................................................................................................................................... 43 59. Promote the efficient utilization and conservation of water, and preservation of water quality ..................................................................................................................................... 43 60. Oppose significant threats to the city’s water rights .................................................... 44 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 131 of 553 5 Attachment A PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA The purpose of the City of Boulder’s 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda (the “Legislative Agenda”) is to formalize city positions on legislation currently pending or expected to be considered before the Colorado General Assembly or the U.S. Congress. The city offers the Legislative Agenda as a guideline to legislators for reference when considering legislation impacting the City of Boulder. Strategic, targeted, and/or abbreviated versions of the information contained in this agenda will also be created throughout the year for use in further legislative communications. The Legislative Agenda was developed in advance of the convening of the 2019 Colorado General Assembly and the First Session of the 116th U.S. Congress. Consequently, it does not address legislation by bill number. Instead, it describes the overall interests the city has on specific issues as well as examples of the policy approaches the city would either support or oppose to meet those interests. With the coordination of the city’s Policy Advisor, it will be used by individual council members and city staff to inform city positions taken on specific bills once these legislative sessions begin. At that point, council may consider adopting amendments to the Legislative Agenda to address specific bills that have been proposed. The city often attempts to influence state and federal policies through avenues beyond legislation, such as when it submits comments on administrative rulemakings, “sunset” reviews of expiring legislation, or makes direct appeals to federal and state administrative officials. While the Legislative Agenda is not designed to direct such action, it can be looked toward as a resource to inform such city efforts. Council may revisit the Legislative Agenda at any point. It may do so as a body, or through its Legislative Committee. Council created this committee for the purpose of convening on an ad hoc basis with the Policy Advisor and other city staff as necessary when one or more of the following circumstances exist: 1. There is an immediate need for council members to participate with staff in developing a legislative strategy to advance or defeat a bill which is clearly addressed by the city’s Legislative Agenda or other council-approved policy documents, or; 2. There is action expected on pending legislation that affects a matter which council has previously provided general direction on and that could significantly impact the city, but which council did not provide sufficient specific direction on (either through its Legislative Agenda or other approved policy documents) and with timing that will not allow for council direction to be obtained. In these limited situations, the Policy Advisor may turn to the committee for direction on such legislation so that the city can advocate accordingly. Council is to be informed whenever such committee direction has been provided and may choose to subsequently revisit such direction. Council’s Legislative Committee is also turned to during non-legislative periods to provide suggestions on revisions to the Legislative Agenda and to plan agendas for meetings with legislators. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 132 of 553 6 Attachment A As has been done in years past, council is again adopting a goal that modifications to this Legislative Agenda require consistency, when applicable, with the six criteria described below: 1. Uniformity with current city council goals; 2. Expected relevance in the upcoming or present state and federal legislative sessions; 3. Uniqueness of issue or impact to the City of Boulder; 4. Viability or likelihood of achieving goal; 5. Opportunity for providing funding for City of Boulder; and, 6. Availability of metrics of success that would allow the position to be deleted from future agendas if achieved. Departures from these criteria are made in unique circumstances as determined by council, such as when adoption of a city position is important to support its regional partners, even while the legislation is otherwise of limited consequence to the city. The city welcomes the opportunity to discuss the city’s Legislative Agenda. Please direct any questions to City Council members or to the city’s Policy Advisor at 303-441-3009. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 133 of 553 7 Attachment A 2019 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AT A GLANCE The city expects to adopt and communicate positions on dozens of state bills during the 2018 state legislative session. The positions listed below, however, address the bills that the city expects to focus the bulk of its limited resources and political capital on. These priorities are selected not only due to their importance to the city, but because related legislation is expected to be introduced in 2019 and involvement of the city and its legislative delegation could be determinative to their outcome. The priorities take into account the expected political realities of the upcoming session and accordingly are first and foremost pragmatic. Nevertheless, they are considered important and are also considered incremental steps that will create support in future years for some of the city’s more ambitious legislative goals. 1. Provide local governments with the option to establish their own minimum wage above the state minimum, as described further in position 25 on page 23. 2. Support fix of SB18-200 which addressed the solvency of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) while accidentally requiring unnecessary increases to contributions from employees of the Local Government Division, as described further in position 29 on page 25. 3. Extend until at least 2025, and expand the ability to assign, the state tax credits for purchase, lease and conversion of alternative fueled vehicles, especially electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, as described further in position 10 on page 14. 4. Codify into law the greenhouse gas reduction goals identified in the Colorado Climate Plan as well as more aggressive goals of a 50% reduction by 2030 and an 80% reduction by 2050, direct the state agencies to translate these goals into enforceable sector-specific requirements and require the development of an updated and state- specific inventory and forecast of these emissions. More information on this is described in positions 1, 2 and 4 on pages 9 through 10. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 134 of 553 8 Attachment A 2019 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AT A GLANCE 1. Seek federal support for Boulder’s federally funded labs and the University of Colorado Boulder as described further in position 17 on page 18 and position 57 on page 42 of the agenda. 2. Continue to brief federal officials on the city’s effort to form a locally owned electric utility and seek support as necessary, while positioning Boulder as a national pilot for building a resilient electricity system, adopting distributed generation and implementing aggressive demand-side initiatives, as explained further in position 3 on page 10. 3. Support comprehensive federal immigration reform as further described in position 21 on page 21. 4. Support federal legislation that encourages connected and autonomous vehicle deployment in furtherance of Boulder’s sustainability goals while retaining local authority to address community-specific policy objectives that cannot otherwise be met, as further described in position on 55 on page 41. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 135 of 553 9 Attachment A CLIMATE CHANGE AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE The burning of coal, oil and gas for energy is warming Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. As a result, there are more frequent and intense temperature extremes and destructive weather events. For Boulder, climate action is about resilience and transformation. Boulder needs to adapt to the climate changes that are already in motion as well as reduce the emission-heavy activities that drive future climate change. The city faces a great challenge, but an even greater opportunity to make Boulder better and to create a healthier, safer and more prosperous community. To realize this opportunity, we need unprecedented levels of federal and state cooperation and legislative action. 1. IMPLEMENT AND CODIFY INTO LAW THE 2025 GREENHOUSE REDUCTION GOALS IDENTIFIED IN THE COLORADO CLIMATE PLAN AS WELL AS MORE AGGRESSIVE GOALS NECESSARY TO HOLD GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE TO WELL BELOW 2 DEGREES CELSIUS ABOVE PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS The Paris Agreement created an aspirational goal of holding global temperature rise to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels” and cutting net greenhouse gas emissions to zero in the second half of this century. The US plan originally set the goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% below its 2005 level by 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. This commitment formed the basis of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2017 Executive Order Supporting Colorado’s Clean Energy Transition which would reduce statewide greenhouse gases by no less than 26 percent by 2025, as compared to 2005 levels, a goal that has since been incorporated into the Colorado Climate Plan. While the city applauds the Executive Order, climate scientists have stated that these targets are insufficient to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. With that in mind, the city supports the implementation and codification into law of the greenhouse goals identified in the Colorado Climate Plan and even more aggressive goals necessary for the state to do its part to ensure that there is at least a 50% reduction by 2030, and an 80% reduction or greater by 2050. 2. DEVELOP AN UPDATED INVENTORY AND FORECAST OF STATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The “Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 2014 Update Including Projections to 2020 & 2030,” prepared by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, includes a forecast of statewide emissions utilizing federal Environmental Protection Agency assumptions about future emission policies nationwide. It does not reflect currently adopted Colorado laws or policies, such as the Colorado Renewal Energy Standard. Without this state-specific information, it is impossible to tell what progress Colorado is making in reducing heat-trapping emissions. The city supports an update of the existing inventory and forecast that incorporates such state-specific information. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 136 of 553 10 Attachment A 3. PRESERVE AND EXPAND THE ABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ENGAGE IN CLIMATE ACTION EFFORTS Preserve and expand the ability of local governments to develop and implement energy strategies to reach their climate action and energy resilience goals, including their ability to: a) Form their own retail energy utilities through a process that is predictable, equitable, safe, reliable and cost-effective; b) Exercise their constitutional right to condemn and acquire electric assets at fair market value, without having to pay utility lost revenues; c) Purchase street lighting through cost-effective and reasonable means to maximize the efficiency of such lighting; d) Maximize the deployment of local clean energy generation and storage options; e) Create new financing and ownership structures for clean energy technologies; and f) Benefit from state or federal facilities, programs, funding or requirements relied on by cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4. SUPPORT CREATION OF A CARBON CAP AND ANY MARKET- BASED MECHANISMS NECESSARY TO DECREASE CARBON EMISSIONS The city supports adoption of state and federal limits on greenhouse gases, sometimes referred to as carbon caps, that increase over time as necessary to reach state greenhouse reduction goals. Operationalizing such limits in different sectors often requires market-based policies that can create financial incentives for GHG emitters to emit less. The city supports both carbon caps and market-based mechanisms as necessary, and specifically supports the following approaches: a. Establishing a small state level carbon tax with proceeds used to fund renewable and energy efficiency projects as well as transmission and distribution system improvements that enable additional deployment of renewables and energy efficiency measures; b. Creating a national revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend to significantly reduce U.S. carbon emissions while simultaneously maintaining robust economic growth. 5. FACILITATE THE ELECTRIFICATION OF BUILDINGS The city supports accelerating the transition from natural gas and propane to electricity for residential and commercial building applications, including space and hot water heating, cooking and laundry. It supports development of a state-wide policy framework and set of actions that promotes the adoption of high efficiency and low emission renewable heating Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 137 of 553 11 Attachment A and cooling (RH&C) technologies such as electric-driven heat pumps (air and ground source), sustainable biomass energy systems, anaerobic digestion, solar thermal and other renewable energy driven systems. The city would support the following approaches to achieving these goals: a. Developing renewable heating and energy requirements that must be met by natural gas and electric utilities; b. Directing the Public Utilities Commission to require utilities to develop incentives and rate structures that support RH&C systems and reflect the value provided to the electric grid; c. Directing the Public Utilities Commission to require natural gas utilities to only allow new natural gas infrastructure development when it is demonstrated to be the least cost alternative against comparable investments in RH&C systems, and; d. Directing the state to include RH&C mandates into energy objectives for state-owned buildings; and, e. Directing the Public Utilities Commission to require electric utilities to upgrade electrical infrastructure to support conversion of existing building stock to RH&C systems. 6. ENHANCE CUSTOMER ELECTRICITY CHOICE The city supports new financing business models, products, technologies and efforts that enhance the energy choices available to customers by: a) Advancing open, competitive retail energy markets in Colorado through such means as eliminating legal energy monopolies, allowing for aggregation of residential or commercial electric customers in municipal purchase of renewable energy on behalf of these groups of customers (a.k.a. community choice aggregation), or by otherwise increasing options for customer electricity choice; b) Allowing for new and creative customer options such as peer-to-peer sharing of electricity generation, virtual net metering or microgrid development; c) Allowing customer access to diverse energy options through a variety of policies (including net metering, feed-in-tariffs, “value of solar” tariffs) that fully recognize the value of local solar; d) Streamlining interconnection requirements for customer-sited energy options such as distributed generation and storage technologies; e) Allowing mobile home owners to receive the same rebates, incentives and interconnection options associated with the installation of solar panels as are available to other homeowners; f) Increasing or removing the 120 percent cap on net metered generation; g) Allowing qualified facilities larger than 100 kW to interconnect and sell output to a utility at the utility’s avoided cost outside of the competitive solicitation during an Electric Resource Plan proceeding pursuant to the Public Utilities Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA); Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 138 of 553 12 Attachment A h) Making any necessary changes to the Renewable Energy Standard (RES) to allow communities to develop, interconnect and own new shared renewable generation to meet their energy goals and enable local ownership of clean energy generation above and beyond RES requirements and without incentives, if a community chooses. 7. INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO ENERGY DATA Increase the public’s access to energy data by: a) Standardizing regulated utility filings to increase transparency at the PUC and requiring all PUC discovery to be publicly available and filed in machine-readable formats; b) Facilitating the development of a third-party demand-side management program implementer, including energy efficiency and distributed generation programs; c) Facilitating the development of an energy data center or energy statistics branch within a state energy agency to produce data sets related to research and policymaking; d) Enabling regulated utilities to provide aggregated whole-building data to building owners and property managers for use in building benchmarking and energy efficiency improvements; and, e) Creating an exception to the Colorado Open Records Act that confirms the ability of local governments to protect customers’ energy data when they participate in local energy efficiency programs and greenhouse gas emissions reporting initiatives. 8. REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR The city supports the following approaches to reducing emissions from the electricity sector: a) Facilitating the early retirement of existing coal-fired and natural gas power plants with appropriate state and federal impact assistance programs requested by communities that are negatively affected by the reduced use of fossil fuels for power production. The methodology for paying these units should occur in the most equitable, cost-effective and competitive manner. b) Increasing the retail distributed generation “carve-out” for investor-owned utilities and cooperatives. c) Requiring utilities to file grid modernization plans with commitments to distribution grid upgrades that utilize energy efficiency, renewable energy and grid-connected energy storage instead of traditional supply side investments; d) Encouraging investments in conservation that focus on load management aligned with better utilization of renewable resources and minimize the consumer’s total energy bill; Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 139 of 553 13 Attachment A e) Including all environmental and health costs and risks, including the social cost of carbon, when evaluating integrated resource plans of electric utilities; f) Encouraging the Public Utilities Commission to consider comprehensive performance-based regulation for utilities, which would compensate utilities based on providing customer choice and satisfaction, reliability and resilience, and reduced carbon emissions, as opposed to applying traditional cost of service concepts; g) Clarifying that, for purposes of the rules governing intervention in administrative hearings before the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC), customers of a business regulated by the PUC qualify as persons who "will be interested in or affected by" the PUC's order; h) Supporting legislation that would assist and expedite Colorado’s implementation of the federal Clean Power Plan, which although suspended by the current administration is still under judicial review. These rules are designed to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants across the country. Conversely, opposing any legislation that would delay or prevent the implementation of either the federal rule or prevent Colorado’s implementation of the rule; and, i) Increasing the state’s Renewable Energy Standard to at least 50 percent by 2025 and 100 percent by 2040 and applying that standard to all retail utilities in Colorado. 9. INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY a) Increase energy efficiency by establishing high performance residential and commercial building codes. At the state level, update current legislation, which currently requires Colorado cities and counties with building energy codes to adopt and enforce a building energy code at least as stringent as the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), to require that they adopt the most current IECC within three years of its release; b) Allow local governments to develop regional energy networks that implement energy efficiency programs; c) Facilitate community-specific program implementation by distributing demand- side management program dollars to local governments. d) Facilitate the development of net zero and outcome-based construction through demand side management programs; e) Reinstate the energy-efficient commercial and residential buildings federal tax deductions that expired at the end of 2013; f) Support continued and expanded funding for programs that help low-income Coloradoans meet their energy needs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program. g) Eliminate federal preemptions prohibiting states and local governments from exceeding the federal lighting, appliance and other equipment efficiency standards. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 140 of 553 14 Attachment A 10. ENCOURAGE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF ELECTRIC & EFFICIENT MOTORIZED VEHICLES Ground transportation in the City of Boulder accounts for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing marketplace uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) can provide reductions in both GHG emissions and other pollutants. While the primary approach will always be to encourage modes of transportation that reduce vehicle miles travelled, the city will also support legislative change that reduces energy use and emissions of air pollutants from vehicles, specifically legislation that: a) Extends until at least 2025/2026, and expands the ability to assign, the state tax credits for purchase, lease and conversion of alternative fueled vehicles, especially for electric (EV) and plug-in hybrid (PHEV) vehicles. These credits will otherwise expire at the end of 2021; b) Results in Colorado joining the twelve states and the District of Columbia that have already adopted clean car standards that impose more stringent vehicle emission standards than those required by the federal government, including standards for zero emission vehicles; c) Prevents the proposed rolling back of existing federal efficiency standards and supports the adoption of the next phase (post-2025) of standards for light duty vehicles and of the next phase of standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles; d) Establishes a state goal for purchase of electric vehicle and strategic deployment of charging stations; e) Enables and encourages electric utilities to support greater adoption of electric vehicles by investing in electric vehicle charging, including opportunities to mitigate the impact of demand charges for DC fast charge stations as well as educating customers about EVs and providing customer incentives for consumers and fleet operators to adopt EVs; f) Modifies current “HOV Exemption Program,” which provides owners of 2,000 low- emission and energy efficient vehicles free access to high-occupancy-toll lanes, to limit the exemption to three years per vehicles and to allocate the new permits to only the owners of zero emission vehicles. g) Requires the state’s vehicle registration database to be structured to allow local governments to have access to fuel efficiency information of the vehicles registered in their jurisdiction; h) Provides Colorado counties the option to implement emission fees on the purchase of less efficient vehicles and to offer rebates on the purchase of more efficient vehicles, with social equity concerns addressed by setting the fee as a percentage of the value of the vehicle and creating a minimum value below which the fee would not apply; i) Increases state biofuel infrastructure and develops a statewide biofuels strategy (including renewable diesel); j) Encourages the proliferation of public charging stations for electric vehicles by requiring new parking lots and parking structures to provide a minimum number of public charging stations, and; k) Extends the federal tax credits for electric vehicles at least until 2025. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 141 of 553 15 Attachment A 11. SUPPORT REFORM OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) FINANCE STATUTES TO ALLOW FOR RESUMPTION OF BOULDER COUNTY’S RESIDENTIAL PACE PROGRAM The city has been an active supporter of Boulder County’s PACE finance program, formerly known as the Climate Smart Loan Program. Many city residents have taken advantage of residential PACE to secure low-interest loans to make energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades to their homes. However, actions taken in 2010 by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency have forced local governments across the country, including Boulder County, to suspend their residential PACE financing programs. The city supports reversal or resolution of these federal actions, either through legislation or regulation, to allow residential PACE programs to again move forward. If such federal action is taken, the city would also urge the Colorado General Assembly to quickly take any action necessary to conform Colorado’s PACE enabling statutes to the new federal requirements. 12. PROMOTE WASTE REDUCTION AND DIVERSION EFFORTS The city supports the recycling goals adopted by Colorado in 2016, as outlined in the Colorado Integrated Solid Waste and Materials Management Plan. These new goals are a first step in addressing Colorado’s embarrassing 12% diversion rate, which lags far behind the national average of 34%. Other challenges include Colorado’s existing artificially inexpensive landfill tip fees and lack of minimum recycled content standards, which often makes the most environmentally responsible management practices like source reduction and recycling and composting cost prohibitive. The city supports statewide legislation that would: a) Encourage product stewardship and take-back programs (a.k.a. “extended producer responsibility”); b) Ban specific materials from landfills or incineration; c) Require post-consumer minimum content standards for product manufactures; d) Implement statewide or regional landfill tip fee surcharges to be used for waste reduction; e) Create tax credits or other incentives to encourage source reduction, recycling and composting and markets for recycled materials; f) Support the implementation of the Colorado Integrated Solid Waste and Materials Management Plan, including the expanded authority of CDPHE to execute the actions in the plan; g) Designate state funding to assist rural landfills with coming into and maintaining compliance with state and federal regulations; h) Develop data reporting mechanisms to better estimate CO’s recycling rate and support data reporting at the municipal and county level; and i) Require state government to lead by example by strengthening and enforcing the Green Purchase Order to include recycling and composting in all state agency facilities, and by expanding state agency efforts to reduce food waste. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 142 of 553 16 Attachment A While the city opposes "waste to energy" technologies involving trash incineration or incentivizing landfilling for the sake of energy creation, the city supports energy capture from anaerobic digestive technologies at composting and wastewater treatment plants. The city also supports energy production from the organic matter portions of the waste stream that would otherwise end up in a landfill if not used to make energy or energy products. Examples of this type of beneficial use include woody construction and demolition waste and yard or food waste that is not able to be otherwise diverted from landfills and could be used to produce electricity or liquid fuel components. The city, however, views all energy production uses as last in priority to other beneficial uses such as composting, recycling and re-purposing. The city also has specific concerns about the environmental hazards posed by electronic waste in landfills. Therefore, the city supports legislation that requires extended producer responsibility that is regulated to be environmentally and socially acceptable. Finally, the city would support repeal of the prohibition contained in state law (C.R.S. Section 25-17-104) on local government bans on “use or sale of specific types of plastic materials or products” or restrictions on “containers . . . for any consumer products.” 13. SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COLORADO OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION’S OVERSIGHT OF OIL AND GAS DRILLING AND PRESERVATION OF LOCAL CONTROL TO ADOPT REGULATIONS, MORATORIUMS OR OTHER LIMITS AS NECESSARY The city believes that local governments have both the right and responsibility to take action to protect the public health and well-being of its residents as well as the environment. The city supports the state setting minimum standards and best management practices for the oil and gas industry (such as those suggested by the International Energy Agency on this subject, entitled “Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas”), but also believes that local jurisdictions must be allowed to adopt strong rules as needed to address local concerns and conditions. To that end, the city supports legislation that clarifies and strengthens the authority of local governments to use their existing land use authorities to manage and tailor oil and gas activities within their borders or on property that they own to ensure public health, safety and welfare, and to protect the environment. The city also opposes legislation that would preempt local authority to establish and enforce regulations over fracking operations. In addition, the city supports legislation that would address specific oil and gas drilling impacts, including legislation to: a) Better protect homes and communities by increasing the minimum distance between oil and gas wells and production facilities from occupied buildings and schools, giving local governments an effective role in controlling the pace and Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 143 of 553 17 Attachment A footprint of development in their jurisdictions, and closing loopholes in existing setback rules. b) Lift the current prohibition on local governments passing along the cost of inspections to industry. c) Eliminates fracking as an exempted activity under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and other federal environmental laws. d) Adopt statewide protections for water including: requiring setbacks from all streams and lakes; requiring baseline and periodic water monitoring at all drilling sites; raising casing and cementing standards to ensure wellbore integrity; adopting a rebuttable presumption that allows water rights owners within a certain distance of an oil/gas well to recoup repair costs if their water supply is contaminated, diminished, or disrupted; requiring operators to formulate a water management plan including planned source of water and substitute water supply plans; and recycling wastewater before acquiring new supplies. e) Better protect air quality at and near oil and gas operations, decrease emissions of volatile organic compounds and other ozone precursors, and decrease methane and other greenhouse gas emissions by requiring strict controls on fugitive emissions from oil and gas facilities, including adopting the latest technology in leak detection and repair. f) Address the dual mandate and composition of the COGCC to make its primary role the regulation of the oil and gas industry to protect the public health, safety and the environment. g) Support further study of air, water, seismic, noise and public health impacts from oil and gas operations and ways to mitigate or avoid impacts. h) Support higher bonds and stricter regulations to decrease the problem of “orphan wells” in Colorado. i) Give aggrieved landowners standing to require a hearing before the COGCC on applications that will impact public health, safety, or welfare. Also extend standing to affected local governments even if the propose wells or facilities are outside their jurisdiction. j) Require consent from governmental bodies before an operator may locate oil and gas facilities on government property, such as open space lands. 14. SUPPORT FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE In order for Boulder and other communities around the nation to implement resilience- building strategies, coordination and financial and technical support from the state and federal governments will be necessary. The city will support legislation that further addresses such needs by providing adequate funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) which is the federal agency that administers national service programs, including AmeriCorps VISTA. The city has in the past relied on AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers in support of its resilience programming. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 144 of 553 18 Attachment A DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE 15. SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ABOLISHING CORPORATE PERSONHOOD On November 1, 2011, the residents of Boulder voted, by a 73 percent majority, to approve Ballot Question No. 2H which called for “reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that: 1) Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights; and 2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.” The City of Boulder will support state and federal legislation that furthers efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution with language that captures the sentiment, if not the exact language, expressed by Ballot Question No. 2H. ECONOMIC VITALITY 16. PROTECT CORE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW, WHICH PROVIDE EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT TOOLS FOR MUNICIPALITIES SUCH AS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AND EMINENT DOMAIN Unlike many communities that contain vast areas of undeveloped land planned for future commercial and residential use, Boulder's future economic sustainability will depend on effective and ongoing re-use of existing developed property. The majority of future redevelopment in Boulder will be completed by private entities and through private investment. However, in rare circumstances, and based on the requirements of the urban renewal law, projects that demonstrate a compelling community need may only be achievable through a public/private urban renewal partnership. Municipalities should retain the capacity to facilitate revitalization of their urbanized areas. 17. SUPPORT CONTINUED FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR THE FEDERALLY FUNDED LABS LOCATED IN BOULDER The city’s economic vitality policy strongly supports the federally funded laboratories located in the city, specifically: a) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) b) Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) c) JILA d) Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) e) National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) f) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) g) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 145 of 553 19 Attachment A o Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) o National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) o National Weather Service (NWS) o National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS) o Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) h) National Solar Observatory (NSO) i) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) j) University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) o National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) k) UNAVCO l) United States Geological Survey (USGS) The labs, the research they conduct, and the researchers and staff they employ are vitally important to the City of Boulder, Boulder County, the Denver metropolitan region, the state and the nation. In March 2017, CU’s Leeds School of Business released a study entitled, “Economic Contribution of Federally Funded Research Facilities in Colorado, FY2013- FY2015”. According to the report, in FY2015 the total number of federal lab jobs located in Boulder County was 3,883. Salaries and benefits of workers at labs in Boulder totaled of $388 million. The economic impact of the federal labs on Boulder County totaled $1.1 billion, led to $689 million in value added, and supported 7,627 jobs. Boulder highly values the scientific contributions the labs and their employees have made to the entire nation, as well as the economic impact they have on our community. These institutions work closely with scientific researchers from the University of Colorado in Boulder and Colorado State University in nearby Fort Collins. This synergy of scientific knowledge is found only in a very few other places in the United States. Just as the labs generate direct benefits (employment, local spending) and associated indirect activity through an economic multiplier effect, the opposite holds true for funding reductions. According to CU’s Leeds School of Business, for every job lost at these federal laboratories, an additional 1.17 jobs will be lost in Colorado. For every $1 million in funding cuts to the labs, an additional $1.13 million in economic impact will be lost. Perhaps even more troubling, our national capacity for research and innovation will be damaged by lay-offs of scientists and researchers, jeopardizing new advanced technologies, future businesses formed to commercialize developing technologies, and our global competitiveness. HOUSING 18. SUPPORT FOR PRESERVATION AND EXPANSION OF FEDERAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING Federal tax code provisions and budget appropriations provide much of the financial support for affordable housing projects in Boulder. These sources include: Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 146 of 553 20 Attachment A • Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), both 9% and 4%, administered through the Colorado Housing Finance Authority which serve as the primary source of equity for affordable rental housing. • Section 8 rental programs, both housing choice vouchers and project-based, which serve the lowest income families in Boulder, 95 percent of whom have incomes below $14,000 annually and pay an average of less than $300 per month in rent. • Public housing and other direct support of the city’s housing authority, Boulder Housing Partners. • HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs, which provided $1,216,170 and $813,445 in 2018 respectively, to invest in expanding affordable housing, strengthening public infrastructure, and improving the quality of life for the city's low and moderate-income residents. • Private Activity Bonds (PAB), which are tax exempt and enable projects to receive non-competitive 4% LIHTC. Proposals to reduce or eliminate one or more of these sources have been made year after year. Without continuation of these subsidies used to leverage other sources of funds the city’s efforts to provide permanently affordable housing for low and moderate-income residents would be substantially diminished. Accordingly, the city opposes attempts to eliminate the federal tax exemption for PABs and 4% LIHTC, reduce HUD HOME and CDBG grant funds and supports legislation to expand the LIHTC programs. 19. SUPPORT FOR PRESERVATION AND EXPANSION OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING The city supports legislative efforts to create, expand and preserve state and local government affordable housing funding options, such as the following: a. Funding for the state affordable housing trust fund b. Protection and expansion of the state low income housing tax credit operated through the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority c. Creation of new state affordable housing tax credits for homeownership, employer assisted housing, and other activities d. Allowing local governments to impose a real estate transfer tax or document recording fee Funding for affordable housing provided by the state leverages the city’s own investments and enhances efforts by neighboring communities to meet regional affordable housing goals. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 147 of 553 21 Attachment A 20. SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT HELPS ADDRESS THE POWER IMBALANCE BETWEEN OWNERS OF MOBILE HOMES AND OWNERS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS It is the policy of the city to encourage affordable housing ownership, including manufactured housing. The following are examples of the changes that the city may support in this regard: a) Create an enhanced enforcement mechanism for the provisions of the Colorado Mobile Park Act and associated funding source; b) Require a minimum one-year lease; c) Prohibit changes in park rules during term of lease; d) Create an opportunity to purchase a mobile home park by residents or non- profit organizations; e) Expand (i.e., 6 month) notification requirement if mobile home park is to be closed; and, f) Incentivize owners of mobile home parks to submit a dispute to mediation. HUMAN SERVICES/HUMAN RIGHTS 21. SUPPORT COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND ASSOCIATED STATE LEVEL REFORMS The city is committed to the protection of civil and human rights for all people. It believes in the dignity of all Boulder residents, regardless of immigration status, and recognizes the importance of their many contributions to the social, religious, cultural and economic life of the city. The failures of the U.S. immigration system have had profound impacts within the Boulder community. These impacts include very young students losing motivation to excel in their learning because of knowledge that they lack, insufficient affordable higher educational opportunities and the existence of an underclass climate of fear, informal economy and work force inequities. Accordingly, the city welcomes and encourages cooperation at all levels of government to work together to support swift and responsible legislative action to produce equitable, humane, effective and comprehensive federal immigration reform and associated state level reform that provides for: a) Enforceable immigration laws; b) A rational and humane approach to the undocumented population; c) A simplified visa system which allows for family unification of those who have been separated by the legal immigration backlog process and which provides for legal status for the existing immigrant workforce; Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 148 of 553 22 Attachment A d) A new immigration status, sometimes referred to as a Purple Card, identical to the Green Card except that it would not be a path to U.S. citizenship (but neither would it preclude the possibility of eventual citizenship). This would meet the humanitarian imperative to keep families together, to work legally and to travel internationally without threat of deportation. The city’s support for this approach is conditioned on ensuring that such status would not further nor create an underclass status of people subject to exploitation; e) A rate and system of controlled immigration that matches the needs of our economy; f) Social integration for our existing immigrant workforce and their families; g) Unaccompanied minors to receive appropriate child welfare services, legal support and expeditious reunification with their families already in the United States; h) Recognizing employers as key allies in implementing immigration policy and enhancing enforcement of labor laws to remove the market advantage that leads to exploiting immigration status to pay lower wages, avoid taxes and violate labor laws; i) A system which ultimately aids in border control; and, j) Bilateral partnerships with other countries to promote economic development that will reduce the flow of immigrants. The city also supports federal legislation, such as the often-introduced Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (The “DREAM Act”), that would qualify students for immigration relief if they have resided in the United States for several consecutive years, arrived in the U.S. as young children and demonstrated good moral character. It would put such students on a pathway to citizenship if they graduate from high school or obtain a GED and complete at least 2 years towards a 4-year degree or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years, and; eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing in- state tuition to their undocumented immigrant student residents, thus restoring full authority to the states to determine state college and university fees. Finally, the city supports legislation, like the Uniting American Families Act, which would ensure that all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, receive equal treatment under immigration laws. The bill would have allowed partners and children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status the same way heterosexual spouses can. It would also allow for family-based immigration for gay and lesbian Americans and the reunification of families, which strengthens our communities. 22. SUPPORT FOR THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF COLORADO In 2016, Boulder passed Resolution No. 1190 declaring the second Monday of October of each year to be Indigenous People’s Day. In it, the city resolved, among other things, that “those now living on these ancestral lands recognize that harm was done and acknowledge that we have a shared responsibility to forge a path forward to address the past and continuing harm to the Indigenous People and the land” and “That in the pursuit of shared responsibility and of promoting knowledge about Indigenous Peoples, unifying communities, combating prejudice and eliminating discrimination against Indigenous Peoples, the City of Boulder Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 149 of 553 23 Attachment A does hereby resolve the second Monday in October of each year to be Indigenous Peoples' Day.” In furtherance of this resolution, the city supports state legislation that would: a) Declare an Indigenousness People’s Day at the state level b) Allow instate tuition for American Indian Tribe members with ties to Colorado, as had been proposed by HB14-1124. 23. SUPPORT THE NECESSARY FUNDING FOR STATE OFFICES TO PROVIDE DRIVER’S LICENSES UNDER THE “COLORADO ROAD AND COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT” In 2013, Colorado enacted SB 13-251, the “Colorado Road and Community Safety Act,” which allowed an estimated 150,000 undocumented Colorado residents, who cannot provide proof of legal presence in the United States, to apply for driver’s licenses and ID cards. When the program went into effect the state became the 10th in the country to license undocumented immigrants. Demand has been strong but has been met with long waits and limited D.M.V. appointments. The city believes that licensing immigrants makes the roads safer by educating drivers and making them likelier to carry insurance and supports efforts to provide the necessary funding to allow state offices to meet demand. 24. FURTHER THE RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF THEIR ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER VARIANCE STATUS Consistent with the city’s long history of support for the equal rights of all people regardless of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender variance status, the city supports legislation that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections that ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit and the jury system. 25. ALLOW MUNICIPALITIES TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN MINIMUM WAGE LAWS HIGHER THAN THE STATE OR FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE In 2016 Colorado voted to increase the state minimum wage to $12 by 2020, and yet in many parts of Colorado this increase will be inadequate for families to meet their basic needs. Local governments need the authority to address wage issues at the local level, in a manner that reflects the local self-sufficiency standard and cost of living. Increasing the minimum wage is an option that the city supports to address wage stagnation for Colorado’s low- income workers. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 150 of 553 24 Attachment A 26. OPPOSE FURTHER CUTS OR POLICY CHANGES TO STATE AND FEDERALLY FUNDED HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAMS THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ACCESSIBILITY, AVAILABILITY, OR COST OF BASIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE NEEDS In recent years, the state and federal government made drastic cuts to services that help provide a safety net to thousands of city residents. This includes services to low-income residents, children and families, and older adults. The city urges Congress and the General Assembly to expand resources for those essential services that serve the city’s most vulnerable, including child care assistance, access to affordable health care, mental health and addiction services, and food assistance. 27. SUPPORT CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM THAT INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, SENTENCING AND BOND REFORM, MENTAL HEALTH CARE, ADDICTION RECOVERY AND DISMANTLING OF INSTITUTIONAL AND SYSTEMATIC BIASIS Prison populations at both the state and federal level continue to grow to record levels. Mass incarceration has a disproportionate impact on communities of color, particularly African American males who are significantly over-represented in prison populations. Much of the prison population is driven by a hardline approach to drug crimes. The city supports initiatives that emphasize treatment over incarceration. Prisoners also need to be better integrated into the community upon release. Newly released individuals looking to change their lives face significant barriers to employment and housing. The city supports initiatives to support re-entry for released felons. Criminal behavior often can be the result of mental health conditions. Jails and prisons are not appropriate forums for treatment of mental illness. The city supports initiatives to provide better residential and out-patient treatment for the mentally ill. INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 27.28. PROTECT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SYSTEM The city’s self-insurance program is a cost-efficient method to provide workers’ compensation. The workers’ compensation system serves a dual purpose, providing benefits promptly to injured employees in a cost-effective manner and minimizing costly litigation. Consequently, the city will support legislation that improves the administrative efficiency of the State of Colorado’s Division of Workers’ Compensation. State intervention or taxation can negatively impact the city. Consequently, the city will oppose legislation that increases insurance premium costs to employers, adds administrative burdens or taxes to self-insurance programs, promotes litigation or removes existing off-sets to workers’ compensation benefits. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 151 of 553 25 Attachment A The city also opposes efforts to expand “presumptive disease” claims associated with workers’ compensation insurance. Presumptive disease claims are a change in the philosophy guiding workers’ compensation insurance. They presume an existing or previous employee obtained the disease from work associated with that person’s employer unless the employer can prove otherwise. In recent year, legislation has been passed that requires the employer to prove that an illness did not occur within the scope of employment. This is a particularly difficult proposition for employers as many diseases have a genetic component and cannot be definitively detected in baseline (time of hiring or imposition of new law) testing. These bills have led to significant increases in premiums for some employee classes. The city opposes any effort to further shift the burden of proof for workers’ compensation claims. 28.29. PROTECT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY The complexity and diversity of city operations and services required to meet the needs of the residents of Boulder may expose the city and its officers and employees to liability for damage and injury. City officers and employees must be confident that they have the city’s support in the lawful and proper performance of their assigned duties and responsibilities. Consequently, the city will support legislation that provides immunity to municipalities and their officers and employees in the lawful and proper performance of their duties and responsibilities and that discourages baseless and frivolous claims against the same. Conversely, the city will oppose legislation that expands or increases municipal liability or further limits municipal immunity beyond current law. 29.30. SUPPORT FIX OF SB18-200 WHICH ADDRESSED THE SOLVENCY OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (PERA) WHILE ACCIDENTALLY INCREASING CONTRIBUTIONS REQUIRED OF EMPLOYEES IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION SB18-200 was enacted as a comprehensive package of reforms designed to reduce the overall risk profile of the retirement plan and improve PERA’s funded status. The city supported this measure. However, during the last-minute negotiations of the measure, a drafting error occurred that resulted in an inadvertent application to the Local Governor Division of an across the board employee contribution increase starting in July 2019. The result is that LGD employees would have the same increase as all other employees on July 1, 2019 – an initial increase of 0.75%. This was an unnecessary increase given the divisions’ greater solvency and counter to an agreement between both the House and the Senate that it be spared from any increases in employer or employee contributions. The LGD would be on track for full funding in 28 years had the bill passed without these new contributions. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 152 of 553 26 Attachment A LOCAL CONTROL 30.31. OPPOSE THREATS TO LOCAL CONTROL AND HOME RULE AUTHORITY Several bills are introduced each session that threaten to erode local powers. As a general matter, the city believes that local problems need local solutions and that the current authority and powers of municipal governments to make decisions on matters related to land use, zoning, personnel, municipal courts, fees and sales tax, should not be further eroded. Legislation threatening local control, that does not further interests otherwise specified in this Legislative Agenda or recognized by City Council, will be opposed by the city. MUNICIPAL COURTS 31.32. FUND AND PROTECT THE MUNICIPAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS ABILITY TO COMBAT HOMELESSNESS In 2017, the City of Boulder approved a comprehensive Homelessness Strategy with a focus on long-term housing solutions, coordinated entry, assessment and placement based on individual needs into the system of services. A small percentage of Boulder’s homeless have frequent interactions with the city’s police department and municipal court, resulting in multiple tickets and arrests and a heavy burden on the city. The Boulder Police Department and Municipal Court have been very aware of the system of services available to help the homeless and have worked to build referrals and connections through the officers on the street, probation officers, and now the Homeless Outreach Team, Court Navigator and through the sentencing alternatives that have been traditionally provided by the court. The city supports state legislation that funds and facilitates such efforts. At the same time, the city opposes legislation that would diminish its local control and authority to address homelessness in the manner best suited for community needs. In recent years, legislation has been introduced aimed at protecting the homeless by, among other things, prohibiting local governments from banning camping in public spaces. These efforts, while well intentioned, are ineffective responses to the challenges presented by homelessness. If enacted, it would turn public property into residential areas without the proper facilities and ultimately make Boulder less safe and less desirable for everyone. Moreover, it would seriously undermine municipal home rule authority and basic principles of local control. Accordingly, the city will oppose this type of legislation if introduced again. In an effort to ensure that public property is available, welcoming and safe for all users, Boulder prohibits camping on public property. It does so while simultaneously working with partners across the county and region to coordinate and develop successful permanent solutions to homelessness, such as permanent and transitional housing programs, emergency and day shelter services, case management and assessment, landlord recruitment and regional housing placement for those who want to get off the streets. In all, the city spends over $7,000,000 per year to assist homeless people in Boulder; more than any other Front Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 153 of 553 27 Attachment A Range city on a per capita basis. If the state were to limit the city’s ability to ban camping in public spaces, the availability and public support for such funding would likely diminish as a result of the inevitable expenses associated with the litigation, monitoring, clean up and public health and safety concerns that would arise. 32.33. PRESERVE THE DISCRETION OF MUNICIPAL JUDGES TO IMPOSE MONETARY BONDING FOR OFFENSES IN INSTANCES OF PUBLIC SAFETY OR FLIGHT RISK Municipal court ordinance violations are deemed minor offenses. Currently, state legislation does not address bonds in municipal court cases. Legislation was unsuccessfully introduced last session that would have mandated personal recognizance bonds for municipal court defendants. Personal recognizance (PR) bonds allow a person to be released from jail based on their signature and promise to appear – no money need be posted. This makes sense in many situations where a person is arrested (rather than given a citation) on a new offense where there is no risk to public safety. However, where there is a risk to public safety, which is occasionally present in assault or weapons cases, personal recognizance bonds may not be appropriate. Further, problems arise when people fail to appear for court after receiving a ticket with a court date. This leads to the issuance of a warrant. If the person is released on a PR bond after being arrested on the warrant, there is no guarantee that s/he will appear for the new court date. For those that again fail to appear for court, a new warrant is issued, which leads to them getting arrested for a second time, and then getting another PR bond; the cycle can repeat itself many times over. Some of these people will not show up to court again since they know that not showing up means getting arrested and then released on a PR bond soon thereafter. This means that they are never held accountable for their allegedly criminal conduct, i.e., never having to either plead guilty or go to trial, and never having a consequence if appropriate. Accordingly, while the city may support a thoughtful and inclusive process to reform bail/bond, it will oppose legislation that limits the discretion of municipal judges to issue monetary bonds in cases involving a public safety or flight risk. NATURAL RESOURCES, WILDLIFE AND PARKS 33.34. PROTECT THE ABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE LAND TRUST COMMUNITY TO ACQUIRE AND PROTECT PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Colorado voters provided for a statewide lottery, and in a subsequent election adopted the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) amendment to the state constitution, which directs that lottery profits be used for parks, open space, wildlife, and outdoor recreation purposes. The city supports preservation of the current lottery distribution formula and will oppose legislation that would change that allocation or create new lottery scratch tickets for other purposes that would decrease demand for the existing lottery tickets. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 154 of 553 28 Attachment A 34.35. SUPPORT STATE LEGISLATION FURTHERING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY’S ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION EFFORTS, INCLUDING THE URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN AS WELL AS THE FOREST AND GRASSLAND ECOSYSTEM PLANS The Urban Wildlife Management Plan (UWMP) was developed to provide guidance on how Boulder’s urban areas will provide diverse, self-sustaining, native wildlife populations in a manner compatible with basic human needs, social and economic values and long-term ecological sustainability. The plan also seeks to reduce conflicts between humans and wildlife in the urban core. Management of the city’s lands outside of the urban core such as Open Space and Mountain Parks lands and utilities lands (Silver Lake Watershed, Boulder Reservoir) are covered by the plans of the appropriate managing department. Because of the network of nearby natural lands, its geographic setting at the intersection of the mountains and plains, Boulder’s urban areas are visited or inhabited by a wide range of wildlife species. Some species keep a low profile, present little or no conflict and go unnoticed by most urban residents. Other species are highly valued by the community, but most of these present little or no conflict with urban services or land uses. There are, however species that are valued by the community that do come into conflict with people. These include prairie dogs, black bear, mountain lions, Canada Geese and mule deer. The city is often attempting to simultaneously conserve these species in appropriate areas, while managing conflict where it occurs. There are sometime opportunities on a species-specific level to support state or federal legislation to complement our conservation and conflict management efforts. Examples include: support of funding for mosquito management to address state or federal public health issues/mandates; support for laws that encourage the evaluation of relocation opportunities for prairie dogs and modifications of laws to allow prairie dog relocation to willing landowners in other counties without commissioner approval; in cases where lethal control becomes necessary on land development sites, support of laws that encourage humane methods (e.g., restriction of anti-coagulant bait products that cause poisoning of pets and wildlife); and, modifications to in-stream flow legislation that would allow the city to retain the value of its water rights while simultaneously conserving native and sport fisheries. 35.36. SUPPORT RESTORATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CERTAIN PESTICIDE USES AND FOR ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR POLLINATORS, HUMAN HEALTH AND WATER QUALITY The Colorado Pesticide Applicators’ Act applies to pesticide applicators with the focus primarily on licensing of commercial pesticide applicators. The act is administered and enforced by the Colorado Department of Agriculture which also administers EPA rules and Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 155 of 553 29 Attachment A federal pesticide law in Colorado. Until 2006, when industry-backed legislation was enacted, the Act allowed local governments in Colorado wide discretion to enact pesticide regulations. Since 2006, however, local control to regulate almost all aspects of pesticide use has been preempted by state law. The 2006 legislation expanded state preemption for all pesticide users. The only exception is for the posting of notification of pesticide applications for non- commercial pesticide applicators. Given the city’s vested concerns in regaining some of its former authority to protect human health and the environment from the potential adverse effects of pesticides, the city will advocate for legislation that provides a more balanced perspective on pesticide use that considers recent studies concerning the human health and environmental impacts of pesticides. Specifically, it will support state protections concerning pesticide exposure that affects children, pollinators and water quality and restoration of the ability in specific situations for local governments to regain some authority to restrict pesticide use when immediate risk to human health or the environment cannot be addressed by the federal or state governments to adequately safeguard the public interest in a timely manner. The city will also support funding for increased education or research on alternatives to pesticides and programs that provide increased pesticide-free habitat, sustainable agriculture and preservation of biodiversity. Rapid decline of honeybees and other pollinators threatens the U.S. agricultural system and the functioning of general ecosystem services. Urgent regulatory action is needed at all levels of government. State restoration of local control would allow municipalities to address pollinator-specific concerns. The city also supports measures for pollinator protections at all levels of government, including federal legislation such as the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. 36.37. SUPPORT EFFORTS THAT PROTECT THE BOULDER COMMUNITY FROM WILDFIRE AND PROMOTE ECOLOGICAL FOREST HEALTH The city owns and manages 10,000 acres of forested open space and mountain parks land, almost all outside the boundaries of the city but immediately adjacent to residential areas. The health of these forests is critical to preventing catastrophic fires and to supporting biodiversity and creating resiliency. Historic fire suppression has led to overly dense forest conditions around Boulder that can have a direct impact on wildfire intensity and frequency, habitat function, water quality and recreational values. The city is dedicated to protecting these natural resource values by implementing vegetation management activities that improve the overall ecological health of our forests, decrease the risk of high intensity wildfires, maintain and improve habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants and protect public and private resources. Accordingly, the city will support federal and state legislation that promotes wildfire mitigation and forest restoration efforts in the wildland/urban interface. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 156 of 553 30 Attachment A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 37.38. SUPPORT SAFE USE AND COMMERCIAL REGULATION OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA The city will support or oppose legislation, as necessary, in furtherance of the following principles: a) Maintaining or creating new mechanisms to ensure marijuana is appropriately regulated so that only adults intentionally choosing to use marijuana are exposed to it, that such users receive a safe product in a well-run and compliant licensed premise, and that these substances are kept away from children. b) Maintaining a dual licensing system to allow both the state and local governments to issue and enforce licensing of commercial marijuana facilities. c) Allowing local governments to recover the full costs of any commercial licenses they choose to allow. d) Supporting efforts to remove legal and administrative barriers to standard business infrastructure for these businesses, such as banking and auditable records. e) Maintaining the creation of overall safety requirements, in consultation with the state, related to recreational marijuana while reserving to local governments specific abilities, but not mandate, to adopt additional requirements and monitor and enforce those rules. The city expects legislation to be introduced in 2019 to allow locations for public consumption of recreational marijuana. Consistent with the above stated principles, the city could support, or at least not oppose, such legislation so long as it requires a local license and does not impede on the city’s ability to make time, place, manner and location decisions. 38.39. PROMOTE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH ALCOHOL ABUSE IN THE GREATER COMMUNITY Boulder’s City Council adopted Resolution 960 on October 19, 2004, concerning alcohol abuse within the community. This resolution affirmed the city’s commitment to finding solutions to address the critical issues of health, safety and well-being stemming from alcohol abuse within the city. Since this time, Council has expressly stated its support for appropriate legislation that would: a) Require the sale of kegs containing alcohol to have a tag attached that would permit tracing of the purchaser; b) Require mandatory server training; c) Repeal the provision contained in C.R.S. Section 27-81-117 preventing municipalities from adopting public drunkenness ordinances; and, Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 157 of 553 31 Attachment A d) Permit municipalities to regulate licensees’ hours of alcohol service. The city will support appropriate legislation that furthers these goals. Conversely, the city will oppose any legislation that undermines these goals, including efforts which would eliminate the 25 percent food requirement for Hotel and Restaurant liquor licenses. 39.40. SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE The city supports the following specific measures to prevent gun violence: a) Universal background checks on all sales of firearms, including private sales. Current federal law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. Sometimes referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the sales excluded from the federal background check requirement include firearms sold at gun shows and through classified newspaper ads, the Internet and between individuals virtually anywhere. While criminal background checks are currently required for almost all firearm transfers in Colorado, there are states that do not have such laws. In order to ensure that guns are not placed in the hands of criminals in Colorado, a change to federal law is necessary. b) Providing family members or law enforcement a legal tool to raise a red flag and take away guns from someone in the midst of a mental health crisis while still protecting due process. c) Requiring a firearm owner to keep his or her firearm in a locked container or secured with a locking device if he or she lives with a person prohibited under state or federal law from possessing a firearm. d) Banning assault weapons and multi-burst trigger activators. e) Repealing state law purporting to limit local gun regulations. The city will oppose and of the following changes: a) Expanding the immunity given to homeowners if they shoot and kill intruders, also known as the “make my day” law, beyond personal residences. b) Limiting the state’s ability to regulate concealed weapons or local government’s ability to restrict possession of weapons in public facilities. The city will oppose federal legislation that would require Colorado to honor concealed carry permits granted by other states, even when those permit holders could not meet the standards required by Colorado law. Boulder also has concerns with regard to the open carrying of guns. While cities are prevented from restricting permitted holders of concealed weapons, Boulder wants to make sure it maintains the ability to prevent the open carrying of guns in its public facilities. The open carrying of weapons is alarming to many people and can create logistical issues for the police department. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 158 of 553 32 Attachment A 40.41. OPPOSE MANDATES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS The city supports preserving the option for its police officers to enforce federal laws, including federal immigration laws. However, it will vigorously oppose any state or federal legislation that mandates that its police enforce federal immigration laws, especially if they are unfunded mandates or are likely to result in enforcement officers engaging in racial profiling or discrimination based on race, ethnicity or national origin. 41.42. OPPOSE INFRINGEMENTS ON EMPLOYMENT AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS MADE BY MUNICIPAL POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS Employees of the city’s fire and police departments are part of collective bargaining units. As part of those units, they have the right to negotiate the terms of their employment. The city opposes any state or federal law that would mandate municipalities to collectively bargain with public safety employee labor unions over wages, benefits or working conditions, under one-size-fits-all rules. 42.43. OPPOSE IMPOSITION OF ONEROUS INFORMATION GATHERING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE REQUIREMENTS COME WITH SUBSTANTIAL COSTS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE FUNDING An example of a reporting requirement that has been imposed on local law enforcement agencies in the past is the state law requiring the arrest of undocumented immigrants to be reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 43.44. INCREASE THE FINANCIAL THRESHOLD OF PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT TRIGGERS A POLICE INVESTIGATION OF NON- INJURY TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS It takes very little damage to a vehicle to reach the current threshold of $1,000. While the city’s police department currently responds to most accidents, increasing the damage threshold will provide greater flexibility and more local control over the use of police resources. 44.45. OPPOSE LIMITATIONS ON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO OPERATE RED LIGHT OR PHOTO RADAR CAMERAS TO ENFORCE TRAFFIC SAFETY Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 159 of 553 33 Attachment A Boulder is one of nine cities in Colorado that use photo enforcement to enhance the safety of its streets. The red-light locations in Boulder were carefully selected due to a historic rate of higher accidents over other locations. Use of photo enforcement at these red-light locations has yielded significant safety benefits and reduced red light running accidents by 68 percent. Moreover, fewer and fewer red-light tickets are issued at these locations each year due to increased compliance. Removal of these cameras could result in accident rates and non- compliance returning to pre-enforcement levels. Quantifying photo speed enforcement success is somewhat more difficult. It is implemented per strict state statute requirements that limit where it can be placed. It enables the city to enforce speed limits in neighborhood locations that do not have a high enough volume of traffic to justify deployment of officers. It is particularly effective in school zones. One conclusion that can be made is that photo speed enforcement has enhanced the safety of neighborhood streets and school zones by reducing speeding. Between 1998, when Boulder first introduced photo enforcement, and 2016, fines associated with violations of the city’s photo enforcement program and red-light violations generated $21,606,061 in revenue at a direct cost to the city of $19,475,935. When soft costs of overseeing the program are factored in, the costs of running the program essentially run even to the revenue it generates. The true cost associated with motorists running red lights and speeding through neighborhoods is not captured in the financial information provided above. It is best quantified in the cost to our community associated with the personal injury and property damage from motorists speeding and running red lights. Recent studies have shown that the average red-light camera location in the U.S. results in $38,000 a year in reduced societal costs, not to mention the number of lives and grief saved from fewer right-angle crashes. For Boulder, with our eight (8) red light running cameras, this results in $304,000 in societal cost saved annually. For these reasons, the city will oppose any legislation that would prohibit or unreasonably further restrict the rights of local governments to use red light cameras or photo radar enforcement. ROCKY FLATS 46.SUPPORT CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT, AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR MONITORING AND LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP OF BOTH THE ROCKY FLATS’ CENTRAL OPERABLE UNIT AND THE ROCKY FLATS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 160 of 553 34 Attachment A In February of 2006, the Rocky Flats Stewardship Council (RFSC) was formed to focus on the post-closure management of Rocky Flats, the former nuclear weapons plant south of Boulder. Cleanup was completed in 2005, and federal management was divided between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Ongoing monitoring of the cleanup remedies and groundwater remediation by DOE continues. The city’s supports the following: a) Legacy Management Funding: DOE’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) must be fully funded. LM is charged with conducting ongoing monitoring and maintenance, critical steps to ensuring the $7.5 billion cleanup remains protective of human health and the environment. The city is particularly interested in ensuring continued robust monitoring by DOE for potential surface and subsurface migration of radioactive contaminants, toxic metals, and volatile organic compounds. As needed, funding must be available for additional monitoring and sampling above today’s baseline. b) Refuge Funding: USFWS’ Rocky Flats program, which is charged with managing the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, must be fully funded. The Refuge is a critical, central piece of land in over approximately 80,000 acres of publicly owned, permanently conserved land. The city strongly supports continued community dialogue that promotes landscape and collaborative species conservation in the Refuge. c) RFSC Funding: The city strongly supports ongoing DOE funding for RFSC. RFSC provides critical local government and community oversight of Rocky Flats and helps ensure community confidence in the ongoing protectiveness of the cleanup remedies. d) Land Management: The city remains strongly supportive of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001, the federal legislation designating Rocky Flats as a national wildlife refuge. Among other requirements, the Refuge Act protects Rocky Flats for its abundant natural resources, while allowing community members at their choosing to recreate on portions of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge Act also ensures continued federal ownership and ongoing federal management of the historic Rocky Flats site. e) Federal Responsibilities: The city supports maintaining in perpetuity the current boundaries between the DOE-managed lands and the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The DOE lands, called the Central Operable Unit (COU), include the former nuclear weapons manufacturing areas, two landfills, settling ponds, groundwater treatment systems, and water monitoring systems. Maintaining these boundaries helps ensure that the COU, the area of greatest historic contamination, remains separate from the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. f) Federal Minerals—Retirement: In the 1950s and in recent years, the federal government has acquired for fair market value various minerals underlying Rocky Flats. Acquisition does not de facto mean that the federal minerals cannot be Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 161 of 553 35 Attachment A developed. Accordingly, as provided for under federal law, Congress must pass legislation authorizing DOE to retire its minerals, thereby ensuring they can never be developed. g) Federal Minerals—Acquisition: The “Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Act of 2005” authorized DOE to acquire “essential minerals.” The November 2018 filing with the COGCC by Highlands Natural Resource Corporation to develop oil and gas resources under the COU and Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge brings to light that with new technologies not all of the essential minerals were acquired, thereby leaving Rocky Flats susceptible to future development activities. Congress must provide additional funding for acquisition of essential minerals. h) Regional Trails: It remains imperative that the development of the Rocky Mountain Greenway comply with all applicable federal and state health and environmental standards. 45.SUPPORT FUNDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN ORDER TO MANAGE ROCKY FLATS AS A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WITH THE APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS IN PLACE FOR LONG TERM STEWARDSHIP In February of 2006, the Rocky Flats Stewardship Council (RFSC) was formed to focus on the post-closure management of Rocky Flats, the former nuclear weapons plant southwest of Boulder. As a member of RFSC, the city is very supportive of the 2001 federal legislation (Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001) that designated Rocky Flats as a national wildlife refuge site as well as the requirement that long-term liability, ownership and management of the site remain with the federal government. The city supports ongoing authorization and funding for the RFSC to work on coordinating related regional open space and conservation efforts. TAX POLICY 46.47. SUPPORT STATE ACTION TO PRESERVE AND EXPAND THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO AUDIT AND COLLECT TAXES AND TO ISSUE SALES TAX LICENSES This summer the Supreme Court, in South Dakota v. Wayfair, struck down the requirement that a retailer have a physical presence in a state in order to be required to collect and remit sales tax. Since then, the Colorado Department of Revenue has announced a requirement for out-of-state retailer who do business in Colorado to obtain a state sales tax license. These two decisions have created the opportunity for Colorado municipalities to also collect sales taxes for such sales. If any legislation proves necessary to facilitate the abilities of local governments to collect these taxes, the city will support it. Appropriate limitations on this Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 162 of 553 Attachment A authority might include exemptions for small businesses, centralized collection of taxes on non-nexus sales and adoption of a common tax base for non-nexus sales. However, the city will not support changes which would allow the state to collect and remit tax revenues on non-nexus sales based on anything other than each municipality’s individual sales tax rate (e.g., the city opposes use of a blended tax rate) or which would dictate the tax base or assume authority to collect revenues on local nexus sales which the city already has the authority to tax and collect. Beyond this, the city has an interest in legislation that may result from the General Assembly’s creation of a Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force which has met for one year and will meet for two more and submit annual reports to the legislature each November. The Task Force is expected to address matters related to definitions, exemptions, collection and auditing, all with the eye toward increasing uniformity and thus reducing the burden on businesses. The city will closely monitor its work and will support and help inform the development of reasonable recommendations, such as the principle that any changes should allow cities to remain revenue neutral in terms of the revenue they already collect or the proposal (already on the table) to require cities to adopt most of the standard definitions developed by tax administrators around the state. Boulder adopted these standards in 2018. However, the city has significant concerns with several of the other ideas likely to be considered by the Task Force, including: a) Single point of tax collection - Invariably taxpayers file returns with errors or send payments in without any returns. As a result, the city has to conduct research to resolve these issues. If there was a single point of collection, the city’s ability to conduct follow-up could disappear and not be replaced by an adequately-staffed or motivated entity. Moreover, a single point of collection could remove the checks and balances that currently exists. Currently if a taxpayer sends their Boulder sales tax to the Department of Revenue (DOR), DOR deposits the check and calls it good. If Boulder gets a check for state taxes, we send it back to the taxpayer. For the city to get the money from the DOR it must assess the taxpayer and the taxpayer has to file a refund to get their money back from the DOR. In a single point of collection, it is not clear who would be looking out for Boulder’s interest. b) Single point for licensing - This is complicated because each municipality has their own zoning laws and thus unique criteria for determining when such licenses should be approved. Licensing businesses is already difficult, and it is hard to believe that a centralized entity, with less experience and connection to the community, could do it more effectively. Of particular concern is the nexus to the city’s liquor and marijuana licensing, which we certainly would not want to yield to an outside entity. c) Centralized Auditing - The city currently conducts approximately 70 to 80 audits per year, yielding revenues between two to four million dollars annually. Centralized auditing could result in a loss of at least that much revenue. By way of example of how difficult centralization would be, it is worth considering that the city already allows a “Coordinated Audit” by taxpayers licensed in the city and holding a similar 36 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 163 of 553 37 Attachment A sales tax license in at least four other Colorado municipalities that administer their own sales tax collection. These audits are almost never requested, partly because it is difficult to find anyone with experience to audit different municipalities each with different laws. For this reason, the city is likely to oppose or at least heavily scrutinize recommendations to centralize tax collection, licensing or auditing. 47.48. PRESERVE THE MUNICIPAL BOND FEDERAL INCOME TAX EXEMPTION Municipal bonds are the primary way local governments finance infrastructure and have been for over a century. Eliminating the tax exemption would increase the cost to taxpayers for schools, water treatment facilities, libraries, bridges, and many other public projects. The exemption benefits all Americans. It is not a special interest loophole and should not be treated as such. Boulder has used both tax exempt and taxable bonds or long-term leases. Tax exempt financial instruments are used when the project will be for public purposes and taxable instruments are used if there will be private benefit from the financial transaction. Consequently, the benefit of tax-exempt financing accrues directly to the city’s tax or rate payers. Currently, the city has approximately $180 million outstanding in tax exempt bonds. Of this, $116 million have been issued for water, sewer and flood improvements. The rest are for general governmental purposes. If the ability to sell tax-exempt bonds was eliminated the city would have to pay an average of over $800,000 per year in additional interest income, or $16 million over the 20-year life of the outstanding bonds rather than continue to channel these savings to pay for other city operating costs. It would also result in the annual interest rates for our water utilities going up one to two percent, with the lost savings coming at the expense of paying for general services such as paying the salaries of police and fire protection personnel and the purchase and replacement of vehicles associated with the position. TELECOMMUNICATIONS 48.49. EXPAND OR PRESERVE THE AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES TO PROVIDE BROADBAND SERVICES SUCH AS CITY-WIDE FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISE NETWORKS The provision of broadband access to ensure every member of the Boulder community has effective access to educational, healthcare and city resources and engagement opportunities is a core service that government must ensure in today's society. Utilizing existing city infrastructure or expanding that infrastructure and making it available for new internet Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 164 of 553 38 Attachment A service providers, be they public or private, can create the necessary competition to bring low‐cost, high-speed access to our residents, regardless of economic status. The authorities that exist to provide these options should not be diminished, including the option to allow a publicly-supported utility to receive the advantages that any other public program or service may receive, including taxpayer funding, expedited permitting or exemption from taxes. TRANSPORTATION 49.50. SUPPORT NEW TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FOR PROJECTS THAT MAINTAIN EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT ARE MULTIMODAL IN DESIGN The city and the entire Denver metropolitan area need new funding to maintain existing infrastructure and transit services, for multi-modal transportation improvements related to roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, carpool/vanpool and for travel demand management activities that would increase the efficiency of the existing system. There is a critical need for federal and state funds to ensure completion of the US 36 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, including funding to acquire the best vehicles and BRT amenities possible and first and final mile connections to that corridor. Funding is also necessary for implementation of the recommendations of the Northwest Area Mobility Study (NAMS); specifically, North I-25 bi- directional HOV/Transit lanes and development of an arterial BRT system, including managed lanes, and commuter bikeways, along SH119, US287, 120th Ave, South Boulder Road, Arapahoe/SH7, and SH 42, as well as Broadway/SH93 and 28th Street/US 36 to support local and regional transit. The city supports the following approaches to increase transportation funding, to ensure appropriate allocation of existing funds and to promote effective decisions by transportation- funding bodies: a) Turning to The city supports turning to funding sources that are tied to transportation use, including vehicle registration, car rentals, gasoline consumption or vehicle miles traveled. b) Codifying This city also supports statutory codification of CDOT’s Policy Directive 1603.0 which requires that managed lanes be strongly considered during the planning and development of capacity improvements on state highways. Any significant new lane capacity built with state funds should be required to be managed. Managed lanes should result in regulation of demand to ensure choices for the traveler beyond the single occupancy vehicle by providing for the option of travel by bus and free or discounted access to high occupancy vehicles (“HOVs”), as well as allowing pricing to help manage corridor performance, such as dynamic, variable-priced tolls linked to congestion. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 165 of 553 39 Attachment A c) Turning to Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are often essential to identifying funding to construct managed lanes when necessary and when agreements are appropriately structured. The city would support legislation to require all PPPs for managed lanes to undergo a transparent approval process and to demonstrate maximization in the transportation of people (not just vehicles); reinvestment of at least a portion of toll operating revenues into the corridor for continued improvements; and prioritization of travel choices with a portion of toll revenues supporting transit and/or travel demand management, in order to maximize the value of the transportation investment and to ensure that lower-income residents benefit from the public investment in a toll road. The city would support legislation that would prohibit the use of so called “non-compete” clauses which are sometimes included in PPPs to preclude maintenance of, or improvements to, existing roads (e.g., Highway 93) to increase travel demand on new tolled lanes. d) Allocating The city believes that new or existing funding should be used for regional priorities as determined by the area Metropolitan Organization (MPO), or, where no MPO exists, by the local Transportation Planning Region (TPR) where the improvements are supported by the affected local governments. The city also believes that state legislation should require MPOs and TPRs to model projects for their expected contribution to greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled and to prioritize those projects that reduce both. e) Ensuring that The city’s support for new funding streams result in is dependent on ensuring that a significant share of such new funding (25% or greater) be directed to municipalities for local transportation needs and priorities and that an even greater percentage (33% was agreed to as part of earlier MPACT 64 statewide effort) of the remaining state share of new funding be directed to operational and capital transit, bike and pedestrian needs. f) Reforming the governance boards of both the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Regional Transportation District, so as to promote increased effectiveness and efficiency in operations and decision-making. This could include changing the district lines to ensure more equitable representation of the metropolitan region. 50.51. SUPPORT POLICIES AND FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT WOULD INCREASE AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION ACCESS FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, INCLUDING YOUTH, OLDER ADULTS, THOSE WITH LOWER INCOME AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 166 of 553 40 Attachment A 51.52. PROMOTE LEGISLATION THAT ENCOURAGES “COMPLETE STREETS” THAT ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE USING ALL MODES OF TRAVEL The city supports legislation that furthers the concept of “Complete Streets” where modes are interconnected, and a complete set of options are made available to improve efficiency and mobility for all. The city also supports legislation that promotes sustainable transportation solutions recognizing energy sources, impacts of vehicle miles traveled, connections to land use, urban design, and increased accessibility for all. 52.53. OPPOSE LIMITATIONS ON THE CITY’S ABILITY TO REGULATE VEHICLE USE ON SIDEWALKS, MULTI-USE PATHWAYS, AND BIKE LANES, OR THAT REQUIRES THE CITY TO ALTER ITS CURRENT CODE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CURRENT POLICY ON ALLOWED USES OF THOSE FACILITIES The city’s current ordinances prohibit the use of Segways or motorized “toy vehicles” such as electric scooters, electric skateboards or mini bikes on sidewalks, multi-use paths or bike lanes. City-initiated changes to such policies would best be informed by a public process where input from the various sidewalk, multi-use path, and trail users could be solicited and evaluated. The city opposes changes to state law that would require the city to change its policy or force an unnecessary and potentially controversial re-evaluation of its policy. 53.54. OPPOSE TRANSFERRING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REGIONAL HIGHWAYS FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS In past years, the Colorado General Assembly has been asked to consider legislation that would lead to the unilateral transfer to local governments of state highways. Boulder has several state highways that would be subject to such “devolution,” including U.S. 36 and Highways 93, 7 and 119. The city believes that, absent local government decisions to the contrary, these types of regional highways, which service multiple communities and counties, need to remain the responsibility of the state government. 54.55. SUPPORT FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS AND NEW FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS IMPACTS OF TRAIN HORN NOISE AND SUPPORT CREATION OF QUIET ZONES The city supports more flexible and affordable options that work within the context of the local communities and support the safety goals of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as well as the sustainability goals of EPA, HUD, DOT (FTA & FHWA). Addressing train Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 167 of 553 Attachment A horn noise and quiet zones is important to achieve local, regional and national goals for multimodal transportation options, safety, housing, jobs and the environment. Opportunities to amend the FRA train horn rules and quiet zone requirements, as well as identify funding sources for implementation, can address existing community concerns caused by train horn noise and support transportation options and mixed use, transit-oriented development areas within the core areas of the city and other communities located along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad corridor. 55.56. SUPPORT STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT ENCOURAGES CONNECTED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE DEPLOYMENT IN FURTHERANCE OF BOULDER’S SUSTAINABILITY GOALS WHILE RETAINING LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY-SPECIFIC POLICY OBJECTIVES THAT CANNOT OTHERWISE BE MET A range of connected and autonomous vehicles are expected to soon be available to the public. While this raises the prospect for new and exciting mobility options, it also means that once these vehicles become commonplace, they will dramatically transform every aspect of livability in the communities in which they are driven – for better or for worse. While AVs bring the possibility of improved safety, reduced congestion, reduced parking demand and a route to faster adoption of electric vehicles, recent studies have suggested that these benefits could be undermined by widespread individual ownership of AVs and dramatic increases in vehicle miles travelled. While Boulder has a long history of planning and establishing community goals and objectives, it is only in the very early stages of evaluating how to plan for and manage this breakthrough technology. At the same time, legislation is already being considered at the state and federal levels that will set in motion a series of decisions that will difficult to later revisit. Unfortunately, these bills are being shaped almost exclusively by the future manufacturers and commercial users of these vehicles. It is essential that local government voices influence these discussions. Boulder will take a lead role in advocating for legislation that encourages the deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles in Colorado while simultaneously insisting that such deployment promotes clean-fueled and safe vehicles that do not sacrifice the safety of other modes of travel, that are shared and accessible and that lead to a decrease in parking demand and vehicle miles driven when compared to conventional vehicles. Moreover, the city will support legislation requiring data sharing between local governments and autonomous vehicle companies in an aggregated and anonymized format that protects consumer privacy and safeguards competitive concerns. Whether the data is shared directly or through a third- party intermediary platform, its sharing is necessary so that local governments can safely integrate these vehicles onto their roadways. Conversely, the city will oppose legislation that either does not further these goals or that denies local government regulatory authority to pursue these goals on its own. 41 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 168 of 553 Attachment A 56.57. SUPPORT MEASURES THAT FURTHER THE CITY’S TRAVEL VISION ZERO SAFETY OBJECTIVE The city’s Vision Zero policy and travel safety objective aims to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic collisions. It reflects a national and worldwide approach to innovate and use a data driven, interdisciplinary approach to improving safety for people using all forms of transportation throughout the community. The city would support state or federal legislation in furtherance of this objective such as: a) increased penalties for impaired or distracted driving, especially when it results in the death of a vulnerable road user (e.g., SB18-140 defined this term to include pedestrians & bicyclists); b) prohibiting use while driving of mobile electronic devices unless through a hands-free device (e.g., as was proposed by SB18-049); or c) a requirement for mobile phone manufacturers or carriers to offer technologies that reduce their inappropriate use while driving. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO 57.58. SUPPORT A RENEWED COMMITMENT BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO FUND THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AND ITS CAPITAL PROGRAMS The City of Boulder has been the proud home to the flagship campus of the University of Colorado (CU) since 1876. CU Boulder brings to the city the Colorado Shakespeare Festival, the Conference on World Affairs, the CU Concerts and Artist Series, CU on the Weekends, Science Discovery camps, access to libraries, museums, athletic events, noncredit courses, and numerous other social and cultural offerings, all of which significantly contribute to the city’s vibrancy. Furthermore, CU Boulder directly employed 17,630 people in fiscal year (FY) 2016-17, 8,959 of whom were non-students (including temporary workers) earning average salaries of approximately $73,000. Nonstudent employment at CU Boulder accounted for nearly 5.1% of total employment in Boulder County in 2016, and average salaries are nearly 18% above the county average.” The CU Boulder FY 2016-17 budget is $1.59 billion, and the FY 2017-18 budget is $1.69 billion. The University is not only a local institution, but much of the supply chain is also inherently local since the primary services delivered include classroom instruction and research. Additional investments in the local economy include operations, construction, student spending and visitation. Through research, teaching, operations, construction, student spending, and visitation, the University of Colorado is an economic driver in Boulder County, contributing nearly $2.6 billion in local economic activity driven off direct expenditures in the Boulder MSA in FY 42 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 169 of 553 Attachment A 2016. University funding is largely nonlocal, thus leveraging outside investment for the local economy. The presence of CU’s research facilities and the highly skilled labor force that CU produces, have attracted major federal facilities, satellite institutions, and major private firms to the city. Yet, as reflected in the above graph state funding for CU Boulder has seen more than a 44 percent decline in state funding for resident students since FY 2001. Considering the extraordinary importance of CU to the city, the city will support state and federal legislation that provides a renewed attention to funding CU, its capital programs (facing a deferred maintenance backlog of approximately $655 million as of July 2017), and particularly legislation that helps preserve the flagship status of CU Boulder. WATER 58.59. PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT UTILIZATION AND CONSERVATION OF WATER, AND PRESERVATION OF WATER QUALITY Boulder is on the forefront of support for municipal water conservation, efficient utilization of water, and preservation and improvement of water quality. Boulder uses a water budget rate structure to reward the efficient use of water and penalize wasteful practices. Boulder has adopted water conservation goals for build-out that will help meet the city's adopted 43 Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 170 of 553 44 Attachment A reliability criteria for municipal water supplies without significant new water acquisitions when fully using water sources already owned by the city. Water conservation can be an important public outreach and educational tool and can help to maximize reservoir storage levels and water use reductions needed during drought periods for municipal water service. Although the first priority for conserved water is drought protection and the extent to which the city can direct conserved water to any particular use is limited, when reservoirs are full, some conserved water can be provided for non-permanent uses such as annual agricultural leasing or instream flow enhancement. Accordingly, Boulder will support legislation that promotes water conservation, instream flow enhancement and the efficient utilization of water when such legislation is structured to also be protective of the city’s water rights. By way of example, the city would support legislation that would phase in a requirement that new indoor water fixtures (including toilets, urinals, showers and faucets) sold in Colorado meet reduced flush volume requirements consistent with the US Environmental Protection Agencies WaterSense guidelines, provided that the legislation would not mandate retrofitting nor require local governments to assure compliance. Water quality is critical to the city’s water supplies and municipal water system, and as such, Boulder will support legislation that promotes the preservation of water quality in a manner that is not unduly burdensome on the operation of the municipal water system. 59.60. OPPOSE SIGNIFICANT THREATS TO THE CITY’S WATER RIGHTS In prior years, Boulder has lost thousands of acre-feet of the city’s water, mainly water attributable to storage rights in mountain reservoirs, due to the inadequate replacement of depletions associated with junior water rights on the South Platte River. Loss of this reservoir water increases Boulder’s risk of severe water shortage during drought years. In non-drought years, the city supports Boulder Creek basin farmers through annual leases of any water in excess of the city's short-term and long-term municipal needs. Un-augmented water use in the South Platte basin can result in a direct loss or injury to the city in terms of its firm yield drought supplies and would also decrease water for Boulder Creek farmers by reducing the city's leasable supplies. If other water users with junior water rights were to operate without proper augmentation and cause Boulder to need to permanently replace the water rights for 4,000 acre-feet of municipal water to protect the city against drought and any negative effects of climate change that might occur, it would cost $48,000,000 or more. Colorado Supreme Court decisions and state law require that junior water rights owners, including well owners, must file in water court for augmentation plans that require the replacement of depletions to prevent injury to other water rights prior to operating. To protect the yield of its existing water rights, Boulder has coordinated with other water users owning senior surface water rights, including many farmers and other municipalities, to participate in water court cases and monitor legislative actions regarding water rights. Many of the underlying disputes have been addressed. Nevertheless, some issues remain that may result in the General Assembly becoming the arena for water bills that attempt to incrementally adjust, or in many cases by-pass, the state constitution’s Prior Appropriation Doctrine. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 171 of 553 45 Attachment A Bills that may be introduced might include attempts to limit the amount of augmentation water that junior diverters are required to return to the river to less than their impact on more senior water rights or to replace the jurisdiction of water courts with state engineer authority such that decisions on the adequacy of augmentation plans would be less transparent and subject to political influence. The city is committed to the legal principle of maximum utilization of both surface water and groundwater and believes this can best be achieved through water court-approved augmentation plans rather than the political process. To the extent that future bills significantly threaten the city’s water rights, both municipal water supplies and water rights held for open space purposes, including but not limited to bills that attempt to shift responsibility for augmentation from junior water users to senior water rights owners, increase the reliability for junior water rights by decreasing reliability for senior water rights, or threaten the continued historical use of water and irrigation practices on open space properties, they will be opposed. Similarly, the city will oppose legislation that threatens the city’s water supply infrastructure, such as future bills that place undue burdens on the operation and/or maintenance of irrigation ditches. Item 3G - 2019 State and Federal Legislative Agenda City Council Meeting Page 172 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E 1. C onsideration of a motion to approve disposal of certain interests in C ity park land to allow realignment of an existing ditch to accommodate greater sustainability of a park amenity (Scott Carpenter Park pool), pursuant to C ity Charter Sec. 162, through two grants of permanent easement, and; 2. C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to execute documents conveying two easements across Scott Carpenter Park allowing proposed grantees to operate an irrigation ditch, including a) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 592 feet to the Smith and Goss Ditch and McC arty Ditch water users; and b) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 110 feet to University of C olorado, in substantially the same forms as presented in and generally depicted on Attachment A P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E 1. C onsideration of a motion to approve disposal of certain interests in C ity park land to allow realignment of an existing ditch to accommodate greater sustainability of a park amenity (Scott Carpenter Park pool), pursuant to C ity Charter Sec. 162, through two grants of permanent easement, and; 2. C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to execute documents conveying two easements across Scott Carpenter Park allowing proposed grantees to operate an irrigation ditch, including a) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 592 feet to the Smith and Goss Ditch and McC arty Ditch water users; and b) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 110 feet to University of C olorado, in substantially the same forms as presented in and generally depicted on Attachment A B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Request for easements at Scott Carpenter Park in order to move forward with the pool City Council Meeting Page 173 of 553 renovation. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 174 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to request city council authorization for two permanent easements in Scott Carpenter Park (SCP) for the Smith and Goss Ditch and McCarty Ditch water users, which include the University of Colorado (“University”). The combined Smith and Goss and McCarty irrigation ditch (“irrigation ditch”) runs underground through Scott Carpenter Park and needs to be relocated to accommodate the redevelopment of the SCP outdoor pool and avoid long-term Parks facility operations and maintenance complications (“Relocation”). AGENDA TITLE: 1.Consideration of a motion to approve disposal of certain interests in City park land to allow realignment of an existing ditch to accommodate greater sustainability of a park amenity (Scott Carpenter Park pool), pursuant to City Charter Sec. 162, through two grants of permanent easement, and; 2.Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to execute documents conveying two easements across Scott Carpenter Park allowing proposed grantees to operate an irrigation ditch, including a)the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 592 feet to the Smith and Goss Ditch and McCarty Ditch water users; and b)the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 110 feet to University of Colorado, in substantially the same forms as presented in and generally depicted on Attachment A. PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tom Carr, City Attorney Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities Yvette Bowden, Director of Parks and Recreation Doug Godfrey, Parks Planner Joanna Bloom, Water Resources Project Manager, Public Works Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 175 of 553 The University also desires to irrigate their East Campus property located east of SCP, with irrigation ditch water. Such irrigation will require that a new pipe be constructed from the existing irrigation ditch in SCP across 30th Street (“Extension”). Providing a mechanism for East Campus irrigation is part of a larger comprehensive agreement between the city and the ditch water users to address upstream flooding in the Goss Grove area. Both the Relocation and the Extension require that the city grant easements to ditch water users for maintenance and operation of the irrigation ditch. The proposed easements will not alter or change the current land uses and will not preclude the city from using areas within easements. Both the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning Boards unanimously recommended that council authorize the city manager to convey both easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – The existing irrigation runs underneath the bathhouse. If left in its present location, the existing irrigation ditch would run underneath the new pool and bathhouse and significantly complicate operation and maintenance of the redeveloped facilities. The Relocation will allow for easier maintenance access and eliminate the need for a disruption of regular pool operations should operational issues with the irrigation ditch arise. •Environmental - The proposed Extension would allow the University to irrigate East Campus, in whole or in part, with untreated irrigation ditch water and reduce or eliminate the need for irrigation with potable water. Opportunities for the city to irrigate SCP with irrigation ditch water may also be considered in the future. •Social – The Relocation of the irrigation ditch will accommodate SCP redevelopment, the aquatic features of which were identified as highly desirable by the community during concept plan development. The Extension is part of a larger cooperative effort between the University and the city to address unrelated but decades-long irrigation ditch flooding and maintenance issues upstream of SCP. Resolution to these issues will provide relief to Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: 1.As part of the Scott Carpenter Park redevelopment project, approve the disposal of interests in city park lands (Scott Carpenter Park) through a grant of permanent easements; and to 2.Authorize the city manager to execute documents conveying two easements across Scott Carpenter Park allowing proposed grantees to operate an irrigation ditch, including •the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 592 feet to the Smith and Goss Ditch and McCarty Ditch water users; and • the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 110 feet to University of Colorado, in substantially the same forms as presented in and generally depicted on Attachment A. Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 176 of 553 residents, businesses, and Naropa University in the vicinity of the Goss Grove neighborhood. OTHER IMPACTS Fiscal – The cost for the Relocation has been figured into the overall budget for SCP pool redevelopment project and is estimated to be $300,000. In November 2017, the Boulder community passed an extension of the Community, Culture, and Safety (CCS) tax that provided additional funds – above the approved Parks and Recreation Department Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – for the redevelopment project. The city is responsible for up to $5,000 of design and permitting costs related to the Extension as part of a larger, comprehensive agreement between the city and the ditch users. The total cost of the Extension construction will be covered by the University and will not require city funds. Staff time - Staff time for this project is included in the current work plan. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) made the following motion on October 22, 2018: Motion to approve the Park and Recreation Board’s recommendation to City Council concerning the conveyance of two permanent easements on City park land (Scott Carpenter Park), pursuant to City Charter Sec. 162, allowing the easement holders to access, use and operate those ditch portions, including: a) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 592 feet to the Smith and Goss Ditch and McCarty Ditch water users; and b) the conveyance of the permanent easement of approximately 110 feet to the University of Colorado, in substantially the same form and as generally depicted on as presented in Attachment A. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). A Planning Board made the following motion on November 15, 2018: Motion to recommend to City Council the disposal of two permanent easements on City park land (Scott Carpenter Park), pursuant to City Charter Sec. 162, including: a) the conveyance of a permanent easement of approximately 592 feet to the Smith and Goss Ditch and McCarty Ditch water users; and b)the conveyance of the permanent easement of approximately 110 feet to the University of Colorado, as generally depicted in Exhibit A. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC FEEDBACK Public Hearings were held during the PRAB meeting on October 22, 2018 and at the Planning Board meeting on November 15, 2018. No public comments were received. BACKGROUND The concept plan for the redevelopment of Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool (Attachment C) was approved by the PRAB in January 2017. The project includes renovations to the existing bathhouse Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 177 of 553 to meet current building codes and standards for accessibility as well as adding locker room space, family changing rooms, exterior bathrooms and concession space. The existing lap pool will be enlarged by four lanes and slides, a diving board, a lazy river and a splash pad will be added. The current location of the buried ditch underneath the pool is a significant constraint to the park renovation project and directly conflicts with features in the approved concept plan. To avoid these conflicts, the project proposes relocating approximately 530 linear feet of existing irrigation ditch north away from the pool to the southern portion of the ballfields. A 20-foot wide easement for operation and maintenance of the irrigation ditch would be associated with the Relocation (see Attachment B). Any disturbance to the baseball field will be mitigated and restored to acceptable playing conditions prior to the regular season of use. City staff began negotiating an agreement related to the Relocation in late 2017. During this process, the University expressed a desire to re-establish irrigation on the east side of 30th Street (“East Campus”) with ditch water, which would require construction of an Extension pipe (~110 feet) on the south side of the park requiring the Extension easement (see Attachment B). Also during agreement negotiations, a unique and collaborative opportunity arose to resolve decades- long irrigation ditch flooding issues upstream of SCP in the Goss Grove area. Maintenance responsibility for this portion of the ditch is ambiguous, and therefore the ditch pipe is in a state of disrepair and has a long history of flooding adjacent streets, sidewalks and properties. When such flooding occurs city maintenance crews are frequently called out for emergency repair because the ditch pipe is mistaken for a city water distribution pipe. An alternative route for McCarty water exists and can be achieved by modifying water diversions in Central Park through use of a relatively new pipe and cooperation between the University and irrigation ditch water users. City staff has been working to facilitate such cooperation through a comprehensive agreement that would meet the multiple objectives of the Relocation, the Extension and addressing the McCarty Ditch flooding. ANALYSIS The proposed redevelopment of SCP is consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use designation for the site. The site is designated as Park, Urban, and Other on the BVCP land use map. SCP provides recreation opportunities that are essential to continue to meet the needs of the community. SCP offers a wide variety of active and passive recreational opportunities for surrounding neighborhoods and the greater Boulder community. Recreation opportunities at SCP include a space-themed playground for ages 2 through 12, unprogrammed open turf fields, a skate park, a baseball field, and an aquatics facility. The park offers several amenities that are only found at SCP, such as the city’s only 50-meter pool and the only ‘major league’-sized ball field in the Parks and Recreation system. The University is in a unique position to play a positive role in addressing upstream irrigation ditch flooding issues through a reconfiguration of water diversions upstream of SCP. Cooperation on resolving the upstream flooding will benefit the city, businesses, residents, the University and the ditch water users. City support of the Extension will benefit the city by eliminating the decades long issues associated with McCarty Ditch flooding and thus eliminating a significant burden to Utilities Maintenance resources. Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 178 of 553 The conveyance of an easement is considered a disposal. Per City Charter Sec. 162, disposal of Parks property requires review and approval from PRAB, a non-binding recommendation from Planning Board and, per Section 2-2-8, “Conveyance of City Real Property Interests,” B.R.C. 1981, City Council approval is required for conveyance of any interest in any city real property. The disposals will not alter or change the current land uses and will not preclude the city from using areas within easements. Rather, the Relocation will reduce the potential for impacts to the park uses. The easements will allow water users regular operational access to the irrigation ditch and maintenance access in emergency situations should city staff not able to respond. The city is under no obligation to grant the easements. The Parks project could be redesigned to work around the existing ditch location and mitigate any operations and maintenance impacts. Likewise, the city does not have to approve the Extension easement and could continue to mitigate damage to city facilities related to irrigation ditch flooding in the Goss Grove neighborhood. Granting the easements would reduce ongoing Parks and facilities operations and maintenance costs. In the case of the Relocation easement, the deeded easement would replace the existing prescriptive easement and would effectively have no net impact on the park property. Granting the Extension easement would reaffirm a cooperative working relationship with the University on irrigation ditch matters, reduce a maintenance burden on city resources, and support an agreement that addresses persistent flooding that has previously been unresolvable. NEXT STEPS The City will only convey easements to the Ditch Water Users when the agreement is finalized, and construction of the Relocation and Extension are complete. Final easements will be approved by staff and CAO. The specific legal description for each easement will be based on as-builts following construction but will be substantially as depicted in Attachment A and as described in this memo. City staff will repeat the approval process if the easements represented in the existing exhibit changes substantially. ATTACHMENTS A: Form of Realignment and Extension easements B: Scott Carpenter Park Reconstruction Location map C: Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool Approved Concept Plan Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 179 of 553 Attachment A - Form of Realignment and Extension easements 1 GRANT OF DITCH EASEMENT CITY OF BOULDER, a municipal corporation (“Grantor”), whose address is 1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, for $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to the University of Colorado (“University”) and Miles S. King (collectively the Smith and Goss Ditch Water Users), and the University, the [McCarty water users] (collectively the McCarty Ditch Water Users), whose are located in the general vicinity of Cordry Court in the Aurora 7 neighborhood, Boulder, CO, a 20-foot wide easement for the installation, construction, operation, repair, maintenance, and reconstruction of an irrigation ditch and appurtenances thereto, together with all rights and privileges as are necessary or incidental to the reasonable and proper use of such easement, including access for ingress and egress, in and to, over, under, and across the following real property, situated in Boulder County, Colorado, See Exhibit A, attached Grantor, for itself and for its successors, agents, lessees, and assigns, does hereby covenant and agree that no permanent structure or improvement shall be placed on said easement by itself or its successors or assigns, and that said use of such easement shall not otherwise be obstructed or interfered with. Grantor warrants its ability to grant and convey this easement. The terms of this easement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Grantor, its agents, lessees and assigns, and all other successors to it in interest and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the property described above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be duly executed as of this day of ______________________, 20___. GRANTOR: CITY OF BOULDER a municipal corporation By:___________________________________ Jane S. Brautigam City Manager [NOTARY BLOCK FOLLOWS] Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 180 of 553 Attachment A - Form of Realignment and Extension easements 2 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ____________________, 20___, by Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager of City of Boulder. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: _________________ ____________________________ Notary Public Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 181 of 553 #################### # # # # # # # !!!!!!!!!!!!! Relocation Extension McCARTY BOULDER CREEKSources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity Scott CarpenterScott CarpenterParkPark CU EastCU EastCampusCampus Scott Carpenter Park Reconstruction Location Attachment B - 0 100 200 Feet ±# # #Relocation ! ! !Extension Extension Easement Item 3H- Scott Carpenter Easements City Council Meeting Page 182 of 553 OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN * Plans and drawings are conceptual only and represents general sizes and amenity options for prioritization. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” LEGEND POOL DECKPOOLSGRASS AREAILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATION SKETCH SCALE: NTS Amenity A - Building B - Lap Pool C - Family Elements D - Site Elements A B C D D D C EXISTING TREENEW TREEPROJECT GOALS MET Balance Lap Swimming Needs with Open Swim Availability -10 lane 50m converts to 21 lane,25yd lap swim with bulk headallowing for flexible useProvide Multi-Generational Amenities that are Multi-Use - Deep water exercise areas- Tower slide, climbing walls, logrolls- Lap swimming and openswimming alternativesUpgrade Existing Facilities - Renovations and additions to theexisting bathhouse toaccommodate locker rooms, poolequipment, and administrativefunctionsIllustrate Partnership Opportunities - Possible addition of 2 divingboards- Possible addition of retractableroofIncorporate Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Design - Plan allows for inclusion of avariety of sustainable andenvironmental designopportunities50 METER LAP POOL WITH BULK HEAD LAZY RIVER WITH NATURAL ROCK FEATURES SLIDE FROM BUILDING OPEN BREEZEWAY SHADE STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT CItem 3H- Scott Carpenter EasementsCity Council Meeting Page 183 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to disburse 4.6M for 2019 Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax funding allocations P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Matt Sundeen, C ommunity Programs Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to disburse 4.6M for 2019 Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax funding allocations AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 184 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Dec. 4, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This memorandum informs City Council of the 2019 Health Equity Fund (HEF) community funding allocations of $4,648,702 for 40 programs coordinated by a total of 31 agencies. The Health Equity Fund Advisory Committee (HEAC) completed funding deliberations and approved recommendations on Oct. 3. The city manager approved the recommendations on Nov. 20, 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – In 2019, the city will allocate nearly $5M for programmatic expenses to city and community agencies serving low-income Boulder AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a Motion to Authorize Disbursement of the 2019 Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax Funding Allocations PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services Matt Sundeen, Community Programs Manager Elizabeth Crowe, Health Equity Fund Program Manager Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to disburse $4,648,702 for 2019 Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax funding allocations. Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 185 of 553 residents. Funded agencies provide a range of health and wellness services, including health care, food distribution, physical fitness activities and wellness education to reduce health disparities. Services supported through the HEF can help residents avoid chronic diseases and associated health care expenses. These services also allow residents to use their limited resources for other purchased goods and services, which enhances economic mobility and community livability. • Social – The city will distribute Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax (SSB Tax) revenue through the HEF for non-profit programs to reduce health disparities and advance health equity. Residents served by agencies receiving HEF funding are primarily low-income, disproportionately impacted by consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, or otherwise experiencing health disparities. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal - Grant awards in 2019 for $4,648,702 will be distributed from the SSB Tax revenues collected in 2018. This funding is appropriated in the 2019 budget. • Staff time – Staff time to administer the HEF is appropriated in the 2019 budget. BACKGROUND On Nov. 8, 2016, City of Boulder voters approved Ballot Issue 2H, authorizing the city to impose an excise tax of up to two cents per ounce on the first distributor in any chain of distribution of drinks with added sugar and sweeteners used to produce such drinks. Boulder Revised Code Section 3-16-1 expresses the legislative intent for the use of tax revenues, some of which shall be used to offset the administrative cost of the tax, and thereafter for the following purposes: • Health promotion; • General wellness programs and chronic disease prevention in the city of Boulder that improve health equity, such as access to safe and clean drinking water, healthy foods, nutrition and food education, physical activity; and • Other health programs especially for residents with low income and those most affected by chronic disease linked to sugary drink consumption. The city distributes SSB revenue through the HEF. The city manager created the HEAC to provide input about funding priorities and strategies, review funding proposals to the HEF and make funding recommendations to the city manager. In 2017 the city manager appointed seven HEAC members to two-year terms. In 2018, the city manager appointed two additional members to strengthen representation from underserved populations on the committee. In August 2018 two members of the HEAC resigned due to conflicts of interest with 2019 fund round applications. The city manager appointed two members to fill those vacancies in September 2018. A list of the nine current HEAC members is included as Attachment A. 2017 and 2018 Fund Rounds The city began collecting the SSB tax on July 1, 2017. The city held two competitive fund rounds for use of 2017 and 2018 revenue. In 2017, the city awarded $950,052 for 16 community programs. Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 186 of 553 On February 20, 2018 the city approved a supplemental appropriation of $1.1M in SSB revenue collected in 2017 and $2.3M for anticipated revenue in 2018. With input from the HEAC, the city manager approved an additional $500,000 for the 2018 funding allocations for 10 programs that were already approved for funding in the 2018 fund round. In addition, in April 2018 the city manager approved HEAC recommendations for an additional $453,000 in off-cycle funding for three programs that provide unique services to city residents, in alignment with the SSB legislative intent and HEF criteria. In total, 2018 HEF allocations equaled $2,252,880. 2019 Fund Round RFP The city released a $5M RFP for the HEF 2019 fund round on June 26, 2018. Staff determined the $5M allocation amount by adding together the $3.8M approved for the 2019 budget and $3.4M in anticipated revenue carryover then subtracting anticipated expenses including fund award contract amendments, consultation expenses for evaluation, anticipated off-cycle funding requests and administrative costs. Staff budgeted conservatively for the $5M fund round allocation. The SSB tax is a new revenue source and when staff drafted the 2019 RFP the city had not yet experienced a full year collecting the tax. Additionally, staff were aware that voters would likely consider a ballot measure to address SSB tax revenue. Staff wanted to avoid over- committing funds in 2019 if the amount available in subsequent years might be dramatically less. The 2019 RFP defined health equity as “the absence of systematic health disparities based on socio-economic factors, and the ability of all residents to reach their full health potential, regardless of their life circumstances.” The RFP defined city residents experiencing health disparities, as: • Residents disproportionately impacted by diseases linked to sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption or disproportionately targeted by SSB marketing; • Residents who lack access to healthy food, safe water, quality health care, wellness information and health care services and systems; and • Populations systemically disenfranchised due to race, ethnicity, income, age, ability, sexual orientation or gender identification. The RFP identified five priority areas for funding. These included: 1. Chronic disease prevention through physical fitness, food and water security, or health and wellness education; 2. Physical, dental or behavioral health services; 3. Research or educational campaigns designed to identify, understand and address health disparities; 4. Systems integration or collaborative approaches that provide more coordinated, efficient and effective health services; or 5. Innovative programs to advance health equity. Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 187 of 553 Staff publicized the RFP through direct email and city website communication, a city press release and Channel 8 feature video, and a city newsletter article. Staff also held informational and technical assistance sessions in-person and with online webinars, to help potential applicants more effectively and efficiently utilize the application process. Fund Round Review Process and Allocations By the Aug. 11, 2018 application deadline, 39 agencies requested $6,426,816 in funding for 54 programs. Staff screened the applications based on RFP criteria and determined that all proposals met the minimum eligibility criteria. HEAC members reviewed funding applications and asked clarifying questions of applicants through an online grant management system. To evaluate proposals, HEAC members evaluated proposals based on criteria identified in the RFP. These included whether the program: • Benefits people most affected by, or at increased risk from chronic disease linked to sugary drink consumption, or who generally experience health disparities; • Aligns with a selected program priority; • Demonstrates sound research or evidence-based best practices; • Demonstrates strong and long-term evaluation of outcomes, or the potential for long-term evaluation, beyond pre- and post-test assessments; • Meaningfully engages at-risk community members in the design, implementation and/or evaluation of the proposed program; • Demonstrates strong collaboration and partnerships that move beyond informal relationships; • Demonstrates a cost-effective approach that benefits program participants, target populations or the community; • Demonstrates financial sustainability and organizational capacity beyond this funding cycle; and • Exhibits diverse funding sources. HEAC members also considered the applicant’s past performance, redundancy across proposals, the proposal’s fit with services provided by other agencies, the population served, health equity gaps in the community and other strategic city priorities. The committee considered whether specific line-item budget requests were eligible or appropriate for the HEF. The HEAC convened on Oct. 2-3 to discuss each application and make funding recommendations. HEAC members with conflicts of interest were excluded from discussing applications with which the conflicts existed. By consensus, the HEAC recommended: • 23 programs at the full funding request; • 17 programs for partial funding of the amount requested; and • 14 programs for no funding. Two broad factors affected the HEAC’s funding recommendations. These included: • The total amount of money available for the fund round compared to the total amount requested. The city received more than $6.4M in requests for an approved RFP budget of $5M. Although the committee recommended only $4.6M in funding allocations, the total requested amount prompted the HEAC to closely scrutinize Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 188 of 553 line items in proposed budgets and recommend cuts to proposals that failed to clearly meet RFP criteria. • Previous funding provided to the applicant through the HEF. The HEAC considered amounts awarded to the applicant in 2017 and 2018 when making recommendations for 2019. The committee did not want to award funding that was inconsistent with prior determinations. Several specific factors influenced the HEAC’s decision to not recommend 14 proposals for funding. These included: • The agency could not demonstrate the ability to recruit the target audience for this kind of program; • The proposal could not demonstrate a clear link between proposed activities and health equity; • The agency did not have enough bilingual staff to meaningfully reach and engage Latinx participants; • The proposed program duplicated services currently offered by other agencies and programs; • The proposal would improperly use city funds to advocate for city policy changes; • The agency lacked experience in addressing health or health equity issues in the community; • The agency already received significant city funding for its proposed program; and • The application lacked sufficient justification for the program. Several specific factors affected the HEAC’s decision to recommend partial funding for 17 programs. These included: • The anticipated costs in the applicant’s proposed budget were higher than seemed necessary to complete the program; • The committee did not think the program would be fully utilized; • The proposed evaluation plan was not well-defined; • The agency needed to demonstrate ability to fully execute deliverables; and • The proposal included requests for funding to serve non-residents or populations outside the target demographic for the fund. On Oct. 8, staff notified applicants about preliminary funding recommendations. Staff contacted applicants through emails and the grant management system to ensure agencies could easily access and retain the information. In the notification messages, staff explained the appeal process and offered to discuss with agencies their questions or concerns about the funding recommendations. Several agencies contacted staff for more information about funding decisions. No agencies submitted an appeal letter contesting their program funding recommendation. The city manager approved funding recommendations made by the HEAC on Nov. 20. Allocations The HEAC considered $6,426,816 in requests and made final recommendations totaling $4,648,702. Attachment B details the 2019 proposals and approved funding amounts. Tax revenue collected over the approved budget each year will be appropriated through budget adjustments. Unappropriated tax revenue from 2018 will be carried over to the 2019 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 189 of 553 budget and appropriated by council through the budget adjustment process. As tax revenue collections over time provide a better basis for future budget year projections, it is anticipated that the amount of unbudgeted revenue carried forward to future budget years will be minimized. To allocate any additional revenue appropriated for 2019, staff is recommending the following: • Allocate additional funding to 2019 fund round programs that met HEF criteria but were recommended for partial funding; • Off-cycle funding allocations for programs that meet HEF criteria, provide unique services for city residents, and address timely, urgent or previously unforeseen needs; • Consider funding options for capital projects with clear, measurable health equity outcomes in alignment with the HEF legislative intent; and • Carryover any remaining balance to the 2020 fund round. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council authorize the city manager to disburse $4,648,702 to agencies from the HEF. NEXT STEPS • Jan. 2019 - Contracts between the city and funded agencies negotiated and executed. • Jan. 2019 – Agencies funded in 2018 submit final reports. • Jan. 2019 - Agencies receive the first half of 2019 award. • July 2019 - Funded agencies submit a mid-year progress report on outcomes achieved. Contingent upon meeting year-end goals, agencies receive the second half of their 2019 award. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Current 2018 HEAC Members Attachment B – Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 190 of 553 Attachment A: Current 2018 HEAC Members Health Equity Advisory Committee Members and Term Dates As of September 20, 2018 Laura Bellows (2017-2019) Juliann Bertone (2018-2020) Charles Bond (2017-2019) Catherine Bryan (2017-2019) Eric Harker (2017-2019) Gisela Hernandez (2018-2020) Tracy Kirkland (2018-2020) Andrea Nawage (2018-2020) Carolyn Tabak (2017-2019) Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 191 of 553 Attachment B: Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations Agency Program Proposed Use of Funds 2018 Approved Funding 2019 Requested Funding 2019 Recommended Funding Attention Homes Move to Improve: Positive Health Outcomes for Chase House Youth Funding will support health and well-being activities including pro-social, exercise, healthy eating, gardening and nutrition classes, for homeless youth residents at the Chase House facility. No funding requested $15,000 $15,000 Audio Information Network of Colorado Boulder County AINC Funding will be used to create Spanish language MP3 player fitness class instructions, exercise and diet guidance, and personal success stories of weight loss and diabetes management for dissemination to sight-impaired or illiterate Latinx community members. No funding requested $70,773 $0 Boulder Community Health Opioid and Chronic Pain Response Program Funding will be used to reduce opioid use and addiction among city residents. Activities include education to health care providers on the dangers of opioid use and alternatives to opioids; coordinating a used needle drop program; and medication-assisted treatment, alternatives to opioids and substance abuse treatment. No funding requested $322,055 $322,055 Boulder County Area Agency on Aging Programa de Salud Funding will provide culturally-appropriate health education, diabetes monitoring, medication management and personal coaching for monolingual, low-income, Latinx older adult city residents. No funding requested $53,503 $0 Boulder County Farmers Market Farm to Early Care and Education Funding will provide Double Up Food Bucks incentives and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) vouchers, for use by low-income city residents to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, eggs and cheese at the farmers market. Funds will also support market staff providing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and WIC transactions, oversight and community outreach. $7,900 $52,700 $52,700 Boulder County Farmers Market Farmers Market Food Assistance Incentives Funding will provide child care centers serving Child Care Assistance Program families, with fresh produce from the farmers market, via Veggie Bucks and produce boxes. $136,156 $300,416 $300,416 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 192 of 553 Attachment B: Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations Boulder County Housing and Human Services Child Care Assistance Program Funding will provide direct child care subsidies for children ages 0 - 5 who are eligible for CCAP. $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 Boulder County Public Health Double Up Food Bucks Retail Funding will provide SNAP recipients with Double Up Food Bucks to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables at Whole Foods retail locations. $125,195 $254,649 $254,649 Boulder County Public Health Healthy Eating and Drinking From the Start Funding will support increased breastfeeding rates, healthy eating and access to healthy foods for low-income nursing mothers and their families. $47,696 $122,560 $122,560 Boulder County Public Health Healthy Environments for Healthy Kids Funding will support community education on the negative health impacts of sugary drinks served, coalition-building activities among restaurants, families and HEF fund recipients, and advocacy for a city policy requiring restaurants to offer healthy alternatives to sugary drinks for children. No funding requested $72,145 $0 Boulder County Public Health Maternal Child Coordinated Services Funding will provide a coordinated entry process for health and social referrals and services for low-income city families. Organizations will provide more efficient and effective services, and clients will experience improved health and social services. $56,000 $56,200 $56,200 Boulder County Public Health SNAP Gap/Produce Plus Funding will provide vouchers to low-income city residents who are ineligible for SNAP benefits, to purchase fruits and vegetables at city retail grocers and farmers markets. No funding requested $238,230 $238,230 Boulder Day Nursery Family Health and Resource Program Funding will provide health education, healthy meals and physical activities to children. No funding requested $125,000 $100,000 Boulder Ensemble Theater Company HealthInfo Planetarium Project Funding will be used for a health-focused theater production and educational display, based on narratives and stories from city residents experiencing health disparities, to increase knowledge and encourage healthy behaviors. No funding requested $121,669 $0 Boulder Food Rescue Community Based Participatory Research Project Funding will be used to publish and utilize a participatory research process to improve services and service evaluation, for organizations providing food to low-income city residents; and establish new, more inclusive avenues for client participation in food security programs. No funding requested $40,000 $0 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 193 of 553 Attachment B: Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations Boulder Food Rescue Food Redistribution Funding will be used to distribute fresh produce to low- income city residents, through activities including retail and individual food pick-up, mobile device and web applications to identify and manage food donors; and distribution to places that are convenient for clients. $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 Boulder Jewish Community Center Donation Garden at Milk & Honey Farm Funding will used to provide fresh produce from the JCC on-site farm, to food distribution agencies serving low- income city residents. No funding requested $9,923.75 $0 Boulder Parks and Recreation Mobile Youth and Family Services Initiative Funding will provide certified physical fitness trainers and mentors to low-income city youth, in the neighborhoods where they live, learn and play. $100,000 $418,457 $200,000 Boulder Parks and Recreation Recquity Pass Program Funding will fully-subsidize recreation center passes to low-income residents, and provide bilingual community liaisons to support residents and achieve program outcomes. No funding requested $299,190 $150,000 Boulder Parks and Recreation Foundation, Inc. PLAYpass Funding will provide access for low-income city youth, to fee-based physical activity programs; and health equity training for physical fitness service providers. $150,000 $339,400 $150,000 Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Health Equity Funding will be used to purchase fresh fruit, vegetarian and non-carbohydrate breakfast foods for daily consumption of shelter clients. No funding requested $26,000 $0 Boulder Valley School District Whittier International Elementary School Funding will be used to design school health policies and practices and coordinate healthy eating, health education and physical fitness activities for students. No funding requested $123,100 $68,100 Bridge to Justice Healthcare and Food Assistance Funding will be used to improve access for low-income residents to government health care, food and nutrition programs; and provide legal representation for benefit appeals. No funding requested $179,950 $179,950 Center for People with Disabilities Home Health Services Funding will be used to provide health and wellness information, guidance and in-home services to low-income residents experiencing physical and developmental disabilities. No funding requested $70,042 $66,042 Centro Amistad, El El Centro Amistad Funding will support community-based health education and wellness programs for low-income, Latinx city residents. $100,000 $206,420 $150,000 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 194 of 553 Attachment B: Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations Clinica Campesina Family Health Services Integrated Health Service Expansion and Enhancement Funding will provide direct health services, healthy living and healthy eating guidance, pharmacy services and health monitoring to low-income, at-risk city residents requiring primary health care or experiencing chronic diseases linked to sugar sweetened beverages. $99,588 $279,994 $279,994 Community Cycles Healthy Mobility for Low-Income Staff from CU Boulder Funding will provide bicycles, safety gear, commuter education to low-income University of Colorado-Boulder staff members who live in the city. No funding requested $7,950 $7,950 Community Cycles Healthy, Active Transportation for Children and Families: From Home to School Funding will provide bicycles, safety gear, repair services and equipment, and other biking services for low-income city youth and families living at four Boulder Housing Partners neighborhoods and nearby schools. No funding requested $85,000 $60,000 Community Cycles Kids Holiday Bike Giveaway Funding will provide bicycles and safety gear to low- income, Latinx and underserved city children; and bicycle repair, riding instruction, safety training, and bicycle maps and other materials to support active bicycling. $67,200 $86,200 $70,000 Community Food Share Inc Food Procurement and Food Distribution Program Funding will provide food, comprised primarily of fresh produce, healthy dairy and protein items, to low-income city residents. $66,085 $81,500 $81,500 Dental Aid, Inc. Reducing Children's Sugary Drink Consumption Funding will provide dental care and oral health education to low-income city residents. $98,428 $100,392 $100,392 Emergency Family Assistance Association Shelter and Basic Needs Funding will provide healthy food, nutrition counseling and other food access services to low-income city residents. $47,062 $115,477 $115,477 Family Learning Center Promoting Health and Fitness for Low- Income Families Funding will be used for fresh food distribution, healthy eating classes, and children and adult physical fitness activities for low-income and minority city residents. No funding requested $100,000 $72,000 FC Boulder 2019 Youth Scholarships Funds will provide scholarships to low-income city youth to participate in soccer teams; and staff administration and oversight of the scholarship program. No funding requested $83,982.80 $40,000 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 195 of 553 Attachment B: Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations FC Boulder Soccer for a Healthy Life - Mental Health and Wellness Funding will provide healthy lifestyle coaching and guidance services to low-income city youth and adults. Coaching to take place through group classes, and individual and family counseling. No funding requested $95,525 $0 FC Boulder Diversity in Outreach Ambassador Funding will be used to hire a part-time bilingual program ambassador, to identify and lower barriers to soccer, and increase soccer participation among low-income, Latinx residents. No funding requested $17,775 $17,775 FC Boulder Futsal Funding will be used to hold futsal sports events in diverse city neighborhoods, to increase physical activity among low-income, Latinx youth No funding requested $11,264 $0 FC Boulder Diversity in Coaching Funding will be used to recruit and train Latino city residents as soccer coaches, who will recruit and host free soccer clinics in lower-income city neighborhoods, and recruit additional low-income Latinx soccer players. No funding requested $74,735 $46,000 FOCUS Reentry FOCUS Reentry Funding will be used to assist city residents re-entering the community from jail, with health care and food assistance program enrollment, and referrals to physical, mental and behavioral health service agencies. No funding requested $25,000 $25,000 Foothills United Way Resilience for All Culturally Appropriate Nutrition Classes Pilot Funding will provide training for cultural brokers and five health professionals, to conduct outreach and nutrition and wellness education in the city's Latinx community. No funding requested $44,525 $0 Go Flyers Club GoFlyers Club! Funding will provide financial assistance and scholarships to low-income city youth for participation in gymnastics programming and competitions. No funding requested $30,000 $0 Growe Foundation Growe Garden to Table Programs for At-Risk Boulder Elementary School Students Funding will provide food and gardening bilingual educational materials, teacher training and support, and school garden coordination for children at city elementary schools. $27,058 $53,993 $27,000 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 196 of 553 Attachment B: Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations Growing Gardens of Boulder County Healthy Eating for Low-Income Children and Families Funding will provide healthy eating and nutrition education, farm visits, and fresh produce to low-income students in city pre-schools and early child education centers. $88,000 $88,000 $88,000 Growing Gardens of Boulder County Healthy Eating for Teens and Families in Boulder Funding will be used to provide food shopping cards for Cultiva program participants, to support healthy food cooking skill-building among low-income city teens. No funding requested $28,650 $0 Harvest of Hope Pantry Healthy Harvest - Purchased Food Program Funding will be used to provide fresh and frozen foods to low-income city residents, including those who are experiencing homelessness. No funding requested $52,770 $52,770 I Have A Dream Foundation of Boulder County Healthy Together Funding will provide year-round health and wellness education, adult fitness trainer certification programs, and physical activities to low-income city students and their families living in Boulder Housing Partner communities. Physical activities and wellness workshops are integrated with academic support and training for adult coaching. $385,486 $391,442.72 $391,442.72 Jewish Family Service of Colorado, Inc. CircleTalk Funding will be used to provide social programming, nutrition and wellness guidance for low-income, older adults in the city, who experience social isolation. No funding requested $15,500 $15,500 Meals on Wheels of Boulder Meals on Wheels of Boulder Funding will provide prepared, home-delivered meals for low-income older adults living in the city. $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, Inc. Foodservice Equity Initiative Funding will be used to staff a new kitchen manager at the domestic violence emergency shelter, to provide healthy meals (fresh produce, healthy proteins), nutrition and healthy eating programs for shelter residents. No funding requested $47,000 $44,000 The School Food Project (BVSD) Nutrition Education and Farm-to-School Programming and Outreach Funding will be used for healthy eating and nutrition programs, and classroom gardens for city students. No funding requested $52,713 $0 The School Food Project (BVSD) No Student Hungry: Weekend Nutrition Bag Program Funding will provide shelf-stable, whole, unprocessed foods and vegetables to low-income city students and their families, for meals on weekends and holidays when school meals are not available. $65,782 $118,755.99 $66,000 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 197 of 553 Attachment B: Health Equity Advisory Committee Funding Allocations Thorne Ecological Institute Nature Kids/Jovenes de la Naturaleza Boulder Funding will be used for outdoor recreation and nature education programs held at schools, city parks and open spaces, and on-site summer camp facilities for low-income city youth. No funding requested $109,079 $0 YMCA of Boulder Valley YMCA Weight Loss Program Funding will be used for small-group weight loss programs for low-income, adult city residents. $68,779 $89,460 $45,000 YWCA Boulder County Children's Alley Healthy Services Funding will support child care services for young children from low-income city families, and the healthy eating and physical activity elements of the program $59,369 $187,750 $142,000 TOTAL FUNDING $6,426,816.26 $4,648,702.72 Item 3I - Disburse Funds for 2019 SSBPDT City Council Meeting Page 198 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to disburse $2.1M for 2019 Human Services fund allocations P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Matt Sundeen, C ommunity Programs Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to disburse $2.1M for 2019 Human Services fund allocations AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 199 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Dec. 4, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This memorandum informs City Council about the 2019 Human Services Fund (HSF) allocations for $2,114,000 to 38 programs administered by 34 agencies. The city manager approved the allocations on Nov. 20, 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – In 2019, approximately $2.1M will be allocated for funding to community agencies serving Boulder residents. Contingent on budget availability, the city will reserve $575,300 in 2020 and $584,734 in 2021 to support multi-year awards for approved applicants. Support for these agencies and programs allows recipients of services to use limited resources for other needed purchased goods and services, which enhances community livability and economic vitality. • Social – Residents served by agencies receiving HSF funding are primarily lower- income and among the identified communities for service in alignment with the AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a Motion to Authorize the City Manager to Disburse $2,114,000 for 2019 in Human Services Fund Allocations PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services Matt Sundeen, Community Programs Manager Tony Barkey, Project Manager Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to disburse $2,114,000 in 2019 for Human Services Fund allocations. Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 200 of 553 city’s Human Services Strategy. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – Grant awards in 2019 for $2,114,000 will be distributed from the HSF. This funding is appropriated in the 2019 budget. • Staff time – Staff time to administer the HSF is appropriated in the 2019 budget. BOARD AND COMMISSIONS FEEDBACK The Human Services Fund Advisory Committee (HSFAC) reviewed all proposals that met the minimum eligibility requirements. The committee scored each application using the criteria outlined in the 2019 HSF Request for Proposals (RFP). Scores were considered as part of the deliberation process, and the committee voted using a consensus model. The approved allocations presented represent the views of the committee. BACKGROUND In 1992, voters passed a 0.15 percent sales and use tax and dedicated 40 percent of the tax to fund human services. In 2009, a ballot initiative extended the tax indefinitely and without restriction to continue “to fund, without limitation, fire, police, library, parks, human services and other general fund purposes.” The city has since allocated significant funding annually to the HSF to support community non-profits providing needed human services to residents. The five-member HSFAC reviews proposals for each fund round and makes recommendations to the city manager for consideration. In January 2018 following completion of the 2018 fund round, three HSFAC members left the committee as the result of term limits or personal decisions to end participation. The city manager appointed three new members to the HSFAC in July 2018 for two-year terms. In September, a fourth committee member resigned due to competing time constraints, leaving the committee with four members for the 2019 fund round deliberations. A list of the current HSFAC members is included as Attachment A. 2019 Fund Round City Council approved a five-year strategic plan (Strategy) for human services in July 2017. The Strategy identified new goals, priorities and administrative changes to guide city community funding for human services. The city fully incorporated all these elements into the 2019 fund round. Key changes included: • Alignment with the Strategy goals and priorities - The Strategy focused the Department’s work on six issues: Aging Well, A Good Start, Economic Mobility and Resilience, Health and Well-being, Homelessness and Inclusive and Welcoming Community. It included seven specific goals and 23 different strategies. In the 2019 fund round, the Department required applicants to select a focus area that aligned with one the new Strategy issues. • Prioritization for Economic Mobility and Resilience – The Strategy identified Economic Mobility and Resilience and Homelessness as priorities for human Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 201 of 553 services funding. Staff considered these priorities when forming the 2019 fund round RFP. • Creation of a logic model – Staff asked applicants to the 2019 fund round to submit a logic model to better demonstrate the proposed program’s theory of change. The logic model was intended to help applicants better demonstrate their program’s value, to help staff and the HSFAC better understand the proposal and to help identify specific deliverables and metrics that could be used in a contract. • Simplification of the application – Staff eliminated redundant and unnecessary questions from the application. • Multi-year applications – For the first time with the HSF, the city enabled agencies to apply for multi-year awards. The intent, identified in the Strategy, was to reduce administrative burden for both city staff and applicants and provide stable funding opportunities to encourage applicants to collect and report longer- term outcome data. The 2019 fund round is the sixth year in which the city utilized e-CImpact, an online grant management and application system (GMS). The GMS is shared by Boulder County and the City of Longmont for their human services fund rounds and fulfills a key objective to advance regional human services planning and coordination. The system increased the ability to track requests across multiple funding sources and programs. The city is the project lead and systems administrator for managing the GMS, ongoing development and maintenance of the system, and providing technical assistance to funding partners and applicants. The following timeline represents major milestones for the 2019 fund round: • July 10, 2018 – Community Funding Kickoff Meeting for all interested applicants; • July 18, 2018 – Release of a 2019 HSF Request for Proposals (RFP) for $2.1M; • Aug. 15, 2018 – Community Funding Collaborative Training with Boulder County and City of Longmont; • Aug. 24, 2018 – 2019 RFP application period closed; • Aug. 25 – Oct. 8, 2018 – HSFAC and staff review and analysis of applications; • Sept. 25 – 26, 2018 – HSFAC interviews with applicant agencies regarding their proposals; • Oct. 10, 11 and 16, 2018 – HSFAC deliberations and recommendations; • Oct. 19, 2018 – Preliminary recommendations communicated to applicants and start of appeals period; • Oct. 26, 2018 – Formal appeals period closed; and • Nov. 20, 2018 – City Manager approved the committee’s recommendations. Eligibility Criteria The city established eligibility and review criteria for the 2019 fund round based upon a review of criteria used in previous fund rounds, input from the HSFAC and discussion with regional collaborative partners. The HSFAC evaluated proposals based on the following criteria: • Alignment to the Strategy goals and priorities; Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 202 of 553 • Degree of collaboration and partnerships with other entities to work collectively on addressing community needs; • Use of evidence-based or best practices; • Demonstration of strong evaluation of outcomes; • Serves primarily Boulder residents that are low-income or vulnerable; • Provides a direct service to vulnerable populations; • Demonstration of financial sustainability and organizational capacity beyond the funding cycle; • Meaningful engagement of at-risk community members in the design, implementation and/or evaluation of the proposed program; and • Exhibition of diverse funding sources. Multi-year Funding Criteria: The 2019 fund round was the first opportunity for the Department to offer multi-year awards through the HSF. Staff used the following criteria to determine whether to submit a multi-year proposal to the HSFAC for consideration. • The submitted proposal must have been funded for at least three consecutive years through the HSF prior to the 2019 fund round; • The agency must have demonstrated at least three consecutive years of on-time mid-year and end-of-year reporting; and • The proposal must have demonstrated at least three consecutive years of successful completion of contract obligations. In addition to the minimum eligibility criteria used by staff to screen multi-year applications, the HSFAC used the following criteria to review multi-year proposals: • Demonstrates enhanced benefit from a multi-year award either for the proposed program or City of Boulder residents served; • Demonstrates experience or staff expertise with multi-year funding cycles; • Establishes a clear community need for the proposed program beyond 2019; • Provides well defined short, medium and long-term activities, outcomes and indicators; • Includes a plan for using annual evaluation to continuously improve program delivery throughout the duration of the award; • Demonstrates organizational and program stability through formal agreements with partner agencies, stable program delivery, continuity among board and staff members, consistent annual budgeting of existing financial reserves; and • Demonstrates potential for long-term program sustainability through diverse funding sources. 2019 Fund Round Budget The city released the HSF 2019 fund round RFP on July 18, 2018 for the period of Jan.1 – Dec. 31, 2019. Although the 2019 city budget had not yet been approved, staff conservatively announced the 2019 RFP at $2.1M based upon the total amount awarded in the 2018 fund round ($2.5M), which included expenditures for non-competitive awards and anticipated carryover funds from previous year’s awards. Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 203 of 553 ANALYSIS In response to the 2019 RFP, the city received funding requests totaling $3,047,672 for 51 programs from 42 agencies. No agencies were eliminated following a review for minimum eligibility criteria. Staff invited all eligible programs for interviews with the HSFAC. Staff and HSFAC members conducted interviews with applicants on Aug. 25 and Aug. 26. The committee convened for deliberation meetings on Oct. 10, Oct. 11 and Oct. 16. HSFAC members or city staff with conflicts of interest were excluded from discussing applications where any potential conflicts existed. Following deliberations, the HSFAC recommended funding in the amount of $2,114,000 for 2019. Additionally, the committee recommended funding multi-year proposals that would result in allocations of $575,300 in 2020 and $584,734 in 2021 contingent on budget availability. The HSFAC’s funding recommendations are detailed in Attachment B. On Nov. 20, the city manager approved the recommendations proposed by the HSFAC. After final authorization to disburse HSF funds, staff will contact applicants and begin the contract development process. Staff will work closely with applicant agencies to create individual scopes of work including measurable outputs and outcomes. For 2019 funding, the city received 51 total program applications including both single- year and multi-year requests. All proposals met the minimum eligibility criteria for single-year funding. Since applicants requested approximately $1M more than the committee could obligate through the RFP, not all programs that met HSF criteria were recommended for the full requested funding amount. In summary: • The HSFAC recommended 16 programs for the full requested amount in 2019; • The HSFAC recommended 22 programs for partial funding in 2019; and • The HSFAC did not recommend 13 programs for funding in 2019. Three broad factors influenced the HSFAC’s funding recommendations. These included: • The total amount available for the fund round; • The amount allocated to each of the six key Strategy goal areas; and • Funding allocated to the agency through the Health Equity Fund (HEF) or other city programs. Proposals recommended for partial funding were primarily limited by: • Inadequate outcome reporting; • Inadequate justification for funding requests that were above funding received in prior years; • Inadequate demonstration of evidence or research-based practices; and • Unallowable expense(s) included in the application. Agencies not recommended for funding were primarily limited by: • Low alignment with the Strategy; • Similarity to a proposal submitted to the HEF; • Lack of diversity in funding resources beyond the city; • Similarity to a proposal submitted to the Health Equity Fund (HEF); • Lack of outcome data or evidence base to support the proposal; Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 204 of 553 • Lack of demonstration that services would be provided primarily to low-income residents; and • Duplication of services provided by other higher scoring proposals. More than half of the proposals submitted included multi-year funding requests. Staff screened all multi-year applications according to minimum eligibility criteria and the HSFAC reviewed multi-year proposals according to specific criteria for multi-year awards. When evaluating the multi-year proposals, the HSFAC determined that any proposals that received partial funding recommendations for 2019 would not be recommended for funding in subsequent years so that the applicant could submit new proposals in subsequent funding rounds. In summary: • Agencies submitted multi-year proposals for 29 of the 51 total program applications; • Four proposals did not meet minimum eligibility for multi-year funding; • The HSFAC recommended 10 programs for multi-year awards to include funding in 2019, 2020 and 2021; • The HSFAC recommended 15 multi-year proposals for funding in 2019 only but not for funding in subsequent years; and • The HSFAC recommended that three proposals for multi-year funding not be funded in any year. When evaluating multi-year proposals, the HSFAC expressed concern about the long- term viability of proposals as the result of staff turnover and unstable finances. Additionally, many agencies struggled to clearly articulate the long-term community need for the program. Staff notified applicants about preliminary funding recommendations on Oct. 19. Staff provided notification of the award amount through the GMS and by email, to ensure agencies could easily access and retain the preliminary award information. In the notification messages, staff explained the appeal process and encouraged agencies to reach out with any questions or concerns about the committee’s funding recommendations. Several agencies contacted staff by phone and email asking for additional clarification. The initial communication on Oct. 19 initiated the appeals window. After the appeals window closed on Oct. 26, staff continued to provide feedback to agencies to help them improve applications for future fund rounds. No agencies decided to appeal the HSFAC decisions. The city manager approved the committee recommendations on Nov. 20. The 2019 allocations align closely with the 2018 allocations. Following the Strategy guidance, the HSFAC attempted to increase funding in Economic Mobility and Resilience. Attachment C provides the comparison for 2018 and 2019 fund rounds by percentage of total and actual dollar amounts. It is important to note that many of the city’s funding awards for homelessness are non-competitive and not included in the HSF’s 2019 competitive fund round. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council authorize the city manager to disburse $2,114,000 to agencies from the Human Services Fund. Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 205 of 553 NEXT STEPS • January 2019 – Contracts between the city and funded agencies negotiated and executed. • July 2019 – Funded agencies submit a mid-year progress report on outcomes achieved. Contingent upon meeting mid-year goals, agencies will receive the second half of their 2018 HSF awards. • January 2020 – Agencies submit final reports. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – HSFAC Current Members Attachment B – HSF 2019 Funding Allocations Attachment C – HSF Comparison of 2018 and 2019 Funds by Strategic Goal Area Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 206 of 553 Attachment A: HSFAC Current Members Human Services Fund Advisory Committee Members Iona Mara-Drita Juvenile court research analyst with expertise in business and financial analysis, child welfare research, and knowledge of childhood development Peggy Moriarty Government research analyst with expertise in financial analysis, performance management and human services evaluation Sonya Lunder Nonprofit professional with expertise in environmental issues, human services research and evaluation and public health Susan Kodish Nonprofit professional with expertise in criminal justice, victim advocacy, and experience with proposal development and review Vacant The search to close the vacant spot will resume in the beginning of 2019 Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 207 of 553 Attachment B: HSF 2019 Funding Allocations Agency Program Proposed Use of Funds 2018 HSF Award 2019 HSF Request 2019 Allocation 2020 Recommendation 2021 Recommendation Aging Well Boulder County CareConnect Safety Net and Community Outreach Services Funds will be used to provide volunteer-escorted medical rides, grocery shopping and delivery, minor home repairs, yard maintenance and snow removal and resources and referrals to vulnerable seniors and older adults with disabilities in the City of Boulder. $25,000 $37,060 $25,000 $0 $0 Circle of Care** Increasing Access to Transportation and Community Connections for Older Adults in Boulder County Funds will be used to connect older adults to volunteer transportation that operates at times other rides do not such as evenings and weekends and provide older adults with passage to enriching intergenerational community activities such as educational, cultural, social, and civic engagement opportunities. $0 $75,000 $25,000 NA NA Aging Well Subtotal $25,000 $112,060 $50,000 $0 $0 A Good Start Boulder County Public Health Genesister Funds will be used to provide comprehensive sexual education, assistance in completing education, parent engagement and youth engagement via service learning projects. $20,000 $30,000 $20,000 $0 $0 Boulder Day Nursery Early Learning Programs Funds will be used to provide child care & early learning activities, parent support & education, intervention & prevention, developmental & health screenings and social/emotional/ behavioral supports. $68,000 $100,000 $75,000 $0 $0 BVSD Boulder High School BHS Adelante! Funds will be used to provide tutoring & direct instruction, college preparation, bilingual family outreach for at-risk City of Boulder Latino students at Boulder High School. $50,000 $54,500 $45,000 $0 $0 Child and Family Advocacy Program DBA Blue Sky Bridge Child and Family Advocacy Funds will be used to provide forensic interviews, family support & advocacy, & crisis call intervention for child survivors of abuse, school-based prevention and community education. $33,250 $40,000 $33,250 $40,000 $40,000 Children First of the Rockies SAFE Services Funds will be used to provide monitored exchanges and supervised visits between custodial and noncustodial parents for city of Boulder families. $10,000 $25,547 $10,000 $0 $0 Children's House Preschool First Chance Scholarship Funds will be used to provide provides families of low- income and at-risk City of Boulder children with access to affordable, culturally sensitive early childhood education and $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,900 $31,829 Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 208 of 553 Attachment B: HSF 2019 Funding Allocations parent education focused on individualized, developmentally appropriate goals for their child’s success. Engaged Latino Parents Advancing Student Outcomes Engaged Latino Parents Advancing Student Outcomes Funds will be used to provide Latino parents assistance in navigating a referral/networking system of services in Boulder County, and twelve training sessions teaching parents’ skills to effectively advocate for their children. $75,075 $103,623 $75,000 NA NA Family Learning Center, The Early Childhood Development Funds will be used to provide comprehensive, culturally competent early childhood and family literacy programs, including preschool and child care services, family mentoring, family sustainability and education programs. $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Family Learning Center, The The Family Learning Center's Circular Sustainability Pathways to Success Youth Development Funds will be used to provide before, after, and summer youth development and educational activities and programs for at-risk youth living in poverty. $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 I Have a Dream Foundation of Boulder County Dream Big Scholars in the City of Boulder Funds will be used to provide Boulder youth with daily, in- school, after-school and summer programming, comprehensive case management, and enrichment opportunities. $46,188 $50,000 $40,000 $0 $0 New Horizons Cooperative Preschool Bilingual Early Childhood Education Funds will be used to provide quality bilingual preschool experience to children from diverse economic, cultural, and racial backgrounds in the City of Boulder with a focus on diversity and multiculturalism, parent engagement, tuition and transportation subsidies. $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 Voices for Children INC. Voices for Children, CASA of Boulder County Funds will be used to provide child abuse victims with a volunteer Court-Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) to help the child navigate a crowded and challenging child welfare system. $0 $10,000 $10,000 NA NA YWCA of Boulder County Children’s Alley child care Funds will be used to provide year-round emergency, drop-in infant and toddler child care including extended services on weekends and off hour schedules. $65,000 $101,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 A Good Start Subtotal $499,513 $646,670 $520,250 $252,900 $253,829 Economic Mobility and Resilience Community Action Development Corporation Circles Funds will be used to provide weekly meeting with financial education and asset-building to foster social capital growth and networking to reduce barriers to self-sufficiency for disenfranchised and low-income income Boulder residents. $20,000 $20,000 $12,500 NA NA Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 209 of 553 Attachment B: HSF 2019 Funding Allocations Foothills United Way Personal Investment Enterprise (PIE) Program Funds will be used to provide financial education & asset- building with a matched savings account in a 4:1 ratio (for investment in education, business or home) for low-income families. $100,000 $147,500 $100,000 $0 $0 FOCUS Reentry FOCUS Reentry Funds will be used to provide reentry and client mentoring services to eligible inmates leaving the Boulder County Jail. $0 $15,000 $15,000 NA NA Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, Inc. Economic Empowerment Program Funds will be used to provide a six-week financial workshop, one-on-one financial advice and matched savings for Transitions program clients. $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0*** $0*** Economic Mobility and Resilience Subtotal $145,000 $207,500 $152,500 $0 $0 Health and Well-being Boulder County AIDS Project (BCAP) HIV Care and Prevention Services Funds will be used to provide comprehensive HIV medical case management, testing and counseling, health insurance access and basic needs assistance. $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 Boulder County Public Health Genesis Funds will be used to provide case management, parenting education, home visiting, crisis intervention, and safety net services to teen parent families, with a focus on the infant/child’s appropriate development. $40,000 $50,000 $30,000 $0 $0 Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center, Inc. Subsidized Reproductive & Sexual Health Services and Education Program Funds will be used to provide comprehensive primary and reproductive health care & community education for Boulder teens and adults. $110,000 $115,000 $110,000 NA NA Center for People with Disabilities (CPWD) Core Services Funds will be used to provide individuals with disabilities in the City of Boulder with support services including basic independent living skills (cooking, home making, budgeting) and nutrition, and resource management (assistance with public benefits and medical care). $35,000 $50,000 $35,000 $0 $0 Clinica Campesina Family Health Services Health Care for Low- Income Residents Funds will be used to provide comprehensive primary health care services with access to integrated behavioral health and dental care for lower-income Boulder residents. $310,000 $350,000 $300,000 NA NA Community Food Share, Inc. Food Procurement and Food Distribution Program Funds will be used to procure food for free direct distribution to community agencies, individuals & families. $10,000 $15,000 $10,000 NA NA Dental Aid, Inc. Safety Net Dental Services Funds will be used to provide subsidized oral health care both in the Boulder clinics and in the community at Boulder Valley School District elementary schools, head start $130,000 $135,000 $125,000 $0 $0 Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 210 of 553 Attachment B: HSF 2019 Funding Allocations facilities and several non-profit partner sites serving Boulder residents. Mental Health Center of Boulder County Inc Behavioral Health Services Funds will be used to provide a behavioral health home model that assess clients and matches them to the best treatment approach including comprehensive care, health & wellness coaching, case management and peer support and outreach. $350,000 $360,347 $300,000 $0 $0 Second Wind Fund of Boulder County** BC-Second Wind Fund of Boulder County Direct Counseling Services Funds will be used to provide a minimum of eight sessions (maximum of 20 sessions) of direct counseling services to youth who are at risk for suicide. $0 $10,000 $10,000 NA NA Health and Well-being Subtotal $1,025,000 $1,125,347 $960,000 $0 $0 Homelessness Attention Inc. dba Attention Homes Meeting Basic Needs for At-Risk Youth Funds will be used to provide food, drop-in day services, emergency shelter, case management, counseling and medical and behavioral treatment plans for homeless and at- risk youth. $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $0 $0 Emergency Family Assistance Association (EFAA) Shelter and Basic Needs Funds will used to provide tiered services for City of Boulder Families ranging from basic needs (food and financial assistance) to education and more intensive services (case management, short term & transitional housing). $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $154,500 $159,135 Mother House, Inc. Mother House Funds will be used to provide short term housing, basic needs, assistance obtaining public benefits and resources and physical & mental health care for at-risk pregnant women $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 NA NA Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, Inc. Services for victims of domestic violence and their children Funds will be used to provide services for victims of violence and their children including a 24/7 Crisis hotline, emergency shelter, transportation, financial assistance, counseling, legal advocacy and transitional housing. $111,000 $111,000 $111,000 $112,600 $114,220 Homelessness Subtotal $316,000 $316,000 $316,000 $267,100 $273,355 Inclusive and Welcoming Boulder Pride (Out Boulder) Out Boulder Providing Basic Services for the Transgender Community Funds will be used to provide social support groups with translated materials and childcare for queer and trans people of color specifically and for the transgender population generally. $15,000 $41,551 $15,000 NA NA Colorado Legal Services (dba Boulder County Legal Services) Legal Services for Victims of Domestic Violence Funds will be sued to provide free legal advice and representation for survivors of domestic violence that need assistance with protection and custody orders. $19,000 $19,000 $19,000 $0 $0 Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 211 of 553 Attachment B: HSF 2019 Funding Allocations Colorado Legal Services (dba Boulder County Legal Services) Critical Legal Services for Low-Income Funds will be used to provide free safety net legal services for clients with legal emergencies that affect their basic needs. $18,000 $20,000 $18,000 $0 $0 Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County Immigrant Legal Center Funds will be used to provide low-cost consultation and legal services with a focus on monolingual Spanish speaking immigrants. $23,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Intercambio de Comunidades English Language and Life Skills Education for Adult Immigrants Funds will be used to provide group English language acquisition and life skills classes and individualized or small group English classes for immigrant adults. $22,000 $23,250 $23,250 $25,300 $27,550 Sister Carmen Community Center Bridging Digital Divides Funds will be used to provide skill building in utilizing digital devices and navigating the online ecosystem, and access to necessary devices and the internet. $10,000* $38,367 $10,000 NA NA Inclusive and Welcoming Subtotal $97,000 $172,168 $115,250 $55,300 $57,550 Not Recommended for Funding Alternatives for Youth (AFY) iTHRIVE Funds will be used to provide six-week iTHRIVE sessions for teens starting to use &/or abuse alcohol/drugs & parent support through counseling, pro-social activities & presentations. $10,000 $38,500 $0 NA NA Bridge to Justice Reduced Rate Civil Legal Services to Support Adult Independence and Financial Stability Funds will be used to provide reduced rate legal services to low & moderate-income individuals with a specific focus on family law legal issues. $0 $10,000 $0 NA NA EL Centro AMISTAD EL Centro AMISTAD COB Funds will be used to support the promotores model to address behavioral health and provide parent education classes in the Latinx community. $0 $40,000 $0 NA NA Community Cycles** Building An Upward Cycle: Bicycles and Bike Support for People Re-Entering Our Community from Jail Funds will be used to provide bicycles with safety gear (helmets, lights, and locks) and maintenance and support to residents released from jail after serving their sentence. $0 $31,500 $0 NA NA Foothills United Way** Better Together: Disaster Preparedness and Resilience Classes Funds will be used to provide emergency preparedness classes and disaster resilience education to vulnerable populations throughout Boulder County to increase capacity, self-sufficiency, and the ability to access resources while under stress. $0 $30,000 $0 NA NA Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 212 of 553 Attachment B: HSF 2019 Funding Allocations Foothills United Way** Cultural Broker Network Design Funds will be used to enhance existing community-based networks to create a formal structure where government and Latinx residents can communicate in a culturally appropriate way. $0 $26,650 $0 NA NA Foothills United Way Volunteer Connection Funds will be used to connects volunteers with community organizations offering volunteer opportunities and to put on the Day of Caring volunteer event. $7,500* $15,000 $0. $0*** $0*** Growing Gardens of Boulder County Growing Gardens Food Project Funds will be used to secure and distribute fresh produce; plant seeds and plant starts directly to community partners and lower-income residents. $0 $10,000 $0 NA NA Intercambio de Comunidades** Conversation Team Funds will be used to provide a safe and supportive space to practice English and connect across cultures for both volunteers and English language learners. $0 $10,000 $0 $0*** $0*** September Schools Inc** Integrated Health and Wellness Funds will be used to provide relationship-based education including health and wellness, integrated outdoor time, culinary classes, yoga, group counseling, physical education, parent support and Natural High for high school students who have not thrived in other school settings. $0 $86,729.05 $0 NA NA Early Childhood Council of Boulder County ECCBC School Readiness Partnership Funds will be used to employ a collective impact collaboration approach to positively impact school readiness for young children through collaboration with health, early literacy and family support organization partners. $50,000 $57,548 $0 NA NA Workforce Boulder County**** Work-Based Learning Partnership Funds will be used to provide work-based learning placements with local employers along with a support/networking group to provide education and skills to be successful at work. $0 $100,000 $0 $0*** $0*** YWCA Boulder County** Reading to End Racism Funds will be used to train readers to go into Boulder elementary schools to read age-appropriate book dealing with the issue of bullying, racism, and discrimination to students. $0 $12,000 $0 NA NA Not Recommended for Funding Subtotal $467,927.05 $0 $0 $0 Grand Total $3,047,672.05 $2,114,000 $575,300 $584,734 * Not funded through the competitive fund round, funded through the off-cycle fund ** New HSF applicant or program *** Requested funds but was not eligible since the program didn’t meet the minimum eligibility requirements **** In consideration for off-cycle funding Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 213 of 553 Attachment C: HSF Comparison of 2018 and 2019 Funds by Strategic Goal Area Aging Well 1.19% A Good Start 23.70% Economic Mobility & Resilience 6.88% Health & Well- being 48.64% Homelessness 14.99% Inclusive & Welcoming Community 4.60% 2018 HSF Allocation Aging Well 2.40% A Good Start 24.60% Economic Mobility & Resilience 7.20% Health & Well- being 45.40% Homelessness 14.90% Inclusive & Welcoming Community 5.50% 2019 HSF Allocation Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 214 of 553 Attachment C: HSF Comparison of 2018 and 2019 Funds by Strategic Goal Area $25,000 $499,513 $145,000 $1,025,000 $316,000 $97,000 $50,000 $520,250 $152,500 $960,000 $316,000 $115,250 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 Aging Well A Good Start Economic Mobility & Resilience Health & Well- being Homelessness Inclusive & Welcoming Community 2018 and 2019 Fund Rounds by Category 2018 2019 Item 3J - Disburse Funds for 2019 HSF City Council Meeting Page 215 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Sixth reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8256 amending standards for accessory dwelling units and owner accessory units including Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Section 10-3-19, “Short-term Rentals,” B.R.C . 1981, and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J ay Sugnet, Senior Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Sixth reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8256 amending standards for accessory dwelling units and owner accessory units including Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Section 10-3-19, “Short-term Rentals,” B.R.C . 1981, and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 216 of 553 Item 3k – 6th Reading ADU Ord. 8256 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Sixth reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8256 amending standards for accessory dwelling units and owner accessory units including Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Section 10-3-19, “Short-term Rentals,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth related details. PRESENTERS Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services (HHS) Jay Sugnet, Senior Planner (HHS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On Nov. 8, City Council amended and passed on fifth reading Ordinance 8256 to update the accessory dwelling unit and owner accessory unit regulations. Dec. 4 is the anticipated final reading of the ordinance (Attachment A) with an effective date of Jan. 3 and an implementation date of Feb. 1, 2019. The Nov. 8 amendments were in response to requested changes from a council member to allow adobe and straw bale building materials by right in addition to a variance process and to remove the requirement for consistent building materials for detached accessory dwelling units. Attachment B contains additional language changes requested by a council member for consideration. The proposed change would postpone the date when the city manager will stop accepting applications for initial short-term rental licenses from the effective date to June 1, 2019. This would allow owners of legal accessory units to apply for a short-term rental license before issuance of new licenses is restricted and would allow owners of illegal accessory units to obtain approval for the accessory unit and to apply for a short-term rental license. On and after June 1, the city manager could no longer accept applications for new short-term rental licenses on properties with an accessory dwelling unit. All other short-term rental restrictions would remain unchanged. If council votes to adopt the proposed change in Attachment B, the ordinance would be amended on 6th reading (Dec. 4) and a 7th reading would be required (Dec. 18). City Council Meeting Page 217 of 553 Item 3k – 6th Reading ADU Ord. 8256 The Jun. 5 second reading memo outlines the Planning Board and Housing Advisory Board recommendations for incremental changes that address parking, saturation, nonconforming structures, allowed zones, unit size, lot size, design, the five-year requirement, permit renewals, short-term rentals and accessory unit occupancy. The memo also provides background on the community engagement process and the recommendation process through Planning Board and the Housing Advisory Board. The Oct. 2 third reading memo provides a summary of the motion language from Aug. 29 and the amendments to the ordinance as requested by council at second reading. The Oct. 16 fourth reading memo provides a similar summary from the Oct. 8 council action and the Nov. 8 fifth reading memo from Oct. 16. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic: The recommended ordinance provides a positive economic impact by creating opportunities for diverse housing types in the form of accessory units and providing a potential source of income for existing middle-income homeowners to remain working and/or living in Boulder. • Environmental: Providing diverse housing opportunities in the form of accessory units allows workers in Boulder to live in Boulder, thereby reducing in-commuting and advancing the city’s overall climate commitment goals. • Social: The ability to create accessory units allows middle income homeowners the opportunity to generate addition income and for many to remain in Boulder. This helps to provide important social and economic diversity. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal: It is anticipated that additional accessory units will not have a significant impact on city finances or infrastructure. • Staff Time: The simplified regulations are expected to reduce the amount of staff time required to answer questions from homeowners and assist amateur developers (i.e., homeowners) in creating an accessory unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the ADU Update Ordinance 8256 would remove some barriers to the construction of this housing type in ways that are compatible with neighborhoods. Based on this conclusion, staff recommends that council adopt the following motion: Motion to adopt Ordinance 8256 amending standards for accessory dwelling units and owner accessory units including Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Section 10-3-19, “Short-term Rentals,” B.R.C. 1981, and setting forth related details. ATTACHMENTS A. ADU Update Ordinance 8256 B. Amendments as proposed a council member (extend period allowing short-term rental applications) City Council Meeting Page 218 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8256 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND OWNER ACCESSORY UNITS INCLUDING SECTION 4-20-43, “DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES,” TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” AND SECTION 10-3-19, “SHORT-TERM RENTALS,” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 1-2-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 1-2-1. - Definitions. (a)The definitions in this chapter apply throughout this code unless a term is defined differently in a specific title, chapter or section. (b)The following words used in this code and other ordinances of the City have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: … Kitchen means any part of a room or dwelling unit that can be used for the preparation of food that includes one or more of the following: a refrigerator, cooking device, food storage cabinet, kitchen sink, or dishwasher. The following do not constitute a kitchen under this definition: (1) a wet bar; or (2) an ancillary refrigerator that is used solely to store food that is prepared in the kitchen of a principal dwelling unit. … Section 2. Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended and subsequent paragraphs shall be renumbered, to read as follows: … (b)Land use regulation fees: … (11) An applicant for an attached accessory dwelling unit permit shall pay ..... $420.00 (12) An applicant for the transfer of an accessory dwelling unit shall pay ..... $168.00 (123) An applicant for an owner's detached accessory dwelling unit shall pay ..... $420.00 (14) An applicant for the transfer of an owner's accessory unit shall pay ..... $168.00 (135) An applicant for a limited accessory unit shall pay ..... $420.00 Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 219 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (16) An applicant for the transfer of a limited accessory unit shall pay ..... $168.00 … Section 3. Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-3. – Variances and Interpretations. … (d) Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA): The BOZA may grant variances from the requirements of: (1) Setback, separation and bulk plane requirements listed in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and standards referred to in that section; (2) The building coverage requirements of Section 9-7-11, "Maximum Building Coverage," and chapter 9-10, "Nonconformance Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (3) The spacing requirements for mobile homes of Section 9-7-13, "Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (4) The porch setback and size requirements of Section 9-7-4, "Setback Encroachments for Front Porches," B.R.C. 1981; (5) The side yard wall articulation standards of Section 9-7-10, "Side Yard Wall Articulation Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (6) The size and parking setback requirements for accessory units of Subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.C. 1981; (7) The total cumulative building coverage requirements for accessory buildings of Section 9-7-8, "Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones," B.R.C. 1981; (8) The use of a mobile home for nonresidential purposes subject to the requirements of Subsection 10-12-6(b), B.R.C. 1981; (9) The parking requirements of Subsection 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981, with regards to parking in landscaped front yard setbacks; and (10) Sign code variances and appeals as permitted by Subsection 9-9-21(s), B.R.C. 1981. In granting any variance, the board may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary to implement the purposes of this title. … (i) Floor Area Variances for Accessory Dwelling Units: The BOZA may grant a variance to the maximum floor area allowed for an attached accessory dwelling unit or for a detached accessory dwelling unit under Subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.C. 1981, only if it finds that the application satisfies all of the following applicable requirements of either subparagraph (i)(1) or (i)(2): (1) House Configuration: Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 220 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (A) That the interior configuration of the house structure is arranged in such a manner that the space to be used as the attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit cannot feasibly be divided in conformance with the size requirements; (2B) That the variance, if granted, meets the essential intent of this title, and would be the minimum variance that would afford relief; and (3C) That the strict application of the provisions at issue would impose an undue and unnecessary hardship on the individual and that such hardship has not been created by the applicant.; or (2) Unusual Physical Conditions: (A) That there are unusual physical circumstances or conditions in the design of the existing structure the accessory unit would be in, including without limitation the thickness of exterior walls or framing, that affect the total allowed interior floor area of the accessory unit; (B) That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist through the neighborhood or the zoning district in which the property is located; (C) That the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or zoning district the property is in; (D) That the variance, if granted, would be the minimum variance that would afford relief; and (E) That the accessory unit would be clearly incidental to the principal dwelling unit. … Section 4. That portion of Table 6-1 in Section 9-6-1, “Schedule of Permitted Land Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, related to accessory units, is amended to read as follows: TABLE 6-1: USE TABLE Zoning District RR- 1, RR- 2, RE, RL- 1 RL- 2, RM- 2 R M- 1, R M- 3 RM X-1 R M X- 2 RH -1, RH -2, RH -4, RH -5 RH -3, RH -7 R H- 6 M H MU -3 MU -1 MU -2 M U- 4 BT- 1, BT- 2 B M S BC -1, BC -2 BC S BR -1, BR -2 DT -4 DT -5 DT- 1, DT- 2, DT-3 IS- 1, IS- 2 IG IM IMS P A Use Modules R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R 8 M H M1 M2 M3 M4 B1 B 2 B3 B4 B5 D1 D2 D3 I1 I2 I3 I4 P A Speci fic Use Stan dard Accessory units: A. Attached accessory C C * *C *C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C C 9-6- 3(a) Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 221 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dwelling unit B. Owner's Detached accessory dwelling unit C * C * C * C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C * C 9-6- 3(a) C. Limited accessory unit C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9-6- 3(a) Caretake r dwelling unit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A A A A A A Section 5. Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards – Residential Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-6-3. – Specific Use Standards – Residential Uses. (a) Accessory Units: (1) General Requirements: Three types of accessory units are permitted: Attached Accessory Dwelling Units, Owner's Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and Limited Accessory Units. The following standards apply to all three types of accessory units: (A) Standards: (i) Owner-Occupied: The owner of the property must reside in one of the permitted principal dwelling units or accessory unit on the site parcel or lot must be owner-occupied. (ii) Occupancy Requirement: The occupancy of any accessory unit must not exceed two persons. For purposes of determining occupancy requirements under Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,” B.R.C. 1981, the principal dwelling unit and accessory unit shall be considered one dwelling unit. The occupancy of the owner-occupied principal dwelling unit together with the occupancy of any accessory unit doesshall not exceed the occupancy requirements set forth in Section 9-8-5, "Occupancy of Dwelling Units," B.R.C. 1981, for one dwelling unit; provided, however, for purposes of this section only, any occupant and his or her dependents shall be counted as one person. The floor area limitation for quarters used by roomers under Paragraph 9-8-5(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981, shall not apply to an accessory unit. (iii) Additional Roomers Prohibited: The property is not also used for the renting of rooms pursuant to Paragraph 9-8-5(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 222 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (iii) Rental License: No owner of the property shall allow, or offer to allow through advertisement or otherwise, any person to occupy the accessory unit or the principal dwelling unit as a tenant or lessee or otherwise for a valuable consideration unless such rented unit has been issued a valid rental license by the city manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3, “Rental Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981. (iv) Short-Term Rental: Short-term rental of an accessory unit and short-term rental of a principal dwelling unit on a lot or parcel with an accessory unit are prohibited except as specifically authorized in Section 10-3-19, “Short-Term Rentals,” B.R.C. 1981. (B) Application: All applicants shall apply on forms provided by the city manager showing how and in what manner the criteria of this subsection are met, provide a statement of current ownership and a legal description of the property, pay the application fee prescribed by Section 4-20-43, "Development Application Fees," B.R.C. 1981, and submit plans as may be required by the manager. (C) Public Notice: Notice of the application shall be provided consistent with "Public Notice Type 4," as defined by Subsection 9-4-3(a), B.R.C. 1981. (D) Review and Approval: All applications for accessory units shall be reviewed under the procedures of Section 9-2-2, "Administrative Review Procedures." B.R.C. 1981. (E) Declaration of Use Required: Before receiving the permitobtaining approval, all owners shall sign a declaration of use, including all the conditions for continued use, to be recorded in the office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder to serve as actual and constructive notice of the legal status of the owner's property. If the unit is to be an affordable accessory unit, the declaration shall include a sworn certification that the unit will meet the affordability standard and a statement of the number of bedrooms. (F) Amendments: The site plan for an accessory unit may be modified and an affordable accessory unit may be converted to an accessory unit that is not an affordable accessory unit provided that an application is filed and reviewed by the manager under the procedures of Section 9-2-2, “Administrative Review Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981. The application must demonstrate that the proposed accessory unit meets the requirements of this section except that it shall not be subject to the saturation limitations of subparagraphs (a)(2)(A) and (E) and (a)(3)(A) and (E). (G) Floor Area: For the purpose of calculating the floor area of an attached accessory unit or detached accessory unit under this subsection (a), floor area shall mean the total square footage of all levels measured to the outside surface of the exterior framing, to six inches beyond the interior wall on an exterior wall, or to the outside surface of the exterior walls if there is no exterior framing, of a building or portion thereof, which includes stairways, elevators, the portions of all exterior elevated above grade corridors, balconies, and walkways that are required for primary or secondary egress by Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 223 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B.R.C. 1981, storage and mechanical rooms, whether internal or external to the structure, but excluding an atrium on the interior of a building where no floor exists, a courtyard, the stairway opening at the uppermost floor of a building, and floor area that meets the definition of uninhabitable space. Expiration and Revocation of Permit: An accessory unit permit granted by the city manager or planning board automatically expires 180 days after the date on which it is granted unless a rental license for the unit is obtained within such period. The manager may grant an extension of this period for good cause shown, but only if application therefor is made prior to the expiration of the period. After revocation or expiration of the accessory unit permit, the manager will inspect the property to ensure that the accessory unit has been removed. (i) Expiration: An accessory unit permit expires upon the failure of the permittee to satisfy any condition prescribed by this Subsection (a) or upon the sale, conveyance, or transfer of the property upon which the unit is located. (ii) Revocation: An accessory unit permit may be revoked by the city manager upon the permittee's or the permittee's tenant's conviction of a violation of this title or any provision of chapter 5-9, "Noise," Section 6-1-21, "Animals as Nuisance Prohibited," chapter 6-2, "Weed Control," chapter 6-3, "Trash," or Section 9-9-21, "Signs," B.R.C. 1981. (iii) Removal Required: Upon notification of permit expiration or revocation, the permittee may request a hearing as provided in chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. Within thirty days of revocation or expiration of a permit, no owner shall fail to remove the accessory unit and return the property to its single-family use status as a single dwelling unit. The applicant shall either: a. Remove the kitchen within the accessory unit and any physical separation between the accessory unit and the balance of the unit; or b. Remove any physical separation between the accessory unit and the balance of the unit and sign a declaration of use in a form acceptable to the city manager, which will be recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder, stating the property will remain owner-occupied for so long as the accessory unit kitchen remains and that the dwelling unit is used by the owner and the owner's family in a manner consistent with Section 9-8-5, "Occupancy of Dwelling Units," B.R.C. 1981. No person shall fail to remove the additional kitchen installed pursuant to this subsection if the dwelling unit is no longer owner-occupied and if the dwelling unit requires a rental license under chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C. 1981. (G) Limitations on Reapplication After Revocation: Upon revocation of a permit, the owner may not reapply for an accessory dwelling unit permit for any location in the city for a period of three years following the date of revocation or conviction. (H) Transfer: An accessory dwelling unit permit may be transferred to the new owner of a dwelling unit that has an existing, approved accessory unit, if there is no person on the waiting list within the dwelling unit's neighborhood area. A new Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 224 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property owner may apply to transfer an accessory unit permit into its name if the following standards are met: (i) Proof of Ownership: The transfer applicant shall provide proof of ownership or of pending ownership of the dwelling unit. (ii) Declaration of Use Required: The transfer applicant shall sign a declaration of use, that will be recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder acknowledging that the accessory dwelling unit is not automatically transferable to subsequent purchasers, that no vested right to duplex status arises by virtue of the city's granting of the accessory dwelling unit permit or a building permit to construct the same, and that lists all the conditions for the continued use of the accessory dwelling unit. (iii) Rented or Occupied: The transfer applicant shall provide proof that the accessory dwelling unit has been rented or occupied in the year prior to the application for the transfer. (iv) Expiration: If a new owner fails to apply for a transfer of the permit within thirty days of the purchase of the dwelling unit, the permit shall automatically expire and the reestablishment of an accessory dwelling unit will require a new application. (v) Fees: The applicant shall pay the fee required by section 4-20-43, "Development Application Fees," B.R.C. 1981, and all necessary fees for recording documents with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. (vi) Rental License Required: The new owner shall apply for a rental license after the transfer of the accessory dwelling unit has been approved. (2) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general accessory unit standards in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to attached accessory dwelling units. The owner or the owners of a lot or parcel with an existing single-family dwelling unit may establish and maintain an attached accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure of a detached dwelling unit in the RL-1, RL-2, RE, RR, RE-1, RR-2, RL, RMX, A or P districts if all of the following conditions are met and continue to be met during the life of the attached accessory dwelling unit: (A) Neighborhood Area: In the RL-1 or, RL-2, RE, RR-1, RR-2, A or P zoning districts, no more than ten twenty percent of the single-family lots or parcels in a neighborhood area contain an accessory dwelling unit. For the purpose of this subparagraph: (i) The "neighborhood area" in RL-1, and RL-2 and P zoning districts is the area circumscribed by a line three hundred feet from the perimeter of the lot line within which any accessory dwelling unit will be located. Within the “neighborhood area” only accessory units within the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts are counted towards the twenty percent limitation factor. (ii) The "neighborhood area" in RE, RR-1, RR-2 and A zoning districts is the area circumscribed by a line six hundred feet from the perimeter of the lot line within which any accessory dwelling unit will be located. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 225 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (iii) For the purpose of calculating the ten twenty percent limitation factor, a legal, nonconforming structure containing two or more units or a limited accessory cooperative housing unit is counted as an accessory dwelling unit. The city manager may promulgate regulations defining additional methods to be used in calculating the ten twenty percent limitation factor and the neighborhood area. (iiiv) If an application for an accessory dwelling unit exceeds the ten twenty percent requirement set forth in this subparagraph (a)(2)(A), the city manager will place the applicant on a waiting list for the neighborhood area. At such time as there is room for an additional accessory dwelling unit within a neighborhood area, the city manager will notify the first eligible person on the waiting list. Such person on the waiting list shall be required to provide notice of intent to file an application within thirty days and file an application within sixty days of such notice. (B) Parking: In addition to tThe attached accessory dwelling unit shall have the following off-street parking: (i) The number of off-street parking spaces required in the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and (ii) parking required in each district oOne additional off-street parking space is provided on the lot or parcel upon which the detached dwelling unit is located. (iii) The parking spaces required under this subparagraph (a)(2)(B) shall not be required to meeting the setback requirements of section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, provided that the parking spaces are not located in the public right of way unless a variance to the setback is granted pursuant to section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. (C) Criteria: The attached accessory dwelling unit is clearly incidental to the principal dwelling unit and meets the following criteria: (i) The attached accessory dwelling unit is created only in a single-family detached dwelling unit on a lot of six five thousand square feet or more. (ii) The attached accessory dwelling unit is a minimum of three hundred square feet, and does not exceed one-third of the total floor area of the principal structure, unless a variance is granted pursuant to section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or one thousand square feet, whichever is less, unless a variance is granted pursuant to section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. (iii) The accessory dwelling unit utilizes only those utility hookups and meters allotted to the detached dwelling unit. (iv) The accessory dwelling unit is created only through internal conversion of the principal structure. Minor exterior changes may be made on the building if the square footage added constitutes no more than five percent of the principal structure's existing foundation area. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 226 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (viii) If there is an interior connection between the attached accessory dwelling unit and the principal dwelling prior to the creation of the attached accessory dwelling unit, the connection shall be maintained during the life of the attached accessory dwelling unit. (iv) Any additional entrance resulting from the creation of an attached accessory dwelling unit may face the side of the lot fronting on the street only if such entrance is adequately and appropriately screened in a manner that does not detract from the single-family appearance of the principal dwelling. (D) Permits for Existing Units: No permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall be granted for a detached dwelling that is not at least five years old. (D) Affordable Accessory Units: If the attached accessory dwelling unit is licensed as an affordable accessory unit, the unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit and may be more than one-third of the total floor area of the principal structure but shall not exceed one- half of the floor area of the principal structure or one thousand square feet, whichever is less. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981. If the unit is or will be offered for rental for compensation, the owner must obtain and at all times thereafter maintain a valid rental license for an affordable accessory unit issued by the city manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3, “Rental Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981. (E) Designated Historic Property: If the attached accessory dwelling unit is located within a principal structure that is designated as an individual landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, the following modifications to the standards of this paragraph (a)(2) apply: (i) In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning district, the unit is not subject to the twenty percent limitation factor of subparagraph (a)(2)(A) provided that no more than thirty percent of the lots or parcels in the neighborhood area contain an accessory unit; (ii) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and (iii) The unit may be more than one-third of the total floor area of the principal structure but shall not exceed one-half of the floor area of the principal structure or one thousand square feet, whichever is less. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981. (E) Accessory Unit Will Not Become a Nonconforming Use: If the provisions of this subsection are repealed by this or any future city council, the legal use of an accessory unit must be terminated within five years from the date of repeal, and the accessory unit will not become a nonconforming use. (3) Limited Accessory Units: In addition to the general accessory unit standards in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to limited accessory units. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 227 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 An existing nonconforming duplex or two detached dwelling units located on the same lot and within the R1 use module may be converted to limited accessory dwelling units. A limited accessory dwelling unit may be modified and expanded as a conditional use. Conversion to a limited accessory dwelling unit is subject to compliance with all of the following standards: (A) Applicability: This subsection (a)(3) is only applicable to dwelling units that legally existed, were actively used as multiple dwelling units, and had a valid rental license on January 1, 2005. (B) Expansion Limitation: The cumulative total of any expansion shall not exceed twenty percent of the total floor area that was documented at the time of the initial expansion. Any expansion of the restricted accessory unit shall not exceed ten percent. In no case shall any expansion cause the cumulative size of the restricted dwelling units to exceed the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the underlying zoning district as set forth in Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (C) Parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than three spaces. All parking shall comply with the design and access requirements set forth in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981. A minimum of one off- street parking space shall be available for use by the restricted accessory dwelling unit. (D) Loss of Prior Nonconforming Status: If a nonconforming duplex or two detached dwelling units are converted to limited accessory units through the conditional use process, any prior nonconforming status is lost. (34) Owner's Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general accessory unit standards in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to owners' detached accessory dwelling units. An owner or the owners of a lot or parcel with an existing single-family dwelling unit may establish and maintain an owner's detached accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure of the detached dwelling unit, or within an accessory structure meeting the size restrictions described below, on a lot or parcel in the RR, RE, RL, andRMX-1, A and P districts if all of the following conditions are met and continue to be met during the life of the owner's detached accessory dwelling unit: (A) Neighborhood Area: In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts, no more than twenty percent of the lots or parcels in a neighborhood area contain an accessory unit. For the purpose of this subparagraph: (i) The “neighborhood area” in RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts is the area circumscribed by a line three hundred feet from the perimeter of the lot line within which an accessory unit will be located. Within the “neighborhood area” only accessory units within the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts are counted towards the twenty percent limitation factor. (ii) For the purpose of calculating the twenty percent limitation factor, a legal, nonconforming structure containing two or more units or a cooperative housing unit is counted as an accessory unit. The city manager may promulgate Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 228 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regulations defining additional methods to be used in calculating the twenty percent limitation factor and the neighborhood area. (iii) If an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit exceeds the twenty percent requirement set forth in subparagraph (a)(3)(A), the city manager will place the applicant on a waiting list for the neighborhood area. At such time as there is room for an additional accessory unit within the neighborhood area, the city manager will notify the first eligible person on the waiting list. Such person on the waiting list shall be required to provide notice of intent to file an application within thirty days and file an application within sixty days of such notice. (AB) Parking: The detached accessory dwelling unit shall have the following parking: (i) The number of off-street parking spaces required in the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and (ii) In addition to the parking required in each district, oOne additional paved off- street parking space is provided on the lot or parcel upon which the detached dwelling unit is located. (iii) The parking spaces required under this subparagraph (a)(3)(B) shall not be required to meeting the setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, provided that the parking spaces are not located in the public right of way unless a variance to the setback is granted pursuant to Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. To the extent practical, any additional off-street parking that is constructed in the RR or RE zoning district required for the owner'sdetached accessory dwelling unit shall be screened from the view of properties that directly abut a property line of the owner's detached accessory dwelling unit. (BC) Incidental to Principal Dwelling Unit: The owner's detached accessory dwelling unit is clearly incidental to the principal dwelling unit and meets the following criteria: (i) The owner's detached accessory dwelling unit is created on a lot of six five thousand square feet or larger, which contains only one detached single-family dwelling in the RMX zoning district. The owner's accessory unit is created on a lot that meets the minimum lot size requirements of the underlying zoning district in the RR or RE zoning districts and contains only one detached single- family dwelling. (ii) If the owner's accessory unit is located within the detached dwelling unit, the principal structure shall be at least one thousand five hundred square feet in size, excluding garage space. (iii) The owner's detached accessory dwelling unit’s floor area does not exceed one-third of the total floor area of the principal structure, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or one thousandfive hundred and fifty square feet, whichever is less unless a variance is granted pursuant to Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 229 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (iv) If there is an interior connection between the owner's accessory unit and the principal dwelling prior to the creation of the owner's accessory unit, the connection shall be maintained during the life of the owner's accessory unit. Any additional entrance resulting from the creation of an owner's accessory unit, within the principal building, may face the side of the lot fronting on the street only if such entrance is adequately and appropriately screened in a manner that does not detract from the single-family appearance of the principal dwelling. (iiiv) The following design standards apply to owner's detached accessory dwelling units in a detached accessory structure: a. If garage doors are placed on the unit, they shall be single-car doors (no two-car-wide doors). b. All units shall be designed to have a pitched roof of 6:12 or greater. No flat roofs or lower pitched roofs shall be permitted unless consistent with the architecture of the existing house on the property. ca. Maximum height of accessory buildings with an owner's detached accessory dwelling unit shall not be greater than twenty feet unless the roof pitch is greater than 8:12 and the resulting ratio of the height of the roof (measured from the eave line to the top of the roof) to the height of the side walls (measured from the low point of grade to the eave line) is less than a 1:2 ratio. In no case may a building be taller than twenty-five feet. db. An owner's detached accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum of sixty square feet of private open space provided for the exclusive use of the occupants of the owner's detached accessory dwelling unit. Private open space may include porches, balconies or patio areas. Decks, porches, patios, terraces and stairways, located at a height greater than thirty inches above grade, shall be considered part of the building coverage. ec. Architectural design and materials shall be consistent with the existing residence on the site or the adjacent building(s) along the side yards of the lot. fd. Setbacks shall comply with accessory building setbacks. Where the rear yard of a property in the RR or RE zoning district directly abuts an RL zoning district, the rear yard accessory building setback shall be the same as the side yard setback for accessory buildings for applicable RR or RE zoning districts. g. The owner's accessory unit is in a building that has a building coverage of less than five hundred square feet and the owner's accessory unit does not exceed four hundred fifty square feet of floor area. (C) Variance of Building Coverage: The city manager may grant a variance to the building coverage requirements of Subparagraph (a)(4)(B)(v)g of this section upon finding that the following conditions are met: Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 230 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (i) The owner's accessory unit is created in a building that was legally in existence prior to June 3, 1997; and (ii) A reduction in the building footprint size of the existing building to conform to the five hundred square foot limitation would create a substantial hardship for the applicant. (D) Affordable Accessory Units: If the detached accessory dwelling unit is licensed as an affordable accessory unit, the unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit and the unit’s floor area may be up to eight hundred square feet. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981. If the unit is or will be offered for rental for compensation, the owner must obtain and at all times thereafter maintain a valid rental license for an affordable accessory unit issued by the city manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3, “Rental Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981. (E) Designated Historic Property: If the detached accessory dwelling unit is located within an accessory structure that is designated as an individual landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district or the principal structure is designated as an individual landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C 1981, the following modifications to the standards of this paragraph (a)(3) apply: (i) In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning district, the unit is not subject to the twenty percent limitation factor of subparagraph (a)(3)(A) provided that no more than thirty percent of the lots or parcels in the neighborhood area contain an accessory unit; (ii) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and (iii) The unit’s floor area may be up to one thousand square feet. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981. (4) Limited Accessory Units: In addition to the general accessory unit standards in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to limited accessory units. An existing nonconforming duplex or two detached dwelling units located on the same lot and within the R1 use module may be converted to limited accessory dwelling units. A limited accessory dwelling unit may be modified and expanded as a conditional use. Conversion to a limited accessory dwelling unit is subject to compliance with all of the following standards: (A) Applicability: This subsection (a)(3) is only applicable to dwelling units that legally existed, were actively used as multiple dwelling units, and had a valid rental license on January 1, 2005. (B) Expansion Limitation: The cumulative total of any expansion shall not exceed twenty percent of the total floor area that was documented at the time of the initial expansion. Any expansion of the restricted accessory unit shall not exceed ten Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 231 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 percent. In no case shall any expansion cause the cumulative size of the restricted dwelling units to exceed the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the underlying zoning district as set forth in Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (C) Parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than three spaces. All parking shall comply with the design and access requirements set forth in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981. A minimum of one off- street parking space shall be available for use by the restricted accessory dwelling unit. (D) Loss of Prior Nonconforming Status: If a nonconforming duplex or two detached dwelling units are converted to limited accessory units through the conditional use process, any prior nonconforming status is lost. … Section 6. Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-8-5. - Occupancy of Dwelling Units. (a) General Occupancy Restrictions: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, no persons except the following persons shall occupy a dwelling unit: (1) Members of a family plus one or two roomers. The quarters that the roomers use shall not exceed one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling unit and shall not be a separate dwelling unit; (2) Up to three persons in P, A, RR, RE, and RL zones; (3) Up to four persons in MU, RM, RMX, RH, BT, BC, BMS, BR, DT, IS, IG, IM, and IMS zones; or (4) Two persons and any of their children by blood, marriage, guardianship, including foster children, or adoption. (b) Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Owner'sDetached Accessory Dwelling Unit, or Limited Accessory Dwelling Unit: The occupancy of an attached accessory dwelling unit, owner's detached accessory dwelling unit, or limited accessory dwelling unit must meet the requirements of Subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.C. 1981. (c) Nonconformity: A dwelling unit that has a legally established occupancy higher than the occupancy level allowed by Subsection (a) of this section may maintain such occupancy of the dwelling unit as a nonconforming use, subject to the following: (1) The higher occupancy level was established because of a rezoning of the property, an ordinance change affecting the property, or other city approval; Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 232 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (2) The rules for continuation, restoration, and change of a nonconforming use set forth in Chapter 9-10, "Nonconformance Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981; (3) Units with an occupancy greater than four unrelated persons shall not exceed a total occupancy of the dwelling unit of one person per bedroom; (4) The provisions of Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981; and (5) If a property owner intends to sell a dwelling unit with a non-conforming occupancy that exceeds the occupancy limits in Subsection 9-8-5(a), B.R.C. 1981, every such contract for the purchase and sale of a dwelling unit shall contain a disclosure statement that indicates the allowable occupancy of the dwelling unit. (d) A dwelling unit licensed as a Cooperative Housing Unit pursuant to Section 10-11-3 "Cooperative Housing Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, shall not be subject to the occupancy limits or any exceptions as set forth in this section. All such dwelling units shall be limited to no fewer than four occupants with the maximum number of occupants, without regard to whether the occupants are related or not, as follows: (1) In the Rural Residential, Residential Estate and Residential Low Density zone districts to no more than twelve occupants, provided, however that occupancy shall not exceed more than one person per two hundred square feet of habitable space; (2) In all other zone districts to no more than fifteen occupants provided, however that occupancy shall not exceed more than one person per two hundred square feet of habitable space; and (3) The city manager may authorize a greater number of occupants in any Cooperative Housing Unit that is deed restricted as permanently affordable if the planning board after a public hearing recommends a greater number. Before making any such recommendation, the planning board shall consider the potential impacts on the surrounding community, the number of residents proposed, the proposed habitable square feet per person, the available off-street parking, and the mission of the cooperative. (e) Prohibition: No person shall occupy a dwelling unit in violation of this section or intentionally or negligently misrepresent the permitted occupancy of a dwelling unit in violation of this section. Section 7. That portion of Table 9-2 in Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, related to parking requirements for accessory dwelling units and owner accessory units is amended to read as follows: TABLE 9-2: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 233 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 … Attached accessory dwelling unit, owner's detached accessory dwelling unit 1 space, paved, in addition to tThe off-street parking requirement for the principal DU must be met, plus any parking space required for the accessory unit, see Subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.C. 1981. … Section 8. Section 9-14-2, “General Provisions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-14-2. – General Provisions. A system of managing the issuance of residential building permits in the city is established with the following general provisions: … (b) Allocations Needed: One allocation is needed to secure a building permit to construct each dwelling unit, except as set forth below. The living quarters set forth below shall require: (1) One-half allocation for an efficiency living unit; one-third allocation for a group residence; and one-sixth allocation or one-eighth allocation for each occupant for a group care facility or a residential care facility respectively, according to the density and occupancy restrictions of subsection 9-6-3(f), B.R.C. 1981; (2) One-fifth allocation for accommodations without kitchens or one-third allocation for attached allocations for congregate care facilities, according to the density and occupancy restrictions of section 9-8-6, "Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences," B.R.C. 1981; (3) One allocation for any other type of dwelling unit; and (4) No allocation for an attached accessory dwelling unit, an owner's detached accessory dwelling unit, a bed and breakfast, a hostel, a hotel or a motel. … Section 9. Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-16-1. – General Definitions. … (c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 234 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 … Affordable accessory unit means a unit for which the rents meet the affordability standard. Affordability standard means rents do not exceed the maximum rents established by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority or similar agency for households earning no more than seventy-five percent of the area median income. The city manager shall publish a table setting forth the maximum rents based on information provided by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority or its similar agency. … Attached accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping unit within a detached dwelling unit, permitted under the provisions of Subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.C. 1981. … Housekeeping unit means one room or rooms with internal connections for separate residential occupancy and including bathroom and kitchen facilities. Multiple housekeeping units exist if there is more than one address to the property or more than one kitchen; or if there are separate entrances to rooms which could be used as separate housekeeping units; or if there is a lockable, physical separation between rooms in a dwelling unit such that a room or rooms on each side of the separation could be used as a housekeeping unit or rooms with no internal connections. … Kitchen means any part of a room or dwelling unit that can be used for the preparation of food that includes one or more of the following: a refrigerator, cooking device, kitchen sink, or dishwasher. The following do not constitute a kitchen under this definition: (1) a wet bar; or (2) an ancillary refrigerator that is used solely to store food that is prepared in the kitchen of a principal dwelling unit. … Owner-occupied means a dwelling unit or accessory unit that is actually and physically occupied as a the principal residence by of at least one owner of record of the lot or parcel upon which the dwelling unit or accessory unit is located, who possesses at least an estate for life or a fifty percent fee simple ownership interest or is the trustor of a revocable living trust. … Owner's Detached accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping unit which is accessory within an accessory structure to the principal dwelling unitowner's occupancy of the lot or parcel upon which the unit is located that is permitted under the provisions of pParagraph 9-6-3 (a)(34), B.R.C. 1981. … Principal residence means the dwelling unit in which a person resides for more than one- half of the year. However, if (1) the person owns another dwelling unit that is not licensed for long term rental; (2) the person's spouse or domestic partner has a different principal residence; (3) the person's driver's license, voter registration or any dependent's school registration shows a different residence address; or (4) the Boulder County Assessor lists a mailing address different Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 235 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from the dwelling unit address, it shall be presumed that the dwelling unit in question is not a principal residence. Provided, however, no presumption shall apply in any criminal proceeding. … Wet bar means a bar for mixing drinks that may contain a sink with running water, a dishwasher, and a refrigerator but no other facilities that can be used for the preparation of food other than mixing drinks. A sink in a wet bar must be smaller than a kitchen sink, as defined in Section 10-2-2, B.R.C. 1981. Section 10. Section 10-2-2, “Adoption of International Property Maintenance Code with Modifications,” B.R.C. 1981, Appendix C, Section C101.1 Scope, is amended to read as follows: 10-2-2.-Adoption of International Property Maintenance Code with Modifications. … APPENDIX C ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STRUCTURES ENERGY CONSERVATION C101 SCOPE C101.1 Scope. Appendix C sets standards for residential rental dwelling unit energy efficiency. Effective January 2, 2019, the energy efficiency requirements of this section shall apply to all residential rental dwelling units licensed according to Chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, except: 1. Buildings that can be verified as meeting or exceeding the energy efficiency requirements of the Energy Conservation Code, Chapter 10-7, B.R.C. 1981; and 2. Any manufactured home; and 3. Attached Accessory accessory Dwelling dwelling Units units and Attached Owner Accessory Units as detailed in Section 9-6-3, "Specific Use Standards Residential Uses," B.R.C. 1981. … Section 11. Section 10-3-6, “License Application Procedure for Buildings Converted to Rental Property,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-3-6. - License Application Procedure for Buildings Converted to Rental Property. Every operator converting a property to rental property shall follow the procedures in this section for procuring a rental license: Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 236 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (a) Submit a complete application packet for a license to the City, on official city forms provided for that purpose, at least thirty days before rental of the property including: (1) A rental housing inspector's certification of baseline inspection dated within twelve months before the application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection form available to city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of a request; and (2) A report on the condition and location of all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms required by Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, made and verified by the operator; and (3) A trash removal plan meeting the requirements of Subsection 6-3-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, made and verified by the operator. (b) Pay all license fees prescribed by Section 4-20- 18, "Rental License Fee," B.R.C. 1981, at the time of submitting the license application. The city manager shall not issue any rental license if the operator owes any fees or penalties, unless the penalties are subject to a pending appeal. (c) Take all reasonable steps to notify any occupants of the property in advance of the date and time of the inspection. The operator shall be present and accompany the inspector throughout the inspection, unlocking and opening doors as required; and (4) If the unit is an affordable accessory unit as defined in Section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, a sworn certification that the unit will meet the rental affordability standard as defined in Section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981. Section 12. Section 10-3-7, “License Renewal Procedure for Buildings Occupied as Rental Property,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-3-7. - License Renewal Procedure for Buildings Occupied as Rental Property. Every operator of a rental property shall follow the procedures in this section when renewing an unexpired license: (a) Pay all license fees prescribed by Section 4-20-18, "Rental License Fee," B.R.C. 1981, before the expiration of the existing license. The city manager shall not issue any rental license if the operator owes any fees or penalties, unless the penalties are subject to a pending appeal. (b) Submit to the city manager a complete application packet, on forms provided by the manager including: (1) A rental housing inspector's certification of renewal inspection within twelve months before application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection form available to city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of a request; (2) A report on the condition and location of all smoke and carbon monoxide alarms required by Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, made and verified by the operator; and (3) A trash removal plan meeting the requirements of Subsection 6-3-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, made and verified by the operator; and Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 237 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (4) If the unit is an affordable accessory unit as defined in Section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, a sworn certification that the unit will meet the rental affordability standard as defined in Section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981. (c) Take all reasonable steps to notify in advance all tenants of the property of the date and time of the inspection. The operator shall be present and accompany the inspector throughout the inspection, unlocking and opening doors as required. Section 13. Section 10-3-16, “Administrative Remedy,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-3-16. - Administrative Remedy. (a) If the city manager finds that a violation of any provision of this chapter or Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981, exists, the manager, after notice to the operator and an opportunity for hearing under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3, "Quasi- Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981, may take any one or more of the following actions to remedy the violation: (1) Impose a civil penalty according to the following schedule: (A) For any violation in the following areas or of affordability standards: The area south of Arapahoe Avenue, north of Baseline Road, east of 6 th Street and west of Broadway, the area south of Baseline Road, north of Table Mesa Drive, east of Broadway and west of U.S. Route 36 and the area south of Canyon Boulevard, north of Arapahoe Avenue, west of Folsom Street and east of 15th Street or for any violation of affordability standards for an affordable accessory unit approved under Subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.C. 1981: (i) For the first violation of the provision, $500.00; (ii) For the second violation of the same provision, $750.00; and (iii) For the third violation of the same provision, $1,000.00; (B) For a violation in any other area: (i) For the first violation of the provision, $150.00; (ii) For the second violation of the same provision, $300.00; and (iii) For the third violation of the same provision, $1,000.00. (2) Revoke the rental license; (3) If the city manager finds that a short-term rental license was issued to a licensee who is determined not to comply with subsections (1), (2) or (3) of sSection 10-3-19(c), "Short- Term Rentals," B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall revoke the short-term rental license; and (4) Issue any order reasonably calculated to ensure compliance with this chapter and Chapter 10-2, "Property Maintenance Code," B.R.C. 1981. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 238 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (b) If the city manager finds that an affordable accessory unit was advertised, offered for rent or rented for an amount in excess of the affordability standard, in addition to the actions the manager may take under subsection (a), the manager shall impose a penalty equal to the amount charged in excess of the affordability standard during the term of the license, plus interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum, and shall pay such funds collected to the tenant who was charged in excess of the affordability standard. (bc) If notice is given to the city manager by the operator at least forty-eight hours before the time and date set forth in the notice of hearing on any violation that the violation has been corrected, the manager will reinspect the building. If the manager finds that the violation has been corrected, the manager may cancel the hearing. (cd) The city manager's authority under this section is in addition to any other authority the manager has to enforce this chapter, and election of one remedy by the manager shall not preclude resorting to any other remedy as well. (de) The city manager may, in addition to taking other collection remedies, certify due and unpaid charges to the Boulder County Treasurer for collection as provided by Section 2-2-12, "City Manager May Certify Taxes, Charges and Assessments to County Treasurer for Collection," B.R.C. 1981. (ef) To cover the costs of investigative inspections, the city manager will assess operators a $250.00 fee per inspection, where the city manager performs an investigative inspection to ascertain compliance with or violations of this chapter. (fg) The city manager shall not accept a new application from the same licensee for the same dwelling unit or units after revocation of a license: (1) For at least six months following the revocation; and (2) Unless the applicant demonstrates compliance with all licensing requirements. Section 14. Section 10-3-19, “Short Term Rentals,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 10-3-19. - Short-Term Rentals. (a) Short-term rentals are prohibited unless the city manager has issued a valid short-term rental license for the property. (b) The city manager shall only issue a rental license for short-term rental to: (1) A natural person, whose name appears on the deed to the property; (2) A trust, if the beneficiary of the trust is a natural person; or (3) A not-for-profit corporation licensed pursuant to Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, provided, however, the city manager shall have discretion to reject any application for a not-for-profit corporation if the city manager deems the application to be inconsistent with the goals of this chapter, which include allowing not-for-profits the opportunity support their mission through short-term rentals, preserving long term rental units and preventing investor owned short-term rentals.; Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 239 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (c) Any application for a rental license for short-term rental shall include the following: (1) If the applicant is a natural person, the application must include a sworn statement that the dwelling unit to be licensed is the applicant's principal residence; (2) If the applicant is a trust, a sworn statement that the dwelling unit is a beneficiary's principal residence; (3) If the applicant is a not-for-profit corporation, the application shall include proof of the corporation's status under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and a statement of the manner in which short-term rentals serve the organization's charitable purpose; (4) A certification that the dwelling unit is equipped with operational smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors and other life safety equipment as may be required by the city manager; and (5) The names and telephone numbers of two contacts who for owner-operated rentals can be permanent residents on the property and who are capable of responding to the property within sixty minutes. (d) If the dwelling unit is an accessory unit, only the accessory unit and not any other dwelling unit on the same property may be a licensed or used as a rental; (e) If a dwelling unit is licensed for short-term rental, then no accessory unit on the same property may be licensed or used as a rental; (fd) If the applicant is a natural person, the applicant's name must appear on the deed to the property on which the dwelling unit to be rented is located.; (ge) The city manager shall not issue a license for short-term rental of a permanently affordable dwelling unit. (hf) Short-term rentals shall not be subject to the inspection requirements of Section 10-3- 3(a)(1)(A), "Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, except as set forth in subsection (k).: (1) Accessory Units, permitted under Section 9-6-3(a), "Accessory Units," B.R.C. 1981 if such Accessory unit is in an Accessory Structure, as that term is defined in Section 9- 16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. (i) An accessory unit may not be rented as a short-term rental for more than one hundred twenty days in any calendar year. (jg) The occupancy of a dwelling unit rented as a short-term rental shall not exceed the occupancy permitted pursuant to Section 9-8-5, "Occupancy of Dwelling Units," B.R.C. 1981; provided, however, for the purposes of this section only, the licensee and people related to the licensee shall be counted as one person. The occupancy of any accessory unit shall be limited to a family or two unrelated persons; (k) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10-2-2, "Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code with Modifications," B.R.C. 1981, Appendix C, effective January 2, 2019, the energy efficiency requirements set forth in Section 10-2-2, Appendix C section shall apply to Accessory Units, permitted under Section 9-6-3(a), "Accessory Units," B.R.C. 1981 if such Accessory unit is in an Accessory Structure, as that term is defined in Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 240 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (lh) No person shall rent a dwelling unit in a manner that requires or encourages a person to sleep in an area that is not habitable as that term is used in the International Property Maintenance Code as adopted in Section 10-2-2, "Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code with Modifications," B.R.C. 1981. (mi) No person shall advertise a short-term rental, unless the advertisement includes the license number and the maximum unrelated occupancy permitted in the unit. (nj) The city manager shall not issue more than one short-term rental license to any applicant. (k) An accessory unit or a principal dwelling unit on a single-family lot or parcel with an accessory unit may not be rented as a short-term rental unless all of the following requirements are met: (1) Both the accessory unit and the principal dwelling unit were legally established on the effective date of Ordinance 8256; (2) A current and valid short-term rental license exists for the unit; (3) If the accessory unit is licensed for short-term rental, only the accessory unit and not any other dwelling unit on the same property may be licensed or used as a rental; (4) If a principal dwelling unit is licensed for short-term rental, then no accessory unit on the same property may be licensed or used as a rental; (5) An accessory unit may not be rented as a short-term rental for more than one hundred twenty days in any calendar year; (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (g), the occupancy of the accessory unit and the principal dwelling unit must meet the requirements of Subsection 9-6-3(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981; and (7) Licensing Limitations and Requirements: (A) No application for a new short-term rental license shall be accepted on or after the effective date of Ordinance 8256. On or after the effective date of Ordinance 8256, a new short-term rental license may be issued only for complete applications received by the city manager on or before the effective date of Ordinance 8256. On or after the effective date of Ordinance 8256, the city manager may renew unexpired short-term rental licenses pursuant to Section 10-3-7, “License Renewal Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981. A license for which a complete renewal application is not filed within ninety days from the expiration date shall be considered expired. (B) An applicant for a short-term rental license for a detached accessory dwelling unit, as that term is defined in Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, must submit an inspection report for the accessory structure containing the unit consistent with the requirements of Subparagraph 10-3-3(a)(1)(A), B.R.C. 1981. (C) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10-2-2, "Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code with Modifications," B.R.C. 1981, Appendix C, effective January 2, 2019, the energy efficiency requirements set forth in Section 10-2-2, Appendix C shall apply to detached accessory dwelling units, as that term is defined in Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, that are licensed for short-term rental. Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 241 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 14. This ordinance shall be applied to applications submitted on or after February 1, 2019. Applications submitted before February 1, 2019 shall be considered under the standards in effect at the time of application. Section 15. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city and covers matters of local concern. Section 16. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 22nd day of May 2018. ____________________________________ Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 242 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 READ ON SECOND READING, AMENDED AND PASSED, this 29th day of August 2018. ____________________________________ Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Lynnette Beck City Clerk READ ON THIRD READING, AMENDED AND PASSED, this 2nd day of October 2018. ____________________________________ Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Lynnette Beck City Clerk READ ON FOURTH READING, AMENDED AND PASSED, this 16th day of October 2018. ____________________________________ Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 243 of 553 K:\PLCU\o-8256 - 6th Rdg-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 READ ON FIFTH READING, AMENDED AND PASSED, this 8th day of November 2018. ____________________________________ Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Lynnette Beck City Clerk READ ON SIXTH READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 4th day of December 2018. ____________________________________ Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: ____________________________________ Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment A: ADU Update Ordinance 8256 City Council Meeting Page 244 of 553 Amend proposed Subsection 10-3-19(k) in Ordinance 8256 to read as follows: (k)An accessory unit or a principal dwelling unit on a single-family lot or parcel with an accessory unit may not be rented as a short-term rental unless all of the following requirements are met: (1)Both the accessory unit and the principal dwelling unit were are legally established on the effective date of Ordinance 8256; (2)A current and valid short-term rental license exists for the unit; (3)If the accessory unit is licensed for short-term rental, only the accessory unit and not any other dwelling unit on the same property may be licensed or used as a rental; (4)If a principal dwelling unit is licensed for short-term rental, then no accessory unit on the same property may be licensed or used as a rental; (5)An accessory unit may not be rented as a short-term rental for more than one hundred twenty days in any calendar year; (6)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (g), the occupancy of the accessory unit and the principal dwelling unit must meet the requirements of Subsection 9-6-3(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981; and (7)Licensing Limitations and Requirements: (A)No application for a new short-term rental license shall be accepted on or after the effective date of Ordinance 8256June 1, 2019. On or after the effective date of Ordinance 8256June 1, 2019, a new short-term rental license may be issued only for complete applications received by the city manager on or before the effective date of Ordinance 8256June 1, 2019. On or after June 1, 2019the effective date of Ordinance 8256, the city manager may renew unexpired short-term rental licenses pursuant to Section 10-3-7, “License Renewal Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981. A license for which a complete renewal application is not filed within ninety days from the expiration date shall be considered expired. (B)An applicant for a short-term rental license for a detached accessory dwelling unit, as that term is defined in Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, must submit an inspection report for the accessory structure containing the unit consistent with the requirements of Subparagraph 10-3-3(a)(1)(A), B.R.C. 1981. (C)Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10-2-2, "Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code with Modifications," B.R.C. 1981, Appendix C, effective January 2, 2019, the energy efficiency requirements set forth in Section 10-2-2, Appendix C shall apply to detached accessory dwelling units, as that term is defined in Section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, that are licensed for short-term rental. Item 3K - 6th Rdg ADU Ord. 8256 Attachment B: Amendments as proposed by a Council Member (extend period allowing short-term rental applications) City Council Meeting Page 245 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8299 approving annual carryover and supplemental appropriations to the 2018 Budget; and Consideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder City C ouncil and convene as the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Board of Directors P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt Ordinance 8299 approving annual carryover and supplemental appropriations to the 2018 Budget; and C onsideration of a motion to adjourn as the Boulder C ity Council and convene as the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Board of Directors AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 246 of 553 C I T Y O F B O U L D E R CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Second reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only, Ordinance 8299 approving supplemental appropriations to the 2018 Budget. Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder City Council and convene as the Boulder Municipal Property Authority (BMPA) Board of Directors. PRESENTERS: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Cheryl Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer Gina Coluzzi, Senior Budget Analyst EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As described in the Budget Philosophy and Process section of the annual budget document, there are opportunities during the fiscal year for changes to the annual budget appropriation. Each year at least two supplemental ordinances, known as Adjustments to Base (ATB), are presented to City Council for review and approval. These adjustments are a necessary part of governmental business: Colorado law requires an annual budget appropriation that ends December 31st each year, but government business necessarily continues year-round. Council receives the first ordinance, the Carryover and Budget Supplemental, in May. This ordinance largely re-appropriates funds from the previous year for projects or obligations approved but not completed during the year. The second ordinance, the Second and Final Budget Supplemental, in November is largely funded by new revenues or grants. In years where new initiatives are launched and other unique circumstances become apparent after annual budget approval, additional adjustments to base may be brought forward for council consideration. Typically, the supplemental ordinances adjust only the current year budget and are considered “one- time” adjustments. As a result, they have no direct or immediate impact on the following year’s budget. This request is the Budget Supplemental that council sees every year in November/December, which will help close out the year with necessary adjustments for new revenues received by the city, such as grants, as well as other evolving budget needs identified over the course of the year and adjustments Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 247 of 553 necessitated by accounting requirements. The proposed ordinance is provided as Attachment A to this packet. The second reading of this item is scheduled for the December 4 City Council meeting. At that time, the first and only reading of resolutions for supplemental appropriations for the Boulder Municipal Property Authority (BMPA) District will occur. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Ordinance 8299 approving supplemental appropriations to the 2018 Budget. Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder City Council and convene as the Boulder Municipal Property Authority (BMPA) Board of Directors. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS This supplemental ordinance appropriates funding for a variety of citywide projects and services that positively affect economic, environmental or social sustainability in the community. OTHER IMPACTS Fiscal: In the General Fund this ordinance will appropriate $940,301 from additional revenue and $914,110 from fund balance. In restricted funds, this ordinance will appropriate $3,135,712 from additional revenue and $1,004,628 from fund balance. Staff time for this process is allocated in the Budget Division’s regular annual work plan. ANALYSIS ATB Process The second ATB serves as an opportunity to address both evolving needs to city government, e.g., new initiatives and unplanned expenditures, as well as new revenues such as grants. Prior to submitting adjustments, staff analyze existing resources along with projected revenues and expenses by fund to determine the fund’s capacity. When staff determine current year appropriations are sufficient to absorb these additional expenditures, an ATB is not put forward. In other cases, an appropriation is needed to ensure the fund is not overspent. While overall Sales and Use tax revenues have grown at a slower rate in 2018, the General Fund anticipates meeting its revised revenue projections and the budget is anticipated to have savings due to staff turnover and the amount of time it takes to hire staff. Therefore, this ATB is requesting only the radio infrastructure project include a budget adjustment from fund balance and the remaining unanticipated needs can be absorbed by the fund. The remainder of this section provides details on the types of requests included in this ordinance. Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 248 of 553 Overview of Total Requests In total, the city recommends $5,994,752 in appropriations, of which $3,354,043 (56 percent) come from new revenues and $2,558,207 (43 percent) from fund balance. The remaining one percent comes from a negative appropriation and transfers in. The majority of the appropriations ($4,140,340 or 69 percent of the total) are in the city’s restricted funds, e.g., the Affordable Housing, Fleet, and Open Space Funds, while the balance, $1,854,412 is from the General Fund. A summary table of the all the requests by fund can be found in Attachment B. Supplemental Appropriations from Additional Revenue There are two types of budget supplemental requests from additional revenue: Budget supplementals from grant revenues are required throughout the year since either the grant was not anticipated and was therefore not incorporated into the original budget, or because the grant amount received was more than the amount specified in the original budget; and Budget supplemental from additional revenues, which includes unanticipated (or not quantified at the time the budget was passed) funds received for city programs and services, including donations, reimbursements for services, fundraisers, or cooperative agreements between municipalities. Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 249 of 553 Requests for appropriations from additional revenue, including those from additional grant revenue, in this budget supplemental total $3,354,043. Examples of these requests include: Reimbursement for Fire Wildland Deployment and special event overtime (General Fund); Reimbursement from the OSMP Hub landlord for improvements made during renovations (Open Space Fund); Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) reimbursement from Ponderosa Mobile Home Park (Affordable Housing Fund); and Private developer funding for additional improvements at Valmont intersection of the Spark Development (Boulder Junction Capital Improvement Fund). Supplemental Appropriations from Fund Balance These requests represent appropriations from a specific fund’s available fund balance. These funds are available to be spent with authorization via appropriation. Departments may carry fund balances specifically to address long-term capital needs, to fund proactive replacement or to address emergent opportunities or emergency needs. Requests for appropriations from fund balance in this budget supplemental total $2,558,207. Examples of these requests include: Supplement Community, Culture, Safety tax funded Radio Infrastructure Project for two additional radio sites (General Fund); Various equipment related purchases that were opportunistic and cost effective to do in 2018 (Equipment Replacement Fund); and Appropriate Asset Forfeiture reserves to pay for Police training academy and the Records Management System (General Fund). Transfers Between Funds A third type of supplemental appropriation is transfers between funds requiring council approval. An example of this type of request is the transfer from the Fleet Fund to the General Fund for payment of the 2018 costs of the Hogan Pancost land purchase that will be repaid in 2019. Negative Appropriation A fourth type and infrequent type of supplemental appropriation is a negative appropriation in which an earlier adjustment incorrectly appropriated additional budget. In this instance, a purchase order in the Stormwater/Flood Management Fund was incorrectly carried over from 2017 in the first adjustment to base in 2018 and this negative appropriation fixes that error and removes the budget appropriation. Staff Recommendation Based on the above analysis of budget requests and financial capacity, staff recommends council adopt the budget supplemental ordinance on first reading. PUBLIC AND COUNCIL FEEDBACK During the Council Agenda Committee (CAC) on November 5, 2018, two questions were asked regarding the supplemental appropriation. The first was related to the TreeOpp Knight Foundation Grant. TreeOpp was the 2016 highest award-winning concept of the Knight Foundation. Of the $200,000 awarded to the Parks & Recreation Department (BPR) to implement the program with BridgeHouse and Building 61, only $70,000 remains unspent. BPR has worked with the Foundation which authorized the department to retain this funding despite the end of the pilot. With these funds, the department will: Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 250 of 553 Conduct another round of milling in December; Conduct a community build in January; Continue to work on 6400 Arapahoe (ReSource Yard) space allocation that may incorporate additional wood utilization space and woodworking area; and Continue public woodworking classes (including EAB-related education). The second question pertained to the Radio Infrastructure Project. In 2017, City Council approved moving forward with the Community, Culture, and Safety (CCS) tax extension projects. One of those projects included the Radio Infrastructure replacement which is a public safety project that will improve the daily operations of the city’s Police, Fire, OSMP Rangers, and Public Works and benefits emergency response for the Boulder community. Original project request was for $6 million and council approved a budget of $5.5 million. Since the original project request and approval process, further radio coverage and equipment needs have been identified. The additional needs are related to a change in radio frequency (VHF to 7/800 MHz) and therefore, a change in the coverage plan (i.e., location and number of radio towers). Specifically, two additional radio tower sites are required, and three existing radio tower sites need to be upgraded to properly cover the city’s response areas due in part to the city changing the radio frequency from VHF to 7/800 MHz technology. These changes in radio frequency and coverage plan will provide better in-building radio coverage, create efficiencies in response time to incidents, and seamless interoperability with other agencies by using standards-based technology. If funding is not approved, then the city will have to delay moving to the new radio infrastructure system and continue to maintain and operate an aged system. This will mean that the city will continue to have coverage gaps in the community, lack of in-building coverage, and have a radio system where parts are obsolete or no longer manufactured. There were no questions or comments at the first reading of Ordinance 8299 held on November 6, 2018. ATTACHMENTS A.Ordinance 8299 containing supplemental appropriations to the 2018 Budget B.Table of carryovers and supplemental appropriations to the 2018 Budget by fund Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 251 of 553 ATTACHMENT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDINANCE 8299 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2018 SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE FOREGOING. WHEREAS, Section 102 of the Charter of the City of Boulder provides that: "At any time after the passage of the annual appropriation ordinance and after at least one week's public notice, the council may transfer unused balances appropriated for one purpose to another purpose, and may by ordinance appropriate available revenues not included in the annual budget;" and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to make certain supplemental appropriations for purposes not provided for in the 2018 annual budget; and, WHEREAS, required public notice has been given; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, that the following amounts are appropriated from additional projected revenues and from unused fund balances to the listed funds: Section 1. General Fund Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 914,110 Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 940,301 Section 2. .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 88,626 Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 34,319 Section 3. Affordable Housing Fund Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 740,070 Section 4. Boulder Junction Improvement Fund Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 416,000 Section 5. Community Development Block Grant Fund Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 252 of 553 ATTACHMENT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 157,228 Section 6. Community Housing Assistance Program Fund Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 10,000 Section 7. Equipment Replacement Fund Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 530,000 Section 8. Fleet Replacement Fund Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 721,970 Section 9. HOME Fund Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 407,659 Section 10. Library Fund Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 18,693 Section 11. Open Space Fund Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 1,161,000 Section 12. Property & Casualty Self Insurance Fund Appropriation from Fund Balance $ 300,000 Section 13. Recreation Activity Fund Appropriation from Additional Revenue $ 190,743 Section 14. Stormwater/Flood Management Utility Fund Negative Appropriation ($ 639,468) Section 15. The City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City and covers matters of local concern. Section 16. If any part or parts hereof are for any reason held to be invalid, such shall not affect the remaining portion of this ordinance. Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 253 of 553 ATTACHMENT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Section 17. The Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and order that copies of this ordinance be made available in the Office of the City Clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 8th day of November, 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Attest: _____________________________ City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 2018. __________________________________ Mayor Attest: _______________________________ City Clerk Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 254 of 553 ATTACHMENT BFundDepartment Type/Item Budget Supplemental Additional Revenue Fund Balance GeneralBudget Supplemental from Additional RevenueFireAMR Software Use19,575$ 19,575$ -$ FireOvertime Reimbursement from 3rd parties160,756 160,756 - PoliceBlood Chemical Testing38,000 38,000 - Transfer In and Appropriation PW-Support SvcsHogan Pancost Interfund Loan (transfer from Fleet Fund)721,970 721,970 - Budget Supplemental from Fund Balance- - - PoliceAsset Forfeiture Reserve414,110 - 414,110 PW-Support SvcsRadio Infrastructure System500,000 - 500,000 Total 1,854,412$ 940,301$ 914,110$ .25 Cent Sales TaxBudget Supplemental from Additional RevenueParks and RecreationBoulder County Grants Alliance Donation34,319$ 34,319$ -$ Budget Supplemental from Fund BalanceParks and RecreationTreeOpp - Knight Foundation Grant (carryover)88,626 - 88,626 Total 122,945$ 34,319$ 88,626$ Affordable HousingBudget Supplemental from Additional Grant RevenueHousingPonderosa Acquisition - CDBG-DR Reimbursement740,070$ 740,070$ -$ Total 740,070$ 740,070$ -$ Boulder Junction Capital ImprovementBudget Supplemental from Additional RevenuePW-TransportationValmont Intersecton Improvements developer funded work416,000$ 416,000$ -$ Total 416,000$ 416,000$ -$ Boulder Municipal Property AuthorityBudget Supplemental from Fund BalanceFinanceAdministrative fees on the certificates of participation3,500$ -$ 3,500$ Total3,500$ -$ 3,500$ 2ND BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL OF 2018REQUEST BY FUND AND DEPT Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 BudgetCity Council Meeting Page 255 of 553 ATTACHMENT BFundDepartment Type/Item Budget Supplemental Additional Revenue Fund Balance 2ND BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL OF 2018REQUEST BY FUND AND DEPT Comm Development Block GrantBudget Supplemental from Additional Grant RevenueHuman Services2018 CDBG23,584$ 23,584$ -$ Housing2018 CDBG Grant Adjustment133,644 133,644 - Total 157,228$ 157,228$ -$ Community Housing Asst PrgmBudget Supplemental from Additional Grant RevenueHousingRegional Housing Partnership Grant Support10,000$ 10,000$ Total10,000$ 10,000$ -$ Equipment ReplacementBudget Supplemental from Fund BalancePW-Support SvcsChannel 8 Close Captioning80,000$ -$ 80,000$ PW-Support SvcsCouncil Chambers Equipment40,000 - 40,000 PW-Support SvcsFire Department Capital Equipment Replacement275,000 - 275,000 PW-Support SvcsTraffic Signal Cabinets135,000 - 135,000 Total 530,000$ -$ 530,000$ FleetTransfer Out and Appropriation PW-Support SvcsHogan Pancost Interfund Loan (transfer to General Fund)721,970$ -$ 721,970$ Total 721,970$ -$ 721,970$ HOMEBudget Supplemental from Additional Grant RevenueHousing2018 HOME Grant Adjustment407,659$ 407,659$ -$ Total 407,659$ 407,659$ -$ LibraryBudget Supplemental from Additional RevenueLibraryInfoSys Grant10,000$ 10,000$ -$ LibraryOverdrive Cost Sharing Revenue8,693 8,693 - Total18,693$ 18,693$ -$ Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 BudgetCity Council Meeting Page 256 of 553 ATTACHMENT BFundDepartment Type/Item Budget Supplemental Additional Revenue Fund Balance 2ND BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL OF 2018REQUEST BY FUND AND DEPT Open SpaceBudget Supplemental from Additional RevenueOpen Space & Mountain Parks OSMP Hub Landlord Reimbursement1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ -$ Open Space & Mountain Parks Reimbursement for Wildfire Response111,000 111,000 - Budget Supplemental from Additional Grant RevenueOpen Space & Mountain Parks State Forest Service Grant50,000 50,000 - Total 1,161,000$ 1,161,000$ -$ Property & Casualty Self InsuranceBudget Supplemental from Fund BalanceFinanceClaims Costs300,000$ -$ 300,000$ Total 300,000$ -$ 300,000$ Recreation Activity Budget Supplemental from Additional RevenueParks and RecreationDonations from PLAY Foundation to offset Expand Scholarships9,000$ 9,000$ -$ - Budget Supplemental from Additional Grant RevenueParks and RecreationGetting Fit Grant11,743 11,743 - Parks and RecreationHealthy Together Grant70,000 70,000 - Parks and RecreationSpark Grant - BVSD & Mobile Rec Van Grant100,000 100,000 - Total 190,743$ 190,743$ -$ Stormwater & Flood Management UtilityNegative AppropriationPW-UtilitiesEncumbrance Carryover Correction(639,468)$ -$ (639,468)$ Total (639,468)$ -$ (639,468)$ Grand Total5,994,752$ 4,076,013$ 1,918,738$ Item 3L - Second reading Ordinance 8299 Supplemental Appropriations to the 2018 BudgetCity Council Meeting Page 257 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 151 amending the 2018 Budget for the Boulder Municipal Property Authority; and C onsideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City C ouncil P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt Resolution 151 approving a supplemental appropriation to the Boulder Municipal Property Authority 2018 budget and Motion to adjourn from the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder C ity Council. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 258 of 553 BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to adopt Resolution 151 amending the 2018 Budget for the Boulder Municipal Property Authority. Consideration of a motion to adjourn from the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Board of Directors and reconvene as the Boulder City Council. PRESENTERS Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Cheryl Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Officer Gina Coluzzi, Senior Budget Analyst EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boulder Municipal Property Authority (BMPA) was formed as a Colorado nonprofit corporation in February of 1988 for the purpose of acquiring real and personal property, and leasing, selling or otherwise conveying the same to the city. The Authority is governed by a nine-member board of directors, which consists of the mayor and council of the city. The Authority’s officers include a president and vice president, which, pursuant to its bylaws, shall be the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, respectively, of the city and a secretary-treasurer, which shall be Chief Financial Officer, ex officio City Clerk of the city. The Authority has no assets, other than assets acquired from the issuance of debt securities, which are pledged to the repayment of such securities. The Boulder Municipal Property Authority is a component unit of the City of Boulder as provided in the definition of "Reporting Entity" used by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. This requires that the financial statements of the Boulder Municipal Property Authority be included in the city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Therefore, the Boulder Municipal Property Authority must adopt a formal annual budget. Item 3M-Resolution 151 to amend the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 259 of 553 The increase in the amount of $3,500 to BMPA’s 2018 budget is for administrative fees on the Certificates of Participation that were issued in late 2015. The COPs were used for the purchase of the Boulder Community Hospital and for capital improvements of that site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Resolution 151 approving a supplemental appropriation to the Boulder Municipal Property Authority 2018 budget. Motion to adjourn from the Boulder Municipal Property Authority Board of Directors and reconvene as Boulder City Council. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS This action is an accounting function necessitated by accounting requirements. OTHER IMPACTS This resolution appropriates $3,500 from Fund Balance. Staff time for this process is allocated in the Budget Office’s regular annual work plan. ATTACHMENTS A.Proposed resolution amending the 2018 Boulder Municipal Property Authority Fund Budget Item 3M-Resolution 151 to amend the 2018 Budget City Council Meeting Page 260 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION 151 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY (BMPA), MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2018, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. WHEREAS, the Boulder Municipal Property Authority is a nonprofit corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, and; WHEREAS, the Boulder Municipal Property Authority is a component unit of the City of Boulder, for accounting purposes only, and as such, is required to formally adopt an annual budget, and; WHEREAS, certain 2018 debt service and capital expenditure obligations of the Boulder Municipal Property Authority were not provided for in the 2018 Annual Appropriation Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, ACTING AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BOULDER MUNICIPAL PROPERTY AUTHORITY, THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ACCOMPLISHED: Section 1. Appropriation from Fund Balance $3,500 INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 2018. ________________________________________ President Attest: ______________________________ Secretary Attachment A - Resolution 151 City Council Meeting Page 261 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C ontinued second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt or amend and pass Ordinance 8295 amending C hapter 7-7, “Towing and Impoundment,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt additional regulations on nonconsensual towing and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T T homas Carr, City Attorney RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt on second reading Ordinance 8295 amending C hapter 7-7, “Towing and Impoundment,” B.R.C . 1981, to adopt additional regulations on nonconsensual towing and setting forth related details. or in the alternative Motion to amend and pass on second reading Ordinance 8295 amending C hapter 7-7, “Towing and Impoundment,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt additional regulations on nonconsensual towing and setting forth related details. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 262 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Continued second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt or amend and pass, Ordinance 8295 amending Chapter 7-7, “Towing and Impoundment,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt additional regulations on nonconsensual towing and setting forth related details. PRESENTERS Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last several months council members have heard concerns from the community regarding towing. The ability to tow illegally parked vehicles is an important means to make sure that limited parking is available for those who need it. Nevertheless, when a vehicle is towed it can have a significant financial impact on the owner. Towing and storage fees can impose a substantial burden on some of the most vulnerable families in the community. Council asked staff to draft an ordinance that would provide some protection. Staff learned that the state already regulates in many of the areas in which council expressed an interest in adopting new regulations. At the initial second reading on November 8, 2018 council considered potential amendments. Council directed the city attorney to draft a revised version of the ordinance to include amendments for consideration at a continued second reading. If council passes the ordinance as amended, a third reading will be necessary. Item 3N- Continued 2nd Rdg Towing Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 263 of 553 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt on second reading, Ordinance 8295 amending Chapter 7-7, “Towing and Impoundment,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt additional regulations on nonconsensual towing and setting forth related details. or in the alternative Motion to amend and pass on second reading, Ordinance 8295 amending Chapter 7-7, “Towing and Impoundment,” B.R.C. 1981, to adopt additional regulations on nonconsensual towing and setting forth related details. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – Parking enforcement promotes economic vitality by providing parking for workers and customers for city businesses. • Environmental – Lack of available parking can cause drivers to circulate looking for parking, increasing the carbon impact from their driving. • Social – Unfair towing practices can have a significant financial impact on vulnerable members of the community. Regulating those activities as proposed could limit those effects. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – No additional resources are expected at this time. If enforcement of the ordinance requires extensive police resources, this may need to be addressed in future budgets. • Staff time – Staff time is expected to be included in existing work plans. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Council considered the proposed ordinance at a public hearing on November 8, 2018 at which three people spoke. Staff and council members have met with interested members of the industry and the community. A representative of a towing company responded to changes made on first reading. He expressed concern regarding the notice to vehicle Item 3N- Continued 2nd Rdg Towing Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 264 of 553 owner requirement added through amendment on first reading. There are two concerns. First, the state database does not include the owner’s telephone number, therefore it would not be possible to call every owner. In addition, the requirement to notify the owner within twenty-four hours may conflict with state law. While tow truck operators have access to the state Department of Motor Vehicles database, that information is considered sensitive personal information. As such the state restricts how it can be used. Under state law, an operator is only required to notify the owner, “no less than two days” after the tow. The state may consider it a violation to use the database outside of the requirements of state law. The towing company representative also objected to the provision requiring towing companies to hold proceeds of sales for the benefit of the owners. State law requires that such proceeds be transferred to the state. The Boulder Area Rental Housing Association also provided feedback. BARHA raised three objections to the ordinance: • The One-Hour Rule (7-7-5-(b)(2). BARHA raised the potential impact on disabled drivers, business owners and residents. BARHA also pointed out that this provision may be difficult to enforce. • The Ten-Mile Rule (7-7-11(g)). BARHA noted that there are only two towing companies with impound facilities that could comply with this rule. BARHA asserted that the rule would limit competition. • BARHA also objected to the notification and retention of sales proceeds provisions noted above. BACKGROUND Council directed the city attorney to prepare a revised ordinance including amendments. The amendments were as follows: 1. Remove the one-hour rule. The proposed ordinance would include an amended Section 7-7-5(b)(2) removing the requirement that property owners wait at least one hour before ordering that a vehicle be towed. 2. Phase in a requirement for signs in English and Spanish with a symbol. The proposed ordinance would include an amended Section 7-7-5(b)(1) phasing in a requirement that signs include Spanish language notification as well as a symbol. The requirement would be phased in as follows: a. February 1, 2019 (i) New construction; (ii) Property whose ownership changes; (iii) Subsidized housing; and (iv) Mobile home parks. Item 3N- Continued 2nd Rdg Towing Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 265 of 553 b. January 1, 2020 (i) All other properties. At the Council Agenda Committee meeting on Monday, November 27, 2018, Council Member Brockett asked city staff to seek feedback from the affordable housing community regarding the new sign requirement. Staff has sought input and will report the results on the council Hotline. Prior to this request, the city attorney had sought input from Boulder Housing Partners. A representative stated that they were generally not supportive of a different set of rules for affordable housing. Different rules do not set the right tone of inclusivity and can create disadvantages for owners of affordable housing. To provide council with the option of not imposing the early signage requirements on affordable housing providers, staff has included Attachment D, which would allow affordable housing providers until January 1, 2020 to provide new signs. 3. Allow for the release of tools of the trade. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 7-7-11(m) to require towing companies to relinquish personal property reasonably necessary for the owner, occupant or driver’s employment. Staff has included in Attachment C an alternative that would require the towing company to release all personal property upon demand. 4. Eliminate the trust requirement for proceeds of sale. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 7-7-11(m) by eliminating the requirement that sale proceeds be held in trust. This provision conflicts with state law which requires that such proceeds be paid to the state. C.R.S. § 42-4-2108. 5. Eliminate the 10-mile towing limit. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 7-7-11(g) to eliminate the prohibition on towing a vehicle more than ten miles. 6. Add a provision for reimbursement of mileage for any tow longer than 12 miles. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 7-7-11(g) to require that, for tows longer than 12 miles, the towing company reduce its invoice by an amount equal to the Internal Revenue Service Mileage Rate for the miles between the place of tow and the place of storage. 7. Require notice to the owners of towed vehicles within 72 hours. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 7-7-11(k) to require notice by certified mail within 72 hours or the next business day, whichever is later. Item 3N- Continued 2nd Rdg Towing Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 266 of 553 Next Steps During council’s consideration of the proposed ordinance, several ideas arose that council considered worthy of additional work to develop for a potential future ordinance. Council directed the city attorney to explore these ideas and potentially bring back a new ordinance in 2019. The ideas to be explored are as follows: 1. Prowling tow trucks. Both the proposed ordinance and state law require that the property owner provide authorization to tow a vehicle. Under state law a property owner can designate a tow company as the owner’s agent. Rule 6508(a)(I). Thus, the towing company can authorize itself to tow a vehicle as the agent for the property owner. This provides a level of convenience for property owners, but also results in towing companies making the decision whether to tow. 2. Booting. Temporarily immobilizing a vehicle can impose a similar impact to towing. Council would like to explore regulating this activity. The Town of Avon currently regulates booting. Avon Municipal Code Chapter 5-12. 3. Licensing of towing companies by Boulder. Local licensing would allow the city to have more oversight over towing company activities. It would also provide an added incentive for compliance if license revocation or suspension is considered as a sanction for violation of the city’s towing regulations. The City and County of Denver licenses towing companies if they are not licensed by the PUC. Denver Municipal Code § 55-186. The Town of Avon licenses towing companies. Avon Municipal Code § 5.12.020. 4. Addressing financial hardship. Council Member Young has asked the city attorney to explore ways to address the challenge faced by members of our community who simply do not have the funds to retrieve a vehicle. This could include requiring release on proof of hardship. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Ordinance 8295 as passed on first reading Attachment B – Ordinance 8295 as revised Attachment C – Amendment to require return of all personal property Attachment D – Amendment to eliminate subsidized housing from the early signage requirement Item 3N- Continued 2nd Rdg Towing Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 267 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 2nd rdg-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8295 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7-7, “TOWING AND IMPOUNDMENT,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ADOPT ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS ON NONCONSENSUAL TOWING AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 7-7-5, “Private Towing and Impounding of Vehicle Parked Without Authorization on Private Property,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 7-7-5. - Private Towing and Impounding of Vehicle Parked Without Authorization on Private Property. (a) The owner or lessee of real property or an agent authorized by the owner or lessee may cause any motor vehicle, parked on such property without the permission of the owner, lessee or occupant of the property, to be removed or impounded by a towing carrier, but, except on property used as a single-family residence, only if any applicable requirements of subsection 7-6-14(b), B.R.C. 1981, and subsection (b) of this section have been met. It is not necessary that a citation be issued for violation of Section 7-6-14, "Unauthorized Parking Prohibited," B.R.C. 1981, for a vehicle to be removed or impounded pursuant to this section. (b) Except on property used as a single-family residence, the owner, lessee or occupant of real property or an agent thereof, prior to causing the removal and impoundment of a motor vehicle from any area set aside for motor vehicle parking on such person's property, shall: (1) pProvide clear notice in English and Spanish on signs or pavement markings meeting the requirements of paragraph 7-6-14(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981, that unauthorized vehicles will be towed away at the owner's expense, including the name and telephone number of each towing company authorized to remove any vehicle; (2) Wait at least one hour before ordering that a vehicle be towed; and (3) Not receive any payment monetary or otherwise from any towing company. (c) A vehicle parked on private property in violation of Section 7-6-14, "Unauthorized Parking Prohibited," B.R.C. 1981, is subject to immediate towing under state law as an abandoned vehicle on private property if the provisions of subsection (b) of this section are also met. Furthermore, any motor vehicle left unattended on private property for a period of twenty- four hours or longer without the consent of the owner or lessee of such property or the owner's or lessee's legally authorized agent is also subject to immediate towing under state law as an abandoned vehicle on private property. (d) Vehicles towed pursuant to this section are privately impounded. All actions by the towing carrier and others shall be in accordance with and pursuant to the state statutes and regulations Attachment A - Ordinance 8295 as passed on first reading City Council Meeting Page 268 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 2nd rdg-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 governing private tows of abandoned vehicles and pursuant to Section 7-7-11, “Towing Regulations,” B.R.C. 1981. (e) Disputes concerning the propriety of impoundments under this section shall be settled by the parties involved in the civil courts, and the city shall not be a proper party defendant in any such suit. Section 2. A new Section 7-7-11, “Towing Regulations,” B.R.C. 1981, is added as follows: 7-7-11. – Towing Regulations. (a) The provisions herein are intended to compliment and not supersede the provision of state law and regulations governing towing. If there is a conflict between state law and the provisions in this section, state law will control. (b) If the owner, authorized operator, or authorized agent of the owner of a motor vehicle that is parked without the authorization of the property owner appears in person to retrieve the motor vehicle after a tow truck is present and either backed up in alignment with such motor vehicle or tow equipment has come into contact with such motor vehicle, but before its removal from the property the operator shall release the vehicle without charge. (c) A towing carrier shall not tow any motor vehicle, unless one of the following conditions is met: (1) The towing carrier is directed to perform a tow by a law enforcement officer; (2) The towing carrier is requested to perform a tow by the owner, authorized operator, or authorized agent of the owner of a motor vehicle; or (3) The towing carrier is requested to perform a tow upon the property owner’s authorization, in form sufficient under state law. (d) A towing company shall not require cash payment for release of a vehicle. (e) If a storage facility is not open during normal business hours or a representative does not respond within one hour to a request outside of normal business hours, then no towing or storage fee may be charged. (f) The gate fee, or maximum hourly charge for releasing a vehicle after normal business hours, shall not exceed the amount permitted by state law or one-half of the state-permitted tow rate, whichever is less. (g) No vehicle may be towed for storage more than ten miles from where the vehicle was parked. (h) No towing company shall operate in the city without a valid motor carrier permit. (i) When towing a vehicle, the operator shall record the reason for the tow, the location, the time that the vehicle was identified as being parked illegally, the time of the tow, and the make and model of the vehicle. (j) When towing a vehicle, the operator shall photograph the vehicle in a manner that accurately represents the vehicle’s condition prior to towing. (k) An operator shall provide telephonic notice to the registered owner of any towed vehicle within 24 hours of the initiation of the tow. If the operator cannot reasonably obtain the Attachment A - Ordinance 8295 as passed on first reading City Council Meeting Page 269 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 2nd rdg-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 owner’s telephone number, the notice shall be provided by United States mail. Initiation of the tow shall be the time at which the tow operator first moves the vehicle. (l) An operator shall provide notice to the Boulder Police Department of any vehicle towed without the owner’s consent. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the tow as well as the make, model and license plate of the vehicle. (m) If any towed vehicle is sold after being unclaimed, the operator shall hold in trust for the owner of the vehicle the portion of the proceeds of such sale that exceed the towing and storage charges. For the purpose of this subsection, storage charges shall not exceed the amount permitted by state law to be charged for a period of 30 days. Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 4. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AMENDED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 16th day of October 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8295 as passed on first reading City Council Meeting Page 270 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 2nd rdg-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment A - Ordinance 8295 as passed on first reading City Council Meeting Page 271 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 - 2nd Rdg Continued (Revised)-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8295 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7-7, “TOWING AND IMPOUNDMENT,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ADOPT ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS ON NONCONSENSUAL TOWING AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 7-7-5, “Private Towing and Impounding of Vehicle Parked Without Authorization on Private Property,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 7-7-5. - Private Towing and Impounding of Vehicle Parked Without Authorization on Private Property. (a) The owner or lessee of real property or an agent authorized by the owner or lessee may cause any motor vehicle, parked on such property without the permission of the owner, lessee or occupant of the property, to be removed or impounded by a towing carrier, but, except on property used as a single-family residence, only if any applicable requirements of subsection 7-6-14(b), B.R.C. 1981, and subsection (b) of this section have been met. It is not necessary that a citation be issued for violation of Section 7-6-14, "Unauthorized Parking Prohibited," B.R.C. 1981, for a vehicle to be removed or impounded pursuant to this section. (b) Except on property used as a single-family residence, the owner, lessee or occupant of real property or an agent thereof, prior to causing the removal and impoundment of a motor vehicle from any area set aside for motor vehicle parking on such person's property, shall: (1) pProvide clear notice on signs or pavement markings meeting the requirements of paragraph 7-6-14(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981, that unauthorized vehicles will be towed away at the owner's expense, including the name and telephone number of each towing company authorized to remove any vehicle; (A) Provided however, after February 1, 2019, any sign required by subsection (1) above on new construction, on any property whose ownership changes, on any property whose owner receives subsidies for housing low income individuals or in any mobile home park, shall include a symbol depicting a tow truck towing a car and be in English and Spanish; and (B) After January 1, 2020, all signs shall meet the requirements of subsection (A) above. (2) Not receive any payment monetary or otherwise from any towing company. (c) A vehicle parked on private property in violation of Section 7-6-14, "Unauthorized Parking Prohibited," B.R.C. 1981, is subject to immediate towing under state law as an abandoned vehicle on private property if the provisions of subsection (b) of this section are also met. Furthermore, any motor vehicle left unattended on private property for a period of twenty- Attachment B - Ordinance 8295 as revised City Council Meeting Page 272 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 - 2nd Rdg Continued (Revised)-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 four hours or longer without the consent of the owner or lessee of such property or the owner's or lessee's legally authorized agent is also subject to immediate towing under state law as an abandoned vehicle on private property. (d) Vehicles towed pursuant to this section are privately impounded. All actions by the towing carrier and others shall be in accordance with and pursuant to the state statutes and regulations governing private tows of abandoned vehicles and pursuant to Section 7-7-11, “Towing Regulations,” B.R.C. 1981. (e) Disputes concerning the propriety of impoundments under this section shall be settled by the parties involved in the civil courts, and the city shall not be a proper party defendant in any such suit. Section 2. A new Section 7-7-11, “Towing Regulations,” B.R.C. 1981, is added as follows: 7-7-11. – Towing Regulations. (a) The provisions herein are intended to compliment and not supersede the provision of state law and regulations governing towing. If there is a conflict between state law and the provisions in this section, state law will control. (b) If the owner, authorized operator, or authorized agent of the owner of a motor vehicle that is parked without the authorization of the property owner appears in person to retrieve the motor vehicle after a tow truck is present and either backed up in alignment with such motor vehicle or tow equipment has come into contact with such motor vehicle, but before its removal from the property the operator shall release the vehicle without charge. (c) A towing carrier shall not tow any motor vehicle, unless one of the following conditions is met: (1) The towing carrier is directed to perform a tow by a law enforcement officer; (2) The towing carrier is requested to perform a tow by the owner, authorized operator, or authorized agent of the owner of a motor vehicle; or (3) The towing carrier is requested to perform a tow upon the property owner’s authorization, in form sufficient under state law. (d) A towing company shall not require cash payment for release of a vehicle. (e) If a storage facility is not open during normal business hours or a representative does not respond within one hour to a request outside of normal business hours, then no towing or storage fee may be charged. (f) The gate fee, or maximum hourly charge for releasing a vehicle after normal business hours, shall not exceed the amount permitted by state law or one-half of the state-permitted tow rate, whichever is less. (g) If a vehicle is towed for storage more than twelve miles from where the vehicle was parked the towing company shall apply a credit to any invoice in an amount equal to the Internal Revenue Service Mileage Rate multiplied by the miles between the place where the vehicle was parked and the place of storage. (h) No towing company shall operate in the city without a valid motor carrier permit. Attachment B - Ordinance 8295 as revised City Council Meeting Page 273 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 - 2nd Rdg Continued (Revised)-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (i) When towing a vehicle, the operator shall record the reason for the tow, the location, the time that the vehicle was identified as being parked illegally, the time of the tow, and the make and model of the vehicle. (j) When towing a vehicle, the operator shall photograph the vehicle in a manner that accurately represents the vehicle’s condition prior to towing. (k) An operator shall provide notice via certified mail to the registered owner of any towed vehicle within the later of 72 hours of the initiation of the tow or the next business day after the initiation of the tow. (l) An operator shall provide notice to the Boulder Police Department of any vehicle towed without the owner’s consent. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the tow as well as the make, model and license plate of the vehicle. (m) Whether on the private property where the tow originates or at the towing carrier’s storage lot, a towing company shall not refuse to relinquish personal property reasonably necessary for the owner, occupant or driver’s employment, including, but not limited to laptop computers, cellular phones, cleaning equipment, gardening equipment and construction tools. The towing company shall immediately relinquish such items upon demand, without requiring payment and without additional charge. Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 4. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AMENDED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 16th day of October 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment B - Ordinance 8295 as revised City Council Meeting Page 274 of 553 K:\CCAD\o-8295 - 2nd Rdg Continued (Revised)-2959.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 READ ON SECOND READING, AMENDED AND PASSED this 4th day of December 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk READ ON THIRD READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of December 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk Attachment B - Ordinance 8295 as revised City Council Meeting Page 275 of 553 Amend Section 7-7-11(m) to read as follows: (m) Whether on the private property where the tow originates or at the towing carrier’s storage lot, a towing company shall not refuse to relinquish personal property reasonably necessary for the owner, occupant or driver’s employment, including, but not limited to laptop computers, cellular phones, cleaning equipment, gardening equipment and construction tools. The towing company shall immediately relinquish such items upon demand, without requiring payment and without additional charge. Attachment C - Amendment to require return of all personal property Item 3N- Continued 2nd Rdg Towing Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 276 of 553 Amend Section 7-7-5(b)(1) to read as follows: (1) Provide clear notice on signs or pavement markings meeting the requirements of paragraph 7-6-14(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981, that unauthorized vehicles will be towed away at the owner's expense, including the name and telephone number of each towing company authorized to remove any vehicle; (A) Provided however, after February 1, 2019, any sign required by subsection (1) above on new construction, on any property whose ownership changes, on any property whose owner receives subsidies for housing low income individuals or in any mobile home park, shall include a symbol depicting a tow truck towing a car and be in English and Spanish; and (B) After January 1, 2020, all signs shall meet the requirements of subsection (A) above. Attachment D - Amendment to eliminate subsidized housing from the early signage requirement Item 3N- Continued 2nd Rdg Towing Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 277 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C onsideration of a motion to adopt Emergency Ordinance 8303 adopting Supplement 137, which codifies previously adopted Ordinances 8249, 8279, 8280, 8283, 8284, 8290, and 8292, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as an amendment to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Mary Wallace, 303-441-3874 RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to adopt Emergency Ordinance 8303 adopting Supplement 137, which codifies previously adopted Ordinances 8249, 8279, 8280, 8283, 8284, 8290, and 8292 and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as an amendment to the Boulder Revised C ode, 1981 AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 278 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Emergency Ordinance 8303 adopting Supplement 137, which codifies previously adopted Ordinances 8249, 8279, 8280, 8283, 8284, 8290 and 8292, and other miscellaneous corrections and amendments, as an amendment to the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. PRESENTER Thomas A. Carr, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boulder Revised Code (“B.R.C. 1981”) is the official book of laws of the City of Boulder. Four times a year (quarterly), the City Council is asked to adopt supplements to the B.R.C. 1981. An ordinance format is used to bring ordinances that the City Council adopted in the prior quarter, or effective prior to the upcoming supplement, into the B.R.C. 1981, and to ensure that there is no question regarding what constitutes the official laws of the City of Boulder. These supplement ordinances are approved as a matter of routine by the City Council. In order to generate the printed supplements to the B.R.C. as soon as possible, council is asked to adopt the proposed ordinance at first reading as an emergency measure. The text of Supplement 137 has been previously adopted by the following ordinances: Ord 8249 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING, CHAPTER 12-1, “PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS,” B.R.C. 1981, TO PROTECT AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME OR IMMIGRATION STATUS AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord 8279 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10-7.7, “COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY,” B.R.C. 1981, TO CLARIFY REGULATION OF LARGE INDUSTRIAL CAMPUSES RELATED TO ENERGY USAGE AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Item 3O - Supplement 137 City Council Meeting Page 279 of 553 Ord 8280 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-9-16, “LIGHTING, OUTDOOR,” B.R.C. 1981, TO UPDATE THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD OF THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND ADD EXCEPTIONS TO THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord 8283 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10-3, “RENTAL LICENSES,” AND SECTIONS 10-1- 1, “DEFINITIONS,” AND 10-12-19, “MOBILE HOME PARK STREETS AND WALKWAYS,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF PROPERTIES WITH RENTAL LICENSES WIT H OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord 8284 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-7-2, “IMPOSITION AND RATE OF TAX,” B.R.C. 1981, TO IMPLEMENT OCCUPATION TAXES ON FOUR CLASSES OF MALT, VINOUS OR SPIRITUOUS LIQUOR LICENSEES AND TO REMOVE FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE ON PREMISES AND OFF PREMISES LICENSES, AND AMENDING SECTION 4 -2-3, “AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CITY LICENSES,” B.R.C. 1981, TO REMOVE FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE ON PREMISES AND OFF PREMISES LICENSES TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF C.R.S. § 44-3-401(1), “CLASSES OF LICENSES AND PERMITS,” AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord 8290 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-3-4, “REDUCED TERM LICENSE,” B.R.C. 1981, TO ALLOW COMPLIANCE OF PROPERTIES WITH RENTAL LICENSES WITH OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. Ord 8292 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981, BY CORRECTING AND CLARIFYING RECENTLY ADOPTED USE STANDARDS FOR THE MIXED-USE 3 (MU- 3) ZONING DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. FISCAL IMPACTS Budgetary: None Staff Time: None beyond the time always allocated to code maintenance in the City Attorney’s overall work plan. Economic: None COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS Ongoing code maintenance is an essential and largely administrative obligation of the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Emergency Ordinance 8303 regarding Supplement 137. FORMAT NOTES Code amendments (if any) may be reflected in strike out and double underline format along with a “Reason for Change” as part of this agenda item. Such amendments are intended to correct non- substantive errors discovered through review of these ordinances and/or which may have occurred in previously adopted ordinances already in the B.R.C. 1981. Major and/or substantive corrections or revisions are brought forward as a separate ordinance to City Council during the normal course of future City Council business. Item 3O - Supplement 137 City Council Meeting Page 280 of 553 DISCUSSION This supplement includes ordinances that were adopted by the City Council in the last supplement quarter or are effective prior to the upcoming supplement. They are added to the official version of the B.R.C. 1981 by way of the attached supplement ordinance. The City Council adopts a quarterly supplement ordinance to ensure that a clearly identifiable version of the Boulder Revised Code is legislatively adopted. The printed supplements to the B.R.C. may not be distributed until the proposed adopting ordinance is effective. The laws of the city should be current and available to the residents of the City of Boulder as soon as possible, therefore, council is asked to adopt the proposed ordinance at first reading as an emergency measure. AMENDMENTS 1. Section 3-17-3 is amended to read as follows: (a) The sales and use tax license may be referred to as a "business license." (b) General Licensing Provisions. The general procedures and requirements of licenses, as more fully set forth in Chapter 4-1, "General Licensing Provisions," B.R.C. 1981, shall apply to medical marijuana business licenses. To the extent there is any conflict between the provisions of this title and Chapter 4-1, the provisions of this title shall control for business licenses. …. Reason for change: As licenses have been created in titles of the BRC other than Title 4, staff has included language that the general provisions of Chapter 4-1 also apply to licenses in Title 6 (marijuana) and Title 3 (sales and use tax). Title 3 was reorganized at the beginning year, replicating some language from the marijuana license provisions for sales and use tax licenses. In Section 3-17-3(b), the words “medical marijuana” should have been removed but were not. This correction fixes that oversight. ATTACHMENT A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8303 Item 3O - Supplement 137 City Council Meeting Page 281 of 553 K:\ccco\o-8303-supp 137-2347.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 8303 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING SUPPLEMENT 137, WHICH CODIFIES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCES 8249, 8279, 8280, 8283, 8284, 8290, AND 8292, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CORRECTIONS AND AMENDMENTS, AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Legislative Findings. A. Supplement 137 amending the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, (“B.R.C.”) has been printed. B. The City Council intends that this supplement be codified and published as a part of the B.R.C. C. Supplement 137 to the B.R.C. is a part of this ordinance and contains all of the amendments to the B.R.C. enacted by the City Council in Ordinances 8249, 8279, 8280, 8283, 8284, 8290 and 8292. The City Council intends to adopt this supplement as an amendment to the B.R.C. D. The ordinances contained in Supplement 137 are available in printed copy to each member of the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, and the published text of the supplement, along with the text of those ordinances, is available for public inspection and acquisition in the office of the city clerk of the City of Boulder, in the Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado. Section 2. The City Council adopts Supplement 137 by this reference. Section 3. The City Council orders that a copy of Supplement 137 as proposed for adoption by reference herein be on file in the office of the city clerk of the City of Boulder, Colorado, Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado, and may be inspected by any person at any time during regular business hours pending of the adoption of this ordinance. Section 4. The annotations, source notes, codifier’s notes, and other editorial matter included in the printed B.R.C. are not part of the legislative text. These editorial provisions are provided to give the public additional information for added convenience. No implication or presumption of a legislative construction is to be drawn from these materials. Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8303 City Council Meeting Page 282 of 553 K:\ccco\o-8303-supp 137-2347.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 5. The B.R.C. or any chapter or section of it, may be proved by a copy certified by the city clerk of the City of Boulder, under seal of the city; or, when printed in book or pamphlet form and purporting to be printed by authority of the city. It shall be received in evidence in all courts without further proof of the existence and regularity of the enactment of any particular ordinance of the B.R.C. Section 6. These provisions of the B.R.C. shall be given effect and interpreted as though a continuation of prior laws and not as new enactments. Section 7. Unless expressly provided otherwise, any violation of the provisions of the B.R.C., as supplemented herein, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or incarceration for not more than ninety days in jail, or by both such fine and incarceration, as provided in section 5-2-4, “General Penalties,” B.R.C., 1981. Section 8. Section 3-17-3 is amended to read as follows: 3-17-3. - Sales and Use Tax or Business License Required. (a) The sales and use tax license may be referred to as a "business license." (b) General Licensing Provisions. The general procedures and requirements of licenses, as more fully set forth in Chapter 4-1, "General Licensing Provisions," B.R.C. 1981, shall apply to medical marijuana business licenses. To the extent there is any conflict between the provisions of this title and Chapter 4-1, the provisions of this title shall control for business licenses. …. Section 9. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 10. The printed supplements cannot be distributed until the adopting ordinance is effective. The laws of the city should be current and available to the residents of the City of Boulder as soon as possible. On that basis, this ordinance is declared to be an emergency measure and shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage. Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8303 City Council Meeting Page 283 of 553 K:\ccco\o-8303-supp 137-2347.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 READ ON FIRST READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 4th day of December 2018. ____________________________________ Suzanne Jones, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Lynette Beck, City Clerk Attachment A - Proposed Emergency Ordinance 8303 City Council Meeting Page 284 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8305 to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue and a portion of adjoining right-of-way from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2) (LUR2018-00011) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C harles Ferro, Development Review Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8305 to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue and a portion of adjoining right-of-way from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2) (LUR2018-00011) B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M T he property was unilaterally annexed in 1997 pursuant to Crestview West Annexation Ordinance No. 5931 without a formal annexation agreement. T he owner did not wish to participate in negotiations with the city at the time and did not receive the benefit of RL-2 zoning or the annexation package that was offered by the city at the time. T he home was damaged in the 2013 flood and is uninhabitable. T he owner would like the zoning and annexation package that was given to all other neighbors that participated in the original 1997 neighborhood annexation. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 285 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8305 to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue and a portion of adjoining right-of-way from Residential - Rural 1 (RR- 1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2) (LUR2018-00011). Applicant/Owner: Greeley Associates PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Assistant City Manager / Interim Planning Director Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 33,067 square-foot property is located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Upland Avenue. The property is legally subdivided into two lots that are approximately 16,000 sf each. The site is bordered by right-of-way on three sides (Broadway, Upland, and 12 ½ Street). It is developed with a one-story single-family home built in approximately 1956 and a detached garage; the home was damaged in the 2013 flooding and is uninhabitable. The Crestview West neighborhood annexation occurred in 1997. Most property owners chose to participate in the annexation and received an upzoning consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan which allowed for some subdivision potential. The owner of the subject property at the time chose not to participate in the group annexation and was unilaterally annexed in 1997. Property owners who chose not to participate in the neighborhood annexation received the Rural-Residential 1 (RR-1) zoning designation (the lowest intensity residential zoning designation in the city). Had the property owners chosen to participate in the neighborhood annexation, the property would have received Residential Low 2 (RL-2) zoning (a slightly higher intensity residential zoning designation) Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 286 of 553 When the Crestview West area was annexed in 1997, it was represented that the property owners who did not sign the annexation agreement would be allowed the same “annexation package” in the future, but only under the same conditions contained in the 1997 annexation agreement. Therefore, staff has drafted a Post Annexation Agreement found in ATTACHMENT A. that contains the applicable conditions from the 1997 agreement. Since the original agreement was offered, circumstances have changed slightly. The agreement has been tailored specifically for this property and contains only the pertinent information. An ordinance to rezone the property from RR-1 to RL-2 has been included in ATTACHMENT B. The applicant intends to demolish the flood damaged home and construct either two (2) duplexes or a duplex and a single-family home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8305 to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue and a portion of adjoining right-of-way from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). LUR2018-00011) COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – No impacts. • Environmental – No impacts. • Social – No impacts. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – No impacts. • Staff time – The application has been processed through the provisions of a standard vacation process and is within normal staff work plans. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK On November 1, 2018, Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve the Post- Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue and to adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). Meeting minutes can be found in Attachment C. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 287 of 553 least 10 days prior to the public hearing. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff received five correspondences. Two neighbors would prefer two single-family homes while the other three correspondences supported duplexes and additional density. All correspondences have been included in ATTACHMENT D. BACKGROUND The 33,067 square-foot property is located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Upland Avenue. The property is bordered by right-of-way on three sides (Broadway, Upland, and 12 ½ Street). It is developed with a one-story single-family home built in approximately 1956 and a detached garage; the home was damaged in the 2013 flooding and is uninhabitable. The Crestview West neighborhood annexation occurred in 1997. The property is in the Crestview West neighborhood which was unilaterally annexed in 1997 pursuant to Crestview West Annexation Ordinance No. 5931. The properties in the neighborhood were annexed for health and safety reasons. Well water was contaminated by the former Centerline Circuit facility in North Boulder and there was an urgency to connect homes to city water. Most property owners chose to participate in the annexation and received an upzoning consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan which allowed for additional subdivision potential. The owner of the subject property at the time chose not to participate in the group annexation and was unilaterally annexed in 1997 without an annexation agreement (and did not receive any of the benefits found in the annexation agreement). Property owners who chose not to participate in the neighborhood annexation received the Rural- Residential 1 (RR-1), zoning designation (the lowest intensity residential zoning designation in the city). Had the property owners participated in the neighborhood annexation, the property would have received Residential Low 2 (RL-2) zoning (a slightly higher intensity residential zoning designation). When the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) was adopted in 1995, the recommendations for the Crestview East and West areas (the City’s largest residential enclaves at the time) assumed that subsequent amendments would be made to the plan for these areas in conjunction with working with the property owners on the terms of annexation. After a multi-year public process, property owners in the Crestview West neighborhood, the NBSP transportation plan and future land use maps for the Crestview West neighborhood were amended in conjunction with the neighborhood annexation to ensure consistency between the two. As noted above, property owners who chose not to sign the annexation agreement received RR-1 zoning (the lowest intensity residential zoning designation in the city). The reason that properties whose owners chose not to sign the annexation agreement, were given RR-1 zoning was that the annexation agreements included specific fees, future design and transportation improvements to ensure that development and transportation improvements complied with the amended NBSP. The higher intensity zoning designations would only be consistent with the NBSP if the zoning came with Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 288 of 553 specific restrictions, such as dedication and construction requirements for street and multi use path improvements, shared drive provisions, and floor area ratio restrictions that were stipulated in the neighborhood annexation agreement. When the Crestview West neighborhood was annexed in 1997, it was specifically stipulated that the property owners who did not sign the annexation agreement would be allowed the same “annexation package” in the future, but only under the same conditions contained in the 1997 annexation agreement. Therefore, staff has drafted a Post Annexation Agreement that contains the applicable conditions. Since the original agreement was offered, circumstances have changed slightly. The agreement has been tailored specifically for this property and contains only the pertinent information. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of a post annexation agreement consistent with the initial 1997 Crestview West neighborhood annexation and a rezoning from RR-1 to RL-2 consistent with adjacent properties fronting Broadway. Additional development potential exists under the proposed zoning, which could allow development of a total of four units. The applicant intends to demolish the flood damaged home and construct either two (2) duplexes or a duplex and a single-family home. KEY ISSUES & ANALYSIS Staff identified two key issues for council’s consideration: 1. Is the proposed rezoning from RR-1 to RL-2 consistent with the criteria for rezoning found in Sec 9-2-19(e), B.R.C. 1981? Staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the criteria for rezoning, particularly criterion 9-2-19(e)(1), B.R.C. 1981 which requires that the applicant demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map. The BVCP land use designation for the property (and the larger neighborhood) is Low Density Residential (LR) and is defined in the BVCP as: “The most prevalent land use designation in the city covering primarily single-family neighborhoods where densities are between 2 to 6 du/ac.” Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 289 of 553 Figure 1 – Existing BVCP Land Use Map Because the property owners chose to not participate in the 1997 neighborhood annexation, the property was issued a zoning designation of RR-1 which is defined in the city’s code as: “Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities with a max density of 1.4 du/ac.” Figure 2 – Existing Zoning Map RR-1 is the lowest intensity residential zoning category with a minimum lot size of 30,000 SF and maximum density of 1.4 du/ac, which is therefore technically inconsistent with the underlying LR land use designation that contemplates densities between 2 and 6 du/ac as noted above. Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 290 of 553 The proposed RL-2 zoning is consistent with the current BVCP land use designation of RL and is defined in Section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. 1981 as “medium density residential areas primarily used for small-lot residential development, including without limitation, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level.” As indicated in figure 2 above, the site is surrounded by RL-2 zoning. Further, the property is part of the Crestview West area of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP), which includes a goal to “allow possible higher densities along the Broadway corridor to achieve affordable and diverse housing close to transit.” A zoning designation of RL-2 would allow for the development of 4 attached dwelling units (2 duplexes), which if developed under the requirements of a post- annexation agreement equivalent to other Crestview West annexation agreements, would result in attached dwelling units with a smaller amount of floor area per unit as compared to a redevelopment consisting of a detached home or homes on individual lots, increasing the possibility of affordability and increasing the diversity of housing types in the area. The rezoning in conjunction with the conditions of the post- annexation agreement would allow development of the property consistent with the NBSP as well as the goals and policies of the BVCP. Staff’s full analysis of the rezoning criteria can be found in ATTACHMENT E. Additional Development Potential Under the proposed RL-2 zoning, additional development potential exists on the site. Following right-of-way dedication for Broadway under the Post-Annexation Agreement, if subdivided, Lot 1 will be reduced to 15,869 square-feet and Lot 2 will remain unchanged at 16,526 square-feet, per the survey information provided by the applicant. The property size could accommodate 4 dwelling units under the proposed RL-2 zoning, resulting in a density of approximately 5.38 units/acre. While there is no minimum lot size in RL-2, a minimum of 6000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit is required. Single family homes, duplexes and townhouses are allowed as a matter of right in the RL-2 zone. Further, the property is part of the Crestview West area of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, which includes a goal to “allow possible higher densities along the Broadway corridor to achieve affordable and diverse housing close to transit.” The applicant anticipates subdividing the property into two lots and constructing a duplex on each lot or possibly constructing one duplex on the lot adjacent to Broadway and a single- family detached dwelling on the eastern lot. Refer to ATTACHMENT F for an illustrative site plan. The attached post-annexation agreement includes several design standards (consistent with the other adjacent Crestview West annexation agreements), however, staff would highlight that redevelopment shall be consistent with the following FARs which shall be defined as the total square footage of all levels within the outside walls of a building or portion thereof, but which Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 291 of 553 shall not include basements, unenclosed carports, and unenclosed porches and decks. A 500 square foot bonus is allowed for attached or detached garages: Lots 6,500 - 15,000 sq.ft. 0.30:1 FAR Lots 15,001 - 29,999 sq.ft. 0.25:1 FAR Lots >or = 30,000 sq.ft. 0.20:1 FAR Based on lot sizes of 15,869 square feet and 16,526 square feet, the max house sizes would be 3,974 square feet and 4,131 square feet respectively. Several design considerations are found in the proposed agreement related to access, landscaping, fence height and location and building design. It should also be noted that 20% of the units are required to be permanently affordable or a payment of cash in lieu of onsite units received at the time of building permit. Staff finds that the requested RL-2 zoning for the property is appropriate and consistent with the zoning in the neighborhood along Broadway. The proposed zoning is also consistent with the underlying BVCP land use designation of LR, and in conjunction with the signing of the Post-Annexation Agreement, the rezoning will bring the property into conformance with the NBSP, and therefore, is an appropriate zoning district for the property. 2. Is the post-annexation agreement consistent with the terms of the 1997 Crestview West annexation agreement? The post-annexation agreement (ATTACHMENT A) is based on the original 1997 Crestview West neighborhood annexation agreement therefore, staff finds it consistent with the terms offered to surrounding properties in 1997. ATTACHMENTS: A) Post-Annexation Agreement B) Proposed Ordinance 8305 C) Planning Board Minutes D) Public Comments E) Staff’s Analysis of Rezoning Criteria F) Proposed Site Plan Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 292 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 293 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 294 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 295 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 296 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 297 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 298 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 299 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 300 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 301 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 302 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 303 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 304 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 305 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 306 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 307 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 308 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 309 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 310 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 311 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 312 of 553 Attachment A - Post-Annexation Agreement Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 313 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8305 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 33,067 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED AT 1204 UPLAND AVENUE AND INCLUDING A PORTION OF ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL – RURAL 1 TO THE RESIDENTIAL – LOW 2 ZONING DISTRICT AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 9-5, “MODULAR ZONE SYSTEM,” B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO FINDS: A.A public hearing before the Planning Board of the City of Boulder was duly held on November 1, 2018, in consideration of rezoning the following land from the Residential – Rural 1 (RR-1) to the Residential – Low 2 (RL-2): approximately 33,067 square feet of land generally located at 1204 Upland Avenue, City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached to this ordinance, together with the adjoining 40-foot wide right-of-way for Broadway and the adjoining 30-foot wide right-of-way for Upland Avenue (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Property”). B.The Planning Board found that the rezoning of the Property from the Residential – Rural 1 (RR-1) to the Residential – Low 2 (RL-2) is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; is necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map; and meets the criteria for rezoning as provided in Chapter 9-2, “Review Processes,” B.R.C. 1981. C.The Planning Board recommended that the City Council amend the zoning district map to include the Property in the Residential – Low 2 (RL-2) zoning district as provided in Chapter 9-5, “Modular Zone System,” B.R.C. 1981. Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8305 Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 314 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Chapter 9-5, “Modular Zone System,” B.R.C. 1981, and the zoning district map forming a part thereof are amended to include the Property within the Residential – Low 2 (RL-2) zoning district. Section 2. The City Council finds that the rezoning of the Property from the Residential – Rural 1 (RR-1) to the Residential – Low 2 (RL-2) zoning district is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, is necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map, and meets the criteria for rezoning as provided in Chapter 9-2, “Review Processes,” B.R.C. 1981. The City Council adopts the recitals as a part of this ordinance. Section 3. The City Council has jurisdiction and legal authority to rezone the Property. Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. The rezoning of the Property bears a substantial relation to, and will enhance the general welfare of, the Property and of the residents of the City of Boulder. Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8305 Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 315 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 4th day of December, 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 18th day of December, 2018. Suzanne Jones Mayor Attest: Lynnette Beck City Clerk Exhibit Exhibit A Legal Description for 1204 Upland Ave Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8305 Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 316 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 1204 UPLAND AVENUE LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 5, MOORE’S SUBDIVISION, CITY OF BOULDER, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO. Attachment B - Proposed Ordinance 8305 Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 317 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 1, 2018 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Liz Payton, Chair Bryan Bowen, Vice Chair John Gerstle Crystal Gray Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ensign STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, Planning Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Carolyn Fahey, Associate Planner Planning Manager, Planning Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Edward Stafford, Department Review Manager, Planning Chris Meschuk, Assistant City Manager / Interim Director of Planning Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager / Greenways Amanda Bevis, Public Works Project Specialist Jeff Yegian, Senior Project Manager, Housing Michele Crane, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Christopher Parezo, Principal at Civitas, Consultant on the Project Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Chris Ranglos, Associate Planner 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Payton, declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to Approve 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 318 of 553 4.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A.CALL UP ITEM: LUR2018-00041: Use Review for the professional and technical office uses with an approximately 1,067 square foot tenant space at 2150 Pearl Street in the Mixed Use 3 (MU-3) zoning district (“SOBO Design & Build”). The proposed hours of operation are 8AM to 9PM Monday thru Friday, and 6PM-12PM Saturday and Sunday. The call-up period expires on November 4, 2018. This item was not called up. 5.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of the University Place Addition Final Plat (TEC2017-00038): Final Plat to subdivide two developed lots (745 and 765 14th Street) totaling 0.64-acres to create 3 residential lots: Lot 1 (13,818 sf), Lot 2 (7,237 sf), and Lot 3 (7,010 sf). Lot 1 and 2 will each contain an existing single-family home. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. •C. Gray disclosed that she had received an email from the Sierra Club asking about the meeting and indicated that the property was an important animal corridor. C. Gray, L. Payton and J. Gerstle had conducted site visits. P. Vitale, H. Zuckerman and B. Bowen did not have any ex- parte contacts. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: There was no presentation by the applicant to the board. Board Questions: David Raduziner, the owner, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Kate Howard, a neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project specifically regarding the proposed density it could add to the area. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed final plat consistent with the minimum lot standards set forth in Section 9-12-12(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981? •L. Payton said that given the limited criteria, she would approve the item. She said she was sympathetic to it being in an historic district and preserving the historic character. She is confident that whatever would be constructed, it would be compatible by the Landmarks Design Review Board. The proposal would meet the minimum lot standards. Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 319 of 553 •C. Gray reminded the board that she had called up this item for it to be fully discussed. This board has a limited review and she agreed with the staff recommendation. •H. Zuckerman explained the criteria that needs to be applied and said that staff exhibited the standards have been met. He said he would vote for approval. •J. Gerstle agreed with the comments and the criteria has been satisfied. Motion: On a motion by H. Zuckerman seconded by P. Vitale the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve Technical Document Review # TEC2017-00038 for the University Place Addition Replat E Subdivision incorporating this staff memorandum and the Final Plat Subdivision Review Criteria found in Attachment B as findings of fact. B.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and Planning Board recommendation on a request to: 1) Approve a Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue; and 2) Adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. •All board members disclosed that they had made a site visit. P. Vitale added he is familiar with the applicant through the commercial real estate development community within Boulder, however he has not personal worked with him and can be impartial on this matter. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Terry Palmos, with Palmos Development, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Terry Palmos, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one spoke. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is rezoning from RR-1 to RL-2 appropriate for the subject property? •All board members said the proposed rezoning was appropriate. •H. Zuckerman said the rezoning does meet the criteria because it would be in line with the underlying land use designations in the area. •J. Gerstle add that the rezoning would correspond to the subcommunity plan. •L. Payton said the rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the low-density Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 320 of 553 residential land use designation on the BVCP land use designation map. Key Issue #2: Is the post-annexation agreement consistent with the terms of the 1997 Crestview West annexation agreement? •All board members thought it was consistent. •L. Payton stated that staff has drawn up a plan that is consistent. Motion: On a motion by B. Bowen seconded by H. Zuckerman the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve the Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue in Attachment A and to adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). 6.MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A.AGENDA TITLE: Identify Joint Advisory Board Rep to Participate in Ecosystems Summit Panel – November 16, 2018 •P. Vitale will attend. B.AGENDA TITLE: Alpine-Balsam Area Plan: Update on Results of Community Feedback and Discussion of Key Topics for Site Design Staff Presentation: J. Gatza presented the item to the board. Board Questions: City of Boulder staff answered questions from the board. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: What are the board’s priorities for mix of uses? •B. Bowen said that civic use on that property does not make sense. This location would be difficult to have multi-parking below grade; therefore, office uses will pay a penalty in terms of floor area. We are lacking affordable housing for people who work downtown. This location would not be well-served by vehicles or other bus lines besides the SKIP. He said the best use of the site would be to wrap Broadway, Alpine and Balsam roads with ground-story mixed uses, review how much parking could be done at one-story below grade, review storm water capacity and find out how much yield can be obtained for people that live there. This location has walkable access to jobs and services. Regarding the civic and county offices, the employees would not be well-served to work in this area due to transportation issues. The offices need to be where the employees can get to them, such as the Transit Village (TVAP2). This location would benefit by having less in-commuters. Regarding housing types, we should look at units to yield at income levels. He suggested transitional housing for families. While he agrees with co- locating city and county facilities, it would be better served at the TVAP location or the BVRC. •P. Vitale agreed with B. Bowen. Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 321 of 553 •C. Gray recommended not having any buildings close to the sidewalk on Broadway. That corridor needs a respite for pedestrians. The city needs more housing; therefore, she would like to see a mix of housing such as transitional housing for families or co-ops. She suggested dedicating some county services in the area. She would like the city to demonstrate some small affordable retail on the site. She would not recommend a full civic campus with limited housing. She would prefer mixed housing with some civic uses that are not everyday uses. •J. Gerstle would like to centralize activities that benefit most by being located next to each other for related services. However, the parking and access may not be practical. In general, for this site, a considerable proportion of the area should be designated for civic uses. Transitional housing for families which require social services should be located nearby. •P. Vitale added that it seems as if putting all the civic uses in one place makes the most sense otherwise, we will be facing the same problem years from now by having the civic offices spread out all over the city. •H. Zuckerman to locate all city facilities in one place sounds good. But co-locating with city and county offices is not impressive. To accommodate both would eat up the site in a desirable section of town. Other uses would benefit and the transportation would not be ideal for in- commuters. He said a mix of multi-family housing with strategically placed retail would be ideal. •L. Payton said she would prefer to see housing at this site and city facilities at another location. There is an existing park nearby, as well as schools. •B. Bowen said, if city services were placed on the site, that the choice of which city facilities would need to be considered. If it would make sense to have social services nearby for the housing community, then that should be done. If adding county services would be too much as mentioned by H. Zuckerman, then it should not be done. •P. Vitale said another site could offer more architecturally for the sense of a civic plaza than this location. •Regarding the co-location of county and city services at this location, the board appeared split. •J. Gerstle said there is significant benefit to having some city and county services at a co- location. In terms of what logical civic activities should be located at this site, more social services than cultural facilities would make sense. •H. Zuckerman said that having some community services at that site would be important. It would be good for businesses in that area. A bold government campus, on transit rich environment area, would work be best. •The board largely supported housing on this site with some level of civic or mixed use. •J. Gatza gave a summary that the board overall supported housing. Depending on the discussion surrounding intensity and height, potentially a small variety of types of mixed uses and looking at who it would serve and the needs. And some consideration of the trade-offs along the corridor with the county. Possibly incorporating some pockets of retail. Key Issue #2: How this should be accomplished? a)Intensity and Building Heights? •H. Zuckerman said the choice of zoning district would be important. He suggested BR-1 which would allow many different uses and support a vibrant mix. He recommended changing Appendix L in Title 9 to add the Alpine-Balsam area on to the map of Form Based Code areas. In addition, he suggested modifying Appendix J so that heights above 35 feet could be considered. Regarding heights, buildings above 35 feet could blend in well. The feathering of heights into the Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 322 of 553 community through setbacks should be done. Site Review and 55 feet needs to be available in that neighborhood and the vibrate mix or affordable housing will not be achieved without it. •P. Vitale said to get the value out of land, it would need to be developed as multi-family. To get the value desired for a true campus, it would need to be placed where intensity and heights blend better, but he expressed concern that it may be unattainable in this neighborhood. He said that more height on Broadway and feathering down to the park would be best. •B. Bowen said a mix of 35 feet to 55 feet have found to be supportable. He said looking at the yield on property would make sense to determine value. It may be better to have tall buildings next to the park. There has been a history of tall buildings wrapping parks and they create great viewsheds. And in the end, the market rate could be higher for the park-facing units, and then they can assist in paying for the affordable units. •C. Gray agreed that doing a Form Based Code for this area could be a promising idea. She supported variety of heights. She had concern surrounding a fifth story. She agreed about an opportunity for taller buildings overlooking the park. She suggested maintaining cross streets to help shape the buildings. •J. Gerstle agreed that the buildings do not need to feather down to three floors on the western edge of the site. He said the roads should continue through on 10th Street and 11th Street to integrate with the rest of the neighborhood. And he would support five stories along Broadway. •L. Payton would support buildings at 55 feet along Broadway if there is not too much bulk. She would prefer a more urban feel and more density in this location. She was uncertain about the feathering but in support of taller buildings along Broadway. •C. Gray said that renewables should be demonstrated. •B. Bowen said this location would be ideal to do an Eco district. He suggested extending the streets as private drives or crossings. •J. Gatza gave a summary that the board would support higher buildings and higher intensities along the eastern edge of the site. The design should not be too bulky. A range between three and five stories for buildings through the site with a good street grid to achieve vibrancy and mix of uses. b)Access and Mobility? •B. Bowen said that due to the existing parking in the area, there is not a lot of sharing happening within these lots. He said the costs of the parking proposed were reasonable but seemed low. If looking at parking above-grade level, they will need to be skirted with other uses. The crossing of the north-south streets will be important. The TMP should be used. He would like to see a yield study based on the scenarios presented. •J. Gerstle said the TMP should be used. •C. Gray would like to see a survey of the low-income housing needs regarding parking. The TDMP needs to be updated. There should be an NPP in this area. The amount of proposed parking seemed to overwhelm the site. •H. Zuckerman said this site should have wide sidewalks, long-term bike parking, solar panels, and covered bus shelters with solar. •L. Payton said she would like to see the plans be more aggressive towards the reduction of parking. She agreed with H. Zuckerman’s comments regarding the pedestrian experience. Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 323 of 553 c)Flood Mitigation? •H. Zuckerman would encourage reviewing the accessibility surrounding the creek and greenways and to make landscaping plans that would make sense. He suggested altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side rather than the Balsam side. •C. Gray said a North Boulder Park flood mitigation should be done. She would support daylighting the creek. •B. Bowen would support daylighting the creek and it could be made a feature. He said the park should accommodate flood capacity however, the current uses should remain. He also supported altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side. •J. Gerstle said the park should be used for flood mitigation but to not destroying its uses. He agreed with moving the creek to the Alpine side. He would prefer a wider flood way rather than a narrow one. He recommended changing the flood criteria to be based on a 500-yr flood. He questioned the option of using the streets for flood water conveyance. •P. Vitale said that using the park will be essential. •L. Payton long range vision for these greenways. She would support daylighting the creek. She said that a 500-year base flood elevation should be used as a base line rather than a 100-year. She summarized that the board supported daylighting and that it would be a useful and enjoyable space. C.AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Planning Board 2019 Application •The board discussed possible edits to the application. •C. Spence will make the edits and submit to the City Managers Office by November 15, 2018. D.AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Retreat Letter •L. Payton asked a board member to volunteer to be the editor of the letter, who will then review last year’s letter to see what has/has not been addressed, set deadlines, compile the information and wordsmith the final document. •L. Payton said that she would review last year’s letter regarding accomplishments. H. Zuckerman said he would assist with the editing of the final letter. •The board decided to hold a special study session to solely address the Letter to Council on November 29, 2018. 7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8.ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 324 of 553 ___________________ DATE Attachment C - Planning Board Minutes Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 325 of 553 From: Elizabeth Black [mailto:elizabeth@elizabethblackart.com] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 7:04 AM To: Moeller, Shannon <MoellerS@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: RE: Rezoning application within Crestview West at 1204 Upland Hi Shannon, I am sort of the defacto neighborhood person, although I don’t have everyone’s emails for all of Crestview West. I do have all the folks near this property though, and on 13th St. I will send this out. In the meantime, is there any more information about this project that you can give me which I can share with folks? It might cut down on call s to you. Specifically, •Can you tell me if there are any plans to widen or change 12 ½ street, and where driveways in and out of the two lots would be? •Also basements. •Since this is an area of shallow flooding, and since this property was impacted by the flood (it is the low spot along this reach of Broadway), drainage issues are important. •The active irrigation ditch lateral along Upland on the north side of the property will also come up. Thanks, Elizabeth Black Elizabeth Black 4340 N 13th St Boulder CO 80304 303-449-7532 Elizabeth@ElizabethBlackArt.com www.ElizabethBlackArt.com Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 326 of 553 From: Alex Nelson [mailto:alex.m.nelson78@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 6:08 AM To: Moeller, Shannon <MoellerS@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: 1204 Upland rezoning request Ms. Moeller, I’m wiring with public comment on the 1204 Upland application. I own the adjacent home at 1276 Upland, and live in it as my primary residence. I built the home in 2012, and dedicated and built 12.5th St. per City requirements as well. My preference is that 2 single family homes be built on the 1204 parcel (lots 1 & 2 of Moore’s subdivision). I think that’s in better keeping with the rural character of the neighborhood. The homes on Upland (the newer ones at least) tend to be larger, situated on larger lots. It’s one of the more upscale streets in the area in my opinion. The adjacent section of Broadway primarily has single family homes on it, not the high density that many seem to want these days. More importantly, the other 3 lots that border 12.5th Street (mine, and the 2 along Tamarack) were not permitted to subdivide their lots (including building a duplex) unless we built the 30’ wide version of 12.5th Street, an added a T-spur for fire vehicle turnaround. See page 4 and the diagram on the final page of my annexation agreement, attached. That was not done. Instead, the narrower 15’ version of 12.5th Street was built and exists today, without T-spur. So, I understand it, current regs (fire, transportation, or whatever they might be) do not permit two homes to be built on 1204’s lot 2 (in the form in a duplex or otherwise) without significant improvements to 12.5th Street. That’s how the other homeowners adjacent to 12.5th St were handled in recent years, and I see no good reason to give the owner of 1204 Upland preferential treatment on the issue. Thanks very much for consideration of these comments. -Alex Nelson 1276 Upland Ave. (303) 641-7510 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 327 of 553 REGARDING APPLICATION FOR REZONING AT 1204 UPLAND AVE. Thank you for your interest in reading our concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of our neighbor’s property at 1204 Upland Avenue. What follows is a brief history of the property, an alternate proposal, rational for alternate proposal, and a closing statement. Brief 20-year history of the neighborhood • 1994-1995 -- Water wells in the Crestview West neighborhood are polluted from an industrial site forcing Crestview West residences, not annexed into the city yet, to start conversations with the city that will enable them to annex to the city and get clean city water. • 1995 -1997 -- Neighbors and city go through a long multi-year process with extensive and thoughtful input from property owners to create and reach an annexation agreement. • 1996 – As evidence of their signature on the conceptual plat map from that process, the current owner of 1204 Upland participated in it. That map boldly stated the concept of “no duplexes” in their zone, with their signature written on the map over their parcel, it affirms their approval of the information on the plat map. The vast majority of the parcels on the plat map had signatures from their corresponding owners supporting “no duplexes.” • 1997 -- Annexation goes through with only a few holdouts, the current owners at 1204 Upland being one of them. As a result of not agreeing to the annexation, and terms there in, the property gets designated RR-1. Without a signed annexation agreement from the owner, the development of the property (rezoned and subdivided) was, and currently is, prohibited. • 2000-2007. -- A few homes are scraped in the neighborhood and new homes are built on some of the larger lots which are located about 1 block to the east of 1204 Upland. • 2007 – 2013 -- The great recession comes, and homeowners and speculators find it challenging to sell their property. The lot that the current duplex is on, which is to the south of 1204 Upland and noted as an example of “duplexes in the neighborhood” (by Mr. Palmos’s the applicant for rezoning) goes on the market for $400,000 in 2007. It finally sells to the real estate listing agent in 2012 for $160,000. 5 years later. The realtor builds “the one and only” duplex in the neighborhood. • 2012 – 2017 -- The economy rebounds and development starts again in the neighborhood. Homes get scraped and replace by newer homes. Vacant lots get developed in the immediate area adjacent to 1204 Upland. o Terry Palmos, (the developer and property manager that submitted this rezoning application) develops:  Violet crossing (1 block north) with 98 residential apartments  The property at Tamarack and Broadway (1/2 block south of 1204 Upland Ave), split the old single family parcel and built six - $1,000,000+/- homes (Palmos’s family still owns 2 of them)  The property at Upland and 13th (2 lots to the east). Split the old single family parcel into 4 lots and built 2 homes selling one for $1,650,000 (he retains one home as a rental, and the remaining lot that can be subdivided again into two lots) Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 328 of 553 PAGE 2 o The properties that are adjacent and contiguous to 1204 Upland get developed. They are all owner occupied homes: •14,886 sq. ft. lot with 3782 sq. ft. home •14, 672 sq. ft. lot with 4000 sq. ft. home •16,512 sq. ft. lot with 2932 sq. ft. home o Note: The size of lots that will be available on the 1204 parcel (15,050 sq. ft. +/-) will be very similar to the size of the newly constructed adjacent and contiguous properties. •2013- 2018 -- Flood comes in September of 2013, and the house occupied by a renter at 1204 Upland gets flooded. The renter eventually moved out because of the wet moldy environment. The floodwaters covered the property, using it as a pathway to flow east. It lies in a shallow area a few feet below the elevation of Broadway. Currently, the owners are working with Terry Palmos, whose family developed the properties noted above, and are filing for rezoning. Alternate proposal While still granting the applicants their request to rezone the property, this proposal keeps the character of the neighborhood intact and compatible with the surrounding and adjacent single-family homes. As the property was never annexed, a formal post-annexation agreement needs to be signed by the owner prior to rezoning and development. We believe that the following items need to be included and emphasized in the Post Annexation Agreement. Some were noted in the original annexation agreement for the specific property at 1204 Upland Ave., and some are additions that would be appropriate to bring the property/development in step with the immediate neighborhood and the North Boulder Community Plan. Those points/items from the original annexation agreement, along with the pages they are listed on are as follows: •Add in all relevant sections of the old Annexation Agreement to the new Post Annexation agreement that bind the neighborhood together (see Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland). •Owners agrees to participate in our Local Improvement District (Page 4) •As per Transportation Engineer. Owner agrees to construct 12 ½ Street to the south end of their property as a standard (30’) right of way. Driveway cuts to access homes will be off 12 ½ street. (No driveway cuts on Upland Ave.) Dedicate the required property to city to create R.O.W. at 12 1/2 Street, as per cities requirements. Any dedication of property to city R.O.W. reduces the total parcel/lot size.(Page5) •Owner agrees to dedicate an additional 0.5’ for right of way to the city at the west lot line of property on the Broadway side of the parcel. (Page 5) •Emphasize that only (2) platted lots are permitted as per original Annexation agreement which states: “Site Review or Subdivision (platting, lot layout, housing types) shall not be used to reduce the density below two (2) platted lots” (Page 8) •Flaglots shall not be permitted. (Page 8) •At least one “Entry” element to be included but not limited to, covered and uncovered porches and front doors shall be provided on facades abutting a public street. (Page 9) (In the past this has been use to its minimum intent (one garage entry door) Please note that it should be a substantial, pleasant architectural feature.) Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 329 of 553 PAGE 3 Items proposed to be added to the Post Annexation Agreement above and beyond original agreement: •Rezone the parcel from its current zone of RR-1 to an RL-1 designation (it is less aggressive than the zoning of RL-2). The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan has designated the property as LR, Low Density Residential, and RL-1 is defined as LR. It allows only single-family homes, (no duplexes), and has lot size standards similar to the adjoining properties. •No owner accessory unit to be allowed (Chapter 6 Use Standards 9.6.3 #4) •That the allowed 2 lots can never be subdivided. •If access is to be off 12½ street, then no garages are allowed to face or front Upland Ave. •Specifically state “no duplexes allowed” •Add these Compatible Development Standards. Compatible Development Standards were created for infill issue like this and is more aggressive to combat larger homes from being developed in existing neighborhoods. It these items, if applicable, could possibly be added to for obvious reasons: o Side yard bulk plane, o Side yard wall articulation, o Maximum building coverage, o High volume spaces •Please emphasize that from the original annexation agreement, that section 10. “City Codes and Polices” are to be maintained in the Post Annexation agreement, as the designs stated are specific to our neighborhood and the agreement. Rationale for Alternate Proposal The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designate the property as LR, Low Density Residential, and is the most prevalent land use in the city covering primarily single family detached homes. RL-1 and RL-2 are LR designations, but we believe the RL-1 is the zone that is more compatible w/ the neighborhood because it prohibits duplexes. If the parcel is only to be divided into two lots, as the original annexation agreement states, then the development options created by the RL-1 designation will be more characteristic of the neighborhood. Compatible reasons: •RL-1 zone supports the single-family homes that are 100% dominate in the neighborhood, excluding the “one and only” duplex. (The duplex is actually the largest contiguous building to 1204 Upland @ 4067 sq. ft.) •All the current properties in the RL-2 zone, defined in the original annexation agreement, have single- family homes on their lots (but one). o In the total area that has an RL-2 zone in the neighborhood, which extends north/south from Sumac to Violet and east /west from 13th St to Broadway, there exists: 21 lots in the RL-2 zone that are all developed as single family, 2 lots that are RL-1 that are single family, for a total of 23 single family residences. There is only one duplex. The proposal to create more duplexes is out of character with the neighborhood, which is almost 100% built out. RL-1 zone, that offers only single-family development, will protect neighborhood character. Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 330 of 553 PAGE 4 •Compatible reasons continued: •All the new single-family homes, adjacent and contiguous to 1204 Upland, share similar lot sizes to the estimated final lot size of the proposed 2-lot subdivision. (Estimating the lot sizes to be 15,050+/- sq. ft. after required dedication of right of way at 12 ½ Street). •The RL-1 proposed zone exists 2 lots north of 1204 on the same side of the street. It is also located directly across the street on Broadway, it is used twice within a one block radius around 1204 Upland. •The majority is of homes in the neighborhood are occupied by owners and families. •The need for rental units in our neighborhood is being met by the new Palmos’s Violet crossing apartment complex, 1 block to the north, it boasts 98 residential apartments •The future large mixed-use development, which is 1 block north at the northwest corner of Violet and Broadway, across the street from Palmos development, will also add many new rental dwellings to the neighborhood. •Many neighbors are in favor of the single-family concept vs. duplex. •Overflow parking would be considerably lessened at 12 ½ Street, a smaller street, without additional dwelling units •The original neighbors were not in favor of duplexes in the neighborhood during the conceptual period of the Annexation Agreement. During the original annexation conceptual process the homeowners were asked to put their signatures over their individual parcel, on a large parcel map, if they agreed with the concepts stated on the map. (Zoning areas defined, bold bullet points for major issues, written statements, etc. were displayed on the map). The majority of the owner’s signatures appear on the map. The bullet points clearly stated “no duplexes”. The current owner was part of those conceptual meeting and signed their signature on the map at their parcel, 1204 Upland. Closing statement Within a 2-block radius of 1204 Upland Mr. Palmos has developed at least 4 pieces of property. Within that 2-block radius their family holds title to over four rental homes, 2 vacant lots, and 98 apartment units, seemingly all “market rate dwellings”. Now they are requesting a zoning change for 1204 Upland to RL-2, which will allow the maximum units per lot. In the rezoning application words and phrases such as: “urgent”, “pricing out middle and lower income residents”, “the threatening thought of a “6,000-7,000” sq. ft. home” are used in order to gain the business advantages of maximizing the dwelling units. We believe that the use of those phrases reflect that he will do his best to promote maximizing the total amount of potential units that the property at 1204 Upland can have. We believe the choice of zoning is clear and support changing the current zone from RR-1 to the RL-1 zone. The two lots will be characteristic in size to the adjacent and contiguous lots, and allow only one dwelling unit per lot. If RL-2 were chosen as the proposed zone, and the annexation agreement stated that only one single family home were to be built on each of the two lot (and no duplexes allowed) then we would support that. If RL-2 were chosen that allowed duplexes then we would not be in favor of changing the zone. Keeping it at the RR-1 designation. Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 331 of 553 PAGE 5 Closing statement continued: What about the interests of the neighbors? Neighborhood input? This is a critical point in the application process. Input from all sources format the foundation and outline of the proposed plans that will be passed along to the Planning Board and the City Council. As the process proceeds down that path, options narrow, and minds are less open to change. We have not seen or heard of any attempts by the owners or applicant to reach out to the neighborhood. The past supporters of the North Boulder Community Plan gathered as a community putting in 100’s of hours together of hard, difficult work, trying to find agreement that would work for the group. Where is that spirit? We understand that it isn’t a given that rezoning can happen, as it is rarely granted, and yet have choose to support the rezoning of this property in a thoughtful way that honors the spirit of the initial creators of the current Annexation Agreement. The character of the neighborhood can be maintained in lot size and residential density by rezoning the property to RL-1, which only allows single-family homes. There is no need for a more aggressive zoning, the incompatible RL-2 zone, that would allow multifamily dwellings, as that need for a multifamily dwellings in the neighborhood is more than compensated by the 98 unit apartment complex just 1 block to the north, and the proposed large mixed-use development which is also 1 block the north, both at the intersection of Violet and Broadway. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Cam Frasier/Dale Whyte Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 332 of 553 From: Tommy Pizzini [mailto:tommy656@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 9:31 PM To: Moeller, Shannon <MoellerS@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Question about development review LUR2018-00011 Hello Shannon, I got a notification about LUR2018-00011 (rezoning 1204 Upland from RR-1 to RL-2). My wife and are definitely on board with more high density housing in Boulder. We're curious to confirm that there would likely be duplexes/two family homes going in on that lot? Is the height restriction 30'? We're right in the sight line, and realize our view may be blocked to some degree, but want to know potentially how much and whether we should anticipate a three story apartment complex or two-family homes. Are there any height restrictions or regulations about line-of-sight, or really just anything else that I should know about this type of change? Thanks so much for your time and your responses! -Tommy Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 333 of 553 From: Elizabeth Black [mailto:elizabeth@elizabethblackart.com] Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 8:25 AM To: Moeller, Shannon <MoellerS@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: RE: Initial Review Comments - 1204 Upland Rezoning Proposal (LUR2018-00011) Hi Shannon, Thanks for forwarding me the rezoning proposal. Both my husband and I support the rezoning of the Lafond property to RL-2, which will keep it in character with surrounding properties’ zoning, and which will hopefully allow some less wealthy folks to move into our neighborhood. I have one comment on the proposal, regarding basements. I did not read the proposal with a fine tooth comb, but it does mention basements as if they are allowed. However, I believe that basements might not be allowed per our annexation agreement, and if they are, would be extremely unwise in this location. The Lafond property is near the low point in the dip in Broadway between Violet and Quince. Drainage from Broadway runs down into this area via the Broadway sublateral of the Violet lateral of the Silver Lake Ditch. Flood water and storm water also run into this property from Broadway since there is not a storm sewer or borrow ditch on the east side of Broadway between 4 Mile Canyon Creek and Tamarack. So this property has had major drainage issues for a long time. Additionally, there are many ancient subterranean creek channels from 4 Mile Canyon Creek throughout this part of Crestview West (See photo below.) 2 neighbors at 4347 13th and 4341 13th have homes with “crawl spaces” that are actually 7 feet deep and much more like unfinished basements. They have been struggling for years with groundwater intrusion into their basements. It turns out that the subterranean creek channel pictured below flows right into the footprint of their homes. During the flood of 2013 their basements were totally filled with seepage from groundwater, even though their homes and “crawl spaces” were supposedly above the level of shallow flooding. They were lucky not to lose their foundations. They continue to struggle with seepage into their basements whenever 4 Mile Canyon Creek runs or whenever the ditch is active. These two properties have much better drainage than the La Fond property does, and are further from active drainageways and irrigation ditches than the Lafond property is, so I would expect that the Lafond property would have much greater issues with groundwater than they do. So for these reasons I urge you not to allow basements on the Lafond property. Thanks, Elizabeth Black Elizabeth Black 4340 N 13th St Boulder CO 80304 303-449-7532 Elizabeth@ElizabethBlackArt.com www.ElizabethBlackArt.com Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 334 of 553 From: Alexander Schuler <alecschuler37@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:08 AM To: Moeller, Shannon <MoellerS@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: terry palmos <terry@palmos-development.com> Subject: 1204 Upland - LUR2018-00011 Hello Shannon, Not sure if this comment is time to be part of the review process... I lost track of this for a few weeks. I live at 1310 Upland, 2 houses down from 1204 I support as much density as can go on the two lots. two duplexes sounds good to me. How about tri-plexes...? I feel Boulder needs to densify, as the demand is obviously there. And smaller homes (and hopefully a little more affordable) are one of the small steps we can do to assist that. I CC'd Terry here, so he is aware of my comment. Thanks, Alec Schuler Biking Everywhere Close Advocate Chef / Proprietor Tangerine Restaurants 2777 Iris Ave., Boulder, CO 80304 - (303)443-2333 300 S. Public Rd., Lafayette, CO 80026 - (303)443-5100 TangerineEats.com Attachment D - Public Comments Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 335 of 553 9-2-19 Rezoning (e) Criteria: The city's zoning is the result of a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the city's present and future land use allocation needs. In order to establish and maintain sound, stable and desirable development within the city, rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed only under the limited circumstances herein described. Therefore, the city council shall grant a rezoning application only if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and, for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map, meets one of the following criteria: (1) The applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map; The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) designates the property as LR, Low Density Residential, which is described as: LR is the most prevalent land use designation in the city, covering the primarily single-family home neighborhoods, including the historic neighborhoods and Post-WWII neighborhoods. Uses: Consists predominantly of single-family detached units. BVCP Density/Intensity: 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The existing zoning designation for the site, RR-1, allows a maximum of one dwelling unit per 30,000 square-foot lot, resulting in a maximum of one dwelling unit on the property and a density of approximately 1.3 dwelling units/acre. The proposed zoning designation, RL-2, requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. The approximately 33,052 square-foot site could accommodate 4 dwelling units under this zoning, resulting in a density of approximately 5.3 dwelling units/acre. Further, the property is part of the Crestview West area of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP), which includes a goal to “allow possible higher densities along the Broadway corridor to achieve affordable and diverse housing close to transit.” A zoning designation of RL-2 would allow for the development of 4 attached dwelling units (2 duplexes), which if developed under the requirements of a post-annexation agreement equivalent to other Crestview West annexation agreements, would result in attached dwelling units with a smaller amount of floor area per unit as compared to a redevelopment consisting of a detached home or homes on individual lots, increasing the possibility of affordability and increasing the diversity of housing types in the area. The rezoning in conjunction with the conditions of the post-annexation agreement would allow development of the property consistent with the NBSP as well as the goals and policies of the BVCP. Staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the criteria for rezoning, particularly criterion 9-2-19(e)(1), B.R.C. 1981 which requires that the applicant demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map. The BVCP land use designation for the property (and the larger neighborhood) is Low Density Residential (LR) and is defined in the BVCP as: “The most prevalent land use designation in the city covering primarily single-family neighborhoods where densities are between 2 to 6 du/ac.” Attachment E - Staff's Analysis of Rezoning Criteria Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 336 of 553 Figure 1 – Existing BVCP Land Use Map Because the property owners chose to not participate in the 1997 neighborhood annexation, the property was issued a zoning designation of RR-1 which is defined in the city’s code as: “Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities with a max density of 1.4 du/ac.” Figure 2 – Existing Zoning Map RR-1 is the lowest intensity residential zoning category with a minimum lot size of 30,000 SF and maximum density of 1.4 du/ac, which is therefore technically inconsistent with the underlying LR land use designation that contemplates densities between 2 and 6 du/ac as noted above. The proposed RL-2 zoning is consistent with the current BVCP land use designation of RL and is defined in Section 9-5- 2(c), B.R.C. 1981 as “medium density residential areas primarily used for small-lot residential development, including without limitation, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level.” As indicated in figure 2 above, the site is surrounded by RL-2 zoning. n/a (2) The existing zoning of the land was the result of a clerical error; Not applicable. n/a (3) The existing zoning of the land was based on a mistake of fact; Not applicable. n/a (4) The existing zoning of the land failed to take into account the constraints on development created by the natural characteristics of the land, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, floodplain, unstable soils and inadequate drainage; Attachment E - Staff's Analysis of Rezoning Criteria City Council Meeting Page 337 of 553 Not applicable. n/a (5) The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area; or Not applicable. n/a (6) The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Not applicable. Attachment E - Staff's Analysis of Rezoning Criteria Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 338 of 553 6.24.86.55.04.332.226.314.532.2EXISTING1-STORYFRAMEEXISTINGFRAMEGARAGE20.518.4GRAVEL DRIVE30' - 0"1 2 0 4 U P L A N D A V E .SS5' UTIL ESMT (PLAT)5' DITCH R-O-W (PLAT)WMCONCRETE WALK5' UTIL ESMT (PLAT)N O R T H B R O A D W A YEM0° 08' 30" 187.80' N W89° 53' 30"176.00'NE0° 08' 30" 187.80' S E 89° 53' 30"176.00'SW2,000 SF1000 x 2BLDG 1PROPOSED2-STORYDUPLEXRESIDENCE500 SF2-CARGARAGE500 SF2-CARGARAGEBLDG 2PROPOSED2-STORYDUPLEXRESIDENCE2,000 SF1000 x 22,000 SF1000 x 22,000 SF1000 x 2SURFACEPARKINGSURFACEPARKINGISSUE DATE: phone 303.931.4461NOTICE : DUTY OF COOPERATIONRelease of these plans contemplates further cooperation among the owner, their contractor and the designer. Design and construction are complex. Although the designer and his consultants have performed their services with due care and diligence, they can not guarantee perfection. Communication is imperfect and every contingency can not be anticipated. Any ambiguity or discrepancy discovered by the use of these plans shall be reported immediately to the designer. Failure to notify the designer compounds misunderstanding and increases construction costs. A failure to cooperate by simple notice to the designer shall relieve designer from responsibility for all consequences. Changes made from the plans without the consent of the designer are unauthorized and shall relieve the designer of responsibility for all consequences arriving out of such changes.SHEET NO.PREPARED BY:Mike DerengowskiOWNER:COPYRIGHT©2018 MOS CONCEPTSC O N C E P T Sdwelling designplanningrenovationsdrafting servicesSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"SPR-11204 UPLAND AVESITE CONCEPT PLAN10/5/20181204 UPLAND AVEAttachment F - Proposed Site Plan Item 3P - First Reading 1204 Upland Rezoning City Council Meeting Page 339 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to publish by title only, and adopt as an emergency measure Ordinance No. 8306 approving a loan evidenced by the City of Boulder, C olorado, C ommunity Culture and Safety Sales and Use Tax Revenue Notes (C apital Improvement Projects), Series 2019, in the aggregate principal amount of $4,556,250 – Series A (tax-exempt) and $3,543,750 – Series B (taxable) for the purpose of providing funds (A) to acquire land to be used for the relocation of Fire Station 3, (B) to finance any other City capital improvement program projects identified in 2017 Ballot Issue 2N, and (C) to pay costs of issuance of the 2019 Notes; approving the form of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the sale of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the payment and redemption of said Series 2019 Notes from and out of the C ity’s C ommunity, Culture and Safety Tax (C C S), which was extended an additional four years, by vote of the people, on November 7, 2017; providing other details and approving other documents in connection with said Series 2019 Notes; and declaring an emergency and providing the effective date hereof P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Ron Gilbert, Assistant Controller RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to publish by title only, and adopt as an emergency measure Ordinance No. 8306 approving a loan evidenced by the City of Boulder, C olorado, C ommunity Culture and Safety Sales and Use Tax Revenue Notes (C apital Improvement Projects), Series 2019, in the aggregate principal amount of $4,556,250 – Series A (tax-exempt) and $3,543,750 – Series B (taxable) for the purpose of providing funds (A) to acquire land to be used for the relocation of Fire Station 3, (B) to finance any other City capital improvement program projects identified in 2017 Ballot Issue 2N, and (C) to pay costs of issuance of the 2019 Notes; approving the form of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the sale of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the payment and redemption of said Series 2019 Notes from and out of the C ity’s C ommunity, Culture and Safety Tax (C C S), which was extended an additional four years, by vote of the people, on November 7, 2017; providing other details and approving other documents in connection with said Series 2019 Notes; and declaring an emergency and providing the effective date hereof City Council Meeting Page 340 of 553 AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 341 of 553 C I T Y O F B O U L D E R CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Introduction, first reading, consideration of a motion to publish by title only, and adopt as an emergency measure Ordinance No. 8306 approving a loan evidenced by the City of Boulder, Colorado, Community Culture and Safety Sales and Use Tax Revenue Notes (Capital Improvement Projects), Series 2019, in the aggregate principal amount of $4,556,250 – Series A (tax-exempt) and $3,543,750 – Series B (taxable) for the purpose of providing funds (A) to acquire land to be used for the relocation of Fire Station 3, (B) to finance any other City capital improvement program projects identified in 2017 Ballot Issue 2N, and (C) to pay costs of issuance of the 2019 Notes; approving the form of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the sale of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the payment and redemption of said Series 2019 Notes from and out of the City’s Community, Culture and Safety Tax (CCS), which was extended an additional four years, by vote of the people, on November 7, 2017 ; providing other details and approving other documents in connection with said Series 2019 Notes; and declaring an emergency and providing the effective date hereof. PRESENTERS: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tom Carr, City Attorney Kathy Haddock, Senior Assistant City Attorney Cheryl Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer Ron Gilbert, Assistant Controller Joel Wagner, Tax and Special Projects Manager Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 City Council Meeting Page 342 of 553 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On October 16th, 2018, City Council approved Resolution No. 1243 authorizing the City Manager to call for a competitive direct sale of City of Boulder, Colorado Community Culture and Safety Sales and Use Tax Revenue Notes (Capital Improvement Projects), Series 2019 A and B. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on October 25, 2018 and all proposals were received on November 7, 2018. The note proceeds will be used to purchase property at 2751 and 2875 30th St to relocate Fire Station #3, currently located at 1585 30th St., to a location that is well-suited for fire and rescue response and meets all spatial and site access needs. Proceeds may also be used for any other City capital improvement program projects identified in 2017 Ballot Issue 2N and to pay necessary issuance costs of the Notes. The bond sale ordinance will be adopted as an emergency measure. Based on updated cash projections after the original October 16th, 2018 Agenda Memo, staff reduced the sizing of the note issue by $900,000. Interest rate bids by maturity – Maturity (December 1) Principal Amount Interest Rate (Coupon) Series A – Tax-Exempt 2019 $1,092,322 2.740% 2020 1,122,908 2.740% 2021 1,154,349 2.740% 2022 1,186,671 2.740% Total $4,556,250 Series B - Taxable 2019 $ 840,759 3.510% 2020 870,185 3.510% 2021 900,642 3.510% 2022 932,164 3.510% Total $3,543,750 Winning Bidder: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 City Council Meeting Page 343 of 553 Bidders, Coupon Rates and Total All-In Interest Rates: Bidder Name Tax-Exempt Coupon Rate Taxable Coupon Rate Total All-In Interest Rate Wells Fargo Bank 2.74% 3.51% 3.38% PNC Bank 2.78% 3.53% 3.46% JP Morgan Chase Bank 2.94% 3.75% 3.62% Vectra Bank 3.13% 3.96% 3.77% Key Bank 3.14% 3.99% 3.84% BBVA Compass 3.36% 4.25% 3.84% The Coupon rate determines the interest expense of the notes and does not include any cost of issuance fees. The total all-in interest rate is a blended rate that includes both the tax-exempt and taxable coupon issues and includes all cost of issuance fees. Debt Service Breakdown: Principal and Interest Payment Date Tax-Exempt Series A Taxable Series B Total December 1, 2019 $1,203,638.79 $951,669.51 $2,155,308.30 December 1, 2020 $1,217,819,62 $965,059.98 $2,182,879.60 December 1, 2021 $1,218,492.94 $964,973.50 $2,183,466.44 December 1, 2022 $1,219,185.78 $964,882.96 $2,184,068.74 Total $4,859,137.13 $3,846,585.95 $8,705,723.08 This table includes total interest and principal payments by year. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 City Council Meeting Page 344 of 553 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: A motion to publish by title only, and adopt as an emergency measure Ordinance No. 8306 approving a loan evidenced by the City of Boulder, Colorado, Community Culture and Safety Sales and Use Tax Revenue Notes (Capital Improvement Projects), Series 2019, in the aggregate principal amount of $4,556,250 – Series A (tax-exempt) and $3,543,750 – Series B (taxable) for the purpose of providing funds (A) to acquire land to be used for the relocation of Fire Station 3, (B) to finance any other City capital improvement program projects identified in 2017 Ballot Issue 2N, and (C) to pay costs of issuance of the 2019 Notes; approving the form of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the sale of said Series 2019 Notes; providing for the payment and redemption of said Series 2019 Notes from and out of the City’s Community, Culture and Safety Tax (CCS), which was extended an additional four years, by vote of the people, on November 7, 2017 ; providing other details and approving other documents in connection with said Series 2019 Notes; and declaring an emergency and providing the effective date hereof. COUNCIL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS: Economic: City ownership of the property will allow for a critical fire & rescue capital need to be fulfilled. Environmental: Relocation of Fire Station #3 to another location will remove the core service from the High Hazard Flood Zone Fiscal: Use of debt was considered as an option to accelerate certain CCS projects, and debt service (including issuance costs and interest) were included in the original CCS budget. OTHER IMPACTS: Staff time: Administration of the revised debt service on this note issue is part of normal staff time that is included in the appropriate department budgets. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 City Council Meeting Page 345 of 553 ADDITIONAL NOTE INFORMATION The City did not have to apply to Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s for a rating on these notes. The credit worthiness of the City’s CCS pledged revenue stream was determined by the individual banks when submitting their bid amounts. To maintain transparency with its existing bondholders and the rating agencies however, the City will post the financing documents on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s (MSRB) Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) site following the closing of the transaction. While Wells Fargo is purchasing the notes for its own account without a current intention to transfer them, they reserve the right in its sole discretion to sell the notes or assign, pledge, or participate interests in the Notes without the consent of the City. ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 City Council Meeting Page 346 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8306 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, APPROVING A LOAN EVIDENCED BY COMMUNITY CULTURE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE NOTES, ISSUED IN ONE OR MORE SERIES TO FINANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY CITY ELECTORS IN 2017, INCLUDING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR THE RELOCATION OF FIRE STATION #3; APPROVING THE NOTE FORM AND LOAN REPAYMENT FROM A PLEDGE OF COMMUNITY CULTURE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CCS FUND; AND PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS AND APPROVING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE LOAN; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. WHEREAS, the City of Boulder, Colorado, is a municipal corporation duly organized and operating as a home-rule city under Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the Charter of the City (unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms used in this preamble shall have the meanings set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance); and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution provides that voter approval in advance is required for the extension of an expiring tax or the creation of any direct or indirect debt or other multiple-fiscal year financial obligation whatsoever; and WHEREAS, pursuant to an election held on November 7, 2017, electors of the City voted in favor of the following ballot issues: Ballot Issue 2M WITHOUT RAISING THE EXISTING TAX RATE, SHALL THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CULTURE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.3 CENTS, SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2017, BE EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 2021, WITH THE REVENUE FROM SUCH TAX EXTENSION AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON BE USED TO FUND CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SUCH AS: APPROXIMATELY $12,500,000 TO RELOCATE FIRE STATION #3; APPROXIMATELY $5,000,000 FOR LIBRARY - NORTH BOULDER BRANCH; APPROXIMATELY $5,500,000 FOR CITYWIDE RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT; APPROXIMATELY $3,500,000 FOR FOURMILE CANYON CREEK GREENWAYS IMPROVEMENTS - 19TH TO BROADWAY; APPROXIMATELY $4,200,000 FOR SCOTT CARPENTER POOL Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 347 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPLACEMENT; AND APPROXIMATELY $400,000 FOR PUBLIC ART Ballot Issue 2N SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED UP TO $26,000,000 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $29,000,000 (SUCH AMOUNT BEING THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THAT COULD BE PAYABLE OVER THE MAXIMUM LIFE OF THE DEBT) TO BE PAID FROM THE EXTENSION OF THE COMMUNITY CULTURE AND SAFETY SALES AND USE TAX OF 0.3 CENTS, IF SEPARATELY APPROVED; SUCH DEBT TO BEAR INTEREST AT A NET EFFECTIVE RATE NOT TO EXCEED 4.002 PERCENT PER ANNUM AND HAVE A MATURITY DATE NOT LATER THAN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE ANY SUCH DEBT IS ISSUED, SUCH DEBT TO BE SOLD AT SUCH TIME AND IN SUCH MANNER AND TO CONTAIN SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE, WITH THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND EARNINGS THEREON BEING USED TO FUND THE FOLLOWING CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS OTHERWISE PAYABLE FROM SAID SALES AND USE TAX; RELOCATION OF FIRE STATION #3; LIBRARY - NORTH BOULDER BRANCH; CITYWIDE RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT; FOURMILE CANYON CREEK GREENWAYS IMPROVEMENTS - 19TH TO BROADWAY; SCOTT CARPENTER POOL REPLACEMENT; AND PUBLIC ART; WITH ANY REMAINING PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBT AND ALL EARNINGS THEREON BE USED TO FUND CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN ORDINANCE 8197 WITH ANY REMAINING FUNDS TO BE APPROPRIATED BY THE BOULDER CITY COUNCIL TO FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS; AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH DEBTS AND THE REVENUES FROM SUCH TAX EXTENSION CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION? Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 348 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Section 97 of the City Charter to issue sales and use tax obligations payable out of the proceeds of City sales and use taxes and, to the date of this Ordinance, no bonds, notes or other obligations have been issued pursuant to the Ballot Issue 2N; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1243 passed by the City Council on October 16, 2018, the City Council authorized the City Manager to call for a competitive direct sale of the City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects), Series 2019A (the “Series 2019A Note”) and the City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects), Taxable Series 2019B (the “Series 2019B Note” and together with the Series 2019A Note, the “Notes”), in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,000,000, to finance (a) the purchase of property at 2751 and 2875 30th St. for the relocation of Fire Station #3 and (b) any other City capital improvement program projects identified in Ballot Issue 2N (collectively, the “Projects”) and directed City staff, agents and advisors to proceed with an RFP process to determine the purchaser of the Notes based on the recommendation of the City’s financial advisor, and to prepare an ordinance for consideration by the City Council containing the final terms of the Notes; and WHEREAS, the Interest Rate for the Notes is set forth herein and in the Term Sheet; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the City and the residents thereof to issue the Notes for the purpose of funding the Projects; and WHEREAS, the Notes shall be a revenue obligation of the City payable solely from the Sales and Use Tax and moneys credited to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund; and WHEREAS, none of the members of the City Council have any potential conflicting interests in connection with the authorization, issuance and delivery of the Notes, or the use of the proceeds thereof; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City, and made available to the members of the City Council, the Term Sheet for the Notes to be issued; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the sale and issuance of the Notes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings as used in this Ordinance: “Authorized Denomination” means $250,000 and multiples of $1.00 in excess thereof or, if less, the outstanding principal amount of each Note issued and delivered pursuant to this Ordinance. “Ballot Issue Authorization” means Ballot Issue 2M and Ballot Issue 2N approved by Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 349 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City voters at an election held on November 7, 2017, which ballot issues are set forth in the preambles hereto. “Bank” means U.S. Bank National Association, in Denver, Colorado, or its successor, a national banking association duly organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, being a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and having full and complete trust powers. "Base Rate" means, for any day, a fluctuating rate of interest per annum equal to the greatest of (i) the Prime Rate in effect at such time plus one percent (1.0%), (ii) the Federal Funds Rate in effect at such time plus two percent (2.0%), and (iii) seven percent (7.0%). “Business Day” means any day other than (a) a Saturday or Sunday or (b) a day on which banking institutions in the State are authorized or obligated by law or executive order to be closed for business. “Capital Improvement CCS Fund” means the “Capital Improvement CCS Fund” established by the City and reaffirmed in this Ordinance. “Charter” means the home rule charter of the City of Boulder, Colorado, as amended. “City” means the City of Boulder, Colorado. “City Council” means the City Council of the City. “Dated Date” means January 10, 2019. “Default Rate” means the Base Rate plus 3.00%. “Determination of Taxability” means (a) any determination, decision, decree or advisement by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or any District Director of Internal Revenue or any court of competent jurisdiction to the effect that interest on the Series 2019A Note is Taxable, or (b) the delivery to the Purchaser or any Owner of an opinion of Note Counsel, to the effect that interest on the Series 2019A Note is Taxable. A Determination of Taxability also shall be deemed to have occurred on the first to occur of the following: (i) the date when the City files any statement, supplemental statement, or other tax schedule, return or document, which discloses that interest on the Series 2019A Note is Taxable; or (ii) the effective date of any federal legislation enacted or federal rule or regulation promulgated after the date of this Ordinance which has the effect that interest on the Series 2019A Note is Taxable. “EMMA” means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Electronic Municipal Access System or any service or services established by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (or any of its successors) as a successor to the Electronic Municipal Access System. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 350 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “Enabling Law” means collectively, the Charter, the Ballot Issue Authorization, the Supplemental Act, the Municipal Code and all other laws enabling the actions taken pursuant to this Ordinance. “Event of Default” means any of the events specified in the section hereof entitled “Events of Default.” "Federal Funds Rate" means, for any day, the rate per annum equal to the weighted average of the rates on overnight Federal funds transactions with members of the Federal Reserve System arranged by Federal funds brokers on such day, as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the Business Day next succeeding such day; provided that: (a) if such day is not a Business Day, then the Federal Funds Rate for such day shall be such rate on such transactions on the next preceding Business Day as so published on the next succeeding Business Day; and (b) if no such rate is so published on such next succeeding Business Day, then the Federal Funds Rate for such day shall be the average rate (rounded upward, if necessary, to a whole multiple of one-hundredth of one percent) charged to the Purchaser on such day on such transactions as determined by the Purchaser. “Federal Securities” means bills, certificates of indebtedness, bonds, notes or similar securities which are direct non-callable obligations of the United States of America or which are fully and unconditionally guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by the United States of America. “Interest Payment Date” means each June 1 and December 1, commencing June 1, 2019. “Interest Rate” means (a) 2.74% per annum for the Series 2019A Note and (b) 3.51% per annum for the Series 2019B Note, as established pursuant to the Term Sheet. “Interest Sub-Accounts” means, collectively, the Series 2019A Interest Sub Account and the Series 2019B Interest Sub Account. “Issuance Expense Accounts” means, collectively, the Series 2019A Issuance Expense Account and the Series 2019B Issuance Expense Account established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “Letter of Instructions” means the Letter of Instructions, dated the Dated Date and delivered by Note Counsel to the City, as it may be superseded or amended in accordance with its terms. “Loan” means the loan extended by the Purchaser pursuant to the terms established in the Term Sheet and this Ordinance, and evidenced through the issuance and delivery of the Notes by the City. “Loan Certificate” means, collectively, a certificate with respect to each Note executed by the Loan Delegate under the authority delegated pursuant to this Ordinance which may set forth any final terms of the Notes that are not set forth herein, as described in the Section hereof Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 351 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entitled “Delegation and Parameters.” “Loan Delegate” means the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager or the Chief Financial Officer of the City. “Make-Whole Premium,” when used with respect to the optional redemption of the Notes, shall have the meaning set forth in, and shall be calculated in accordance with, the provisions included in Exhibit C hereto. “Maturity Date” means December 1, 2022. “Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate” means the maximum rate of income taxation imposed on corporations pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Tax Code, as in effect from time to time or, if as a result of a change in the Tax Code the rate of income taxation imposed on corporations generally shall not be applicable to the Purchaser, the maximum statutory rate of federal income taxation which could apply to the Purchaser. As of the Dated Date, the Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate is 21%. “Municipal Advisor” means Piper Jaffray & Co. “Municipal Code” means the Boulder Revised Code 1981, as amended. “Note Accounts” means, collectively the Series 2019A Note Account and the Series 2019B Note Account. “Note Counsel” means (a) as of the date of issuance of the Note, Kutak Rock LLP, and (b) as of any other date, Kutak Rock LLP or such other attorneys selected by the City with nationally recognized expertise in the issuance of municipal obligations. “Note Purchase Agreement” means the Note Purchase Agreement dated December 4, 2018, by and between the City and the Purchaser. “Notes” means, collectively, Series 2019A Note and the Series 2019B Note. “Ordinance” means this ordinance which authorizes the issuance of the Notes, including any amendments properly made hereto. “Owner” means the Purchaser as of the Dated Date, and thereafter, following a transfer and exchange of a Note, the Person in whose name such Note is registered on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent pursuant hereto. “Parity Lien Obligation” means any bond, note or other obligation (which may or may not be multiple-fiscal year financial obligations), permitted to be issued in the future pursuant to the Section hereof entitled “Conditions to the Issuance of a Parity Lien Obligation,” with a lien that is equal and on a parity with the lien of the Notes on the Pledged Revenues. “Paying Agent” means the Bank and its successors in interest or assigns approved by Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 352 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the City, which shall act as paying agent, registrar, and authenticating agent for the Notes. “Paying Agent Agreement” means an agreement or agreements between the City and the Paying Agent concerning the duties and obligations of the Paying Agent with respect to the Notes. “Permitted Investments” means any lawful investment permitted for the investment of funds of the City by the Charter and the laws of the State. “Person” means a corporation, firm, other body corporate, partnership, association or individual and also includes an executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed according to law. “Pledged Revenues” means all of the City’s Sales and Use Tax revenues required to be credited to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund pursuant to the Ballot Issue Authorization and all moneys credited from time-to-time to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund. “Prime Rate” means, for any date of determination, the rate of interest per annum most recently established by the Purchaser in its sole discretion as its “prime rate.” The parties hereto acknowledge that the rate announced by Purchaser as its prime rate is an index or base rate and shall not necessarily be publically announced or be its lowest or best rate charged to its customers or other banks. If at any time (a) the Purchaser ceases to exist or (b) the Purchaser ceases to establish or publish a prime rate from which the Prime Rate is then determined, the applicable variable rate from which the Prime Rate is determined thereafter shall be instead the prime rate reported in The Wall Street Journal (or the average prime rate if a high and a low prime rate are therein reported). Each change in the Prime Rate shall be effective without notice as of the opening of business on the day such change in the prime rate occurs. “Principal Redemption Date” means each December 1, commencing December 1, 2019 until the principal of each Note is paid in full on the Maturity Date or upon prior redemption. “Principal Sub-Account” means a sub-account of the Note Account established by the provisions hereof for the purpose of paying the principal of and premium, if any, on the Notes. “Projects” means, collectively, the Series 2019A Project and the Series 2019B Project. “Project Accounts” means, collectively, the Series 2019A Project Account and the Series 2019B Project Account established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “Purchaser” means Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, the initial registered owner of the Notes. “Sales and Use Tax” means the 0.3 cents sales and use tax of the City, as imposed by the City pursuant to the Ballot Issue Authorization, for credit to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund. The term “Sales and Use Tax” does not include the costs of collection of said tax nor does it include any of the City’s sales and use tax other than the 0.3 cents sales and use tax imposed for credit to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund, or any other legally available excise Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 353 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tax unless otherwise provided by the City Council. “Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account” means a sub-account of the Series 2019A Note Account established by the provisions hereof for the purpose of paying the interest on the Series 2019A Note. “Series 2019A Issuance Expense Account” means the “Series 2019A Issuance Expense Account” established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “Series 2019A Note” means the City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects), Series 2019A issued in the principal amount of $4,556,250, dated as of the Dated Date, which is authorized pursuant to the Ballot Issue Authorization and will be issued and delivered pursuant to this Ordinance. “Series 2019A Note Account” means the “Series 2019A Note Account” established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “Series 2019A Project” means the portion of the purchase of property at 2751 and 2875 30th St. in Boulder, Colorado for the relocation of Fire Station #3 and any other purpose for which proceeds of the Notes may be expended under the Ballot Issue Authorization, to be financed with proceeds of the Series 2019A Note. “Series 2019A Project Account” means the “Series 2019A Project Account” established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “Series 2019B Interest Sub-Account” means a sub-account of the Series 2019B Note Account established by the provisions hereof for the purpose of paying the interest on the Series 2019B Note. “Series 2019B Issuance Expense Account” means the “Series 2019B Issuance Expense Account” established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “Series 2019B Note” means the City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects), Taxable Series 2019B issued in the principal amount of $3,543,750, dated as of the Dated Date, which is authorized pursuant to the Ballot Issue Authorization and will be issued and delivered pursuant to this Ordinance. “Series 2019B Note Account” means the “Series 2019B Note Account” established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “Series 2019B Project” means the portion of the purchase of property at 2751 and 2875 30th St. in Boulder, Colorado for the relocation of Fire Station #3 and any other purpose for which proceeds of the Notes may be expended under the Ballot Issue Authorization, to be Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 354 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 financed with proceeds of the Series 2019B Note. “Series 2019B Project Account” means the “Series 2019B Project Account” established in the Section hereof entitled “Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts.” “State” means the State of Colorado. “Supplemental Act” means Part 2 of Article 57 of Title 11, of the Colorado Revised Statutes. “Taxable” means interest on the Series 2019A Note is includable in gross income of an Owner (including, without limitation, any previous Owner) thereof as a result of a Determination of Taxability. “Taxable Rate” means, for any date of determination, the rate of interest per annum equal to the product of the (i) Interest Rate on the Series 2019A Note then in effect multiplied by the quotient of (a) one divided by (b) one minus the prevailing Maximum Federal Corporate Tax Rate. “Tax Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Each reference to a section of the Tax Code herein shall be deemed to include the United States Treasury Regulations proposed or in effect thereunder and applicable to the Series 2019A Note or the use of proceeds thereof, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. “Term Sheet” means the executed term sheet of the Purchaser dated November 13, 2018, which sets forth the terms pursuant to which the Purchaser is making the Loan to the City. Section 2. Authorization and Purpose of the Notes. Pursuant to and in accordance with the Enabling Law, the City hereby approves the Loan and, to evidence the Loan, authorizes and orders that there shall be issued, in one or more series, the “City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects), Series 2019A” in the principal amount of $4,556,250, and the “City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects), Taxable Series 2019B” in the principal amount of $3,543,750 for the purpose of financing the costs of the Projects. The caption on each Note shall include a series reference that identifies the Note by the year of its issuance (i.e., Series 2019 for a Note issued in calendar year 2019). Section 3. Note Details. (a)Registered Form, Denomination, Dated Date and Numbering. The Notes shall be issued in one or more series, each as a single, fully registered Note, which shall be dated as of the Dated Date and registered in the name of the Purchaser, or if later transferred pursuant to the Section hereof entitled “Registration, Transfer and Exchange of the Notes,” in the name of the Person identified in the registration books of the City maintained by the Paying Agent. Each Note shall be issued in an Authorized Denomination. The Notes shall be in substantially Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 355 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto with such changes thereto, not inconsistent herewith, as may be necessary or desirable and approved by the City officials executing the same (whose signatures thereon shall constitute conclusive evidence of such approval). The Notes shall be consecutively numbered (i.e., the first two Notes are “R-1” and “R-2”). Each Note shall recite that it is issued under the authority of the Supplemental Act. Such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and the regularity of the issuance of each Note after its deliver for value. (b)Maturity Date, Interest Rate and Accrual of Interest. Each Note shall be dated as of the Dated Date, mature on the Maturity Date and bear interest payable on each Interest Payment Date at the Interest Rate per annum (calculated based on a 360-day year of twelve 30- day months) from the later of the Dated Date or the latest Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid in full. No rating shall be assigned to the Notes. (c)Manner and Form of Payment. The principal of the Notes shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America to the Owner upon prior redemption or on the Maturity Date. The interest on and principal of the Notes is payable to the Owner at its address as it appears on the registration books maintained by or on behalf of the City by the Paying Agent. Interest and principal payments shall be paid by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed on or before each Interest Payment Date and Principal Redemption Date to the Owner. The Paying Agent may make payments of interest and principal by alternative means, such as by wire transfer, as may be mutually agreed to between the Owner of the Notes and the Paying Agent. All payments of the principal of and interest on the Notes shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America. The Note certificate must be presented for the final payment of the principal of a Note on the Maturity Date or date on which the principal of the Note is to be paid in full and need not be presented for mandatory scheduled redemption or optional redemption of the Note. Presentation of the Note to the Paying Agent shall be made at the principal office of the Paying Agent in Denver, Colorado, or at such other address as provided in writing by the Paying Agent to the Owner. (d)Adjustments to Interest Rates. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, (i) upon the occurrence of a Determination of Taxability, interest on the Series 2019A Note shall be calculated at the Taxable Rate and the City shall also pay any other expenses incurred by the Bank as a result of the Determination of Taxability, and (ii) upon the occurrence and continuation of any Event of Default, from and after the effective date of such Event of Default, the interest rate on the Notes shall be established at a rate equal to the Default Rate. In the event that more than one of a Determination of Taxability and an Event of Default have occurred, the interest rate on the Notes shall be established at a rate equal to the greatest of (A) the Default Rate, if any Event of Default has occurred, (B) the Taxable Rate with respect to the Series 2019A Note if a Determination of Taxability has occurred and (C) the interest rates that otherwise would be applicable to the Notes but for the provisions of this paragraph. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 356 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 4. Delegation and Parameters. (a)Delegation. The City Council hereby delegates to the Loan Delegate, for a period of one year from the effective date of this Ordinance, the authority to determine and set forth in the Loan Certificate: (i) the matters set forth in subsection (b) of this Section, subject to the applicable parameters set forth in subsection (c) of this Section; and (ii) any other matters that, in the judgment of the Loan Delegate, are necessary or convenient to be set forth in the Loan Certificate and are not inconsistent with the parameters set forth in subsection (c) of this Section or the provisions of this Ordinance. (b)Loan Certificates. To the extent not set forth herein, the Loan Certificate for each Note may set forth the following matters and other matters permitted to be set forth therein pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section, but each such matter must fall within the applicable parameters set forth in subsection (c) of this Section and other provisions of this Ordinance: (i) the Dated Date; (ii) the Maturity Date; (iii) the Interest Payment Date; (iv) the principal amount of the Note; (v) the Interest Rate on the Note; (vi) the principal amount of the Note subject to mandatory scheduled redemption on each Principal Redemption Date, and (vii) the dates upon which optional redemption may occur and the prices at which the Note may be optionally redeemed. (c)Parameters. The authority delegated to the Loan Delegate by this Section shall be subject to the provisions of the Term Sheet and the following parameters: (i) the aggregate principal amount of the Notes shall not exceed $8,100,000; and (ii) the combined maximum repayment cost for the Notes shall not exceed the Ballot Issue Authorization. Section 5. Redemption of Notes Prior to Maturity. (a)Optional Redemption. The Notes shall be subject to redemption at the option of the City, in whole or in part, on any Business Day at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the date of redemption plus a redemption premium equal to the Make-Whole Premium. (b)Mandatory Scheduled Redemption. The Series 2019A Note maturing December 1, 2022 is subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, in part, by lot, on December 1 of each year set forth below, upon payment of par and accrued interest, without redemption premium, in the annual amounts set forth below: Year of Redemption Redemption Amount 2019 $1,092,322 2020 1,122,908 2021 1,154,349 2022 1 1,186,671 ____________________ 1 Final maturity, not a sinking fund redemption. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 357 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Series 2019B Note maturing December 1, 2022 is subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, in part, by lot, on December 1 of each year set forth below, upon payment of par and accrued interest, without redemption premium, in the annual amounts set forth below: Year of Redemption Redemption Amount 2019 $840,759 2020 870,185 2021 900,642 2022 1 932,164 ____________________ 1 Final maturity, not a sinking fund redemption. (c)Redemption Procedures. No notice shall be required for mandatory scheduled redemption to occur on each Principal Redemption Date. Notice of optional redemption of the Notes shall be given by the Paying Agent in the name of the City, not less than thirty days prior to the redemption date, by electronic means (provided that the Owner has consented to such means of notification at the address provided by the Owner to the Paying Agent), by first class mail or by such other means acknowledged by the Owner of the Notes. Such notice shall specify the principal amount to be redeemed (if redemption shall be in part) and the optional redemption date. Section 6. Execution, Authentication and Delivery of the Notes. (a)Execution. The Notes shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City with the manual or facsimile signature of the City Manager, shall bear a manual or facsimile of the seal of the City and shall be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk, both of whom are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Notes in accordance with the requirements hereof. Should any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on the Notes cease to be such officer before delivery of the Notes, such manual or facsimile signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes. (b)Authentication. When a Note has been executed, the Note shall be delivered to the Paying Agent for authentication. No executed Note shall be secured by or entitled to the benefit of this Ordinance, or shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose, unless the certificate of authentication of the Paying Agent has been manually executed by an authorized signatory of the Paying Agent. The executed certificate of authentication of the Paying Agent upon an executed Note shall be conclusive evidence, and the only competent evidence, that the Note has been properly authenticated hereunder. (c)Delivery. Upon the authentication of an executed Note, receipt of the principal amount of the Note from the Purchaser, receipt of an executed Note Purchase Agreement and satisfaction of the conditions set forth therein, receipt of an executed Purchaser Letter in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B and issuance of the approving opinion of Note Counsel, the Paying Agent shall release the Note and deliver the same to the Purchaser in accordance with the directions of the Purchaser. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 358 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 7. Registration, Transfer and Exchange of the Notes. (a)Registration. The Paying Agent shall maintain the registration book in which the ownership, transfer and exchange of the Notes shall be recorded. The Person in whose name a Note shall be registered in such registration book shall be deemed to be the absolute owner thereof for all purposes. Upon the initial issuance of the Notes, the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver the Notes to the Purchaser, as the registered owner, and the Notes shall not be subject to the book-entry system. (b)Transfer and Exchange. The Notes may be transferred at the principal office of the Paying Agent or at such other location designated by the Paying Agent for such purpose, for a like aggregate principal amount of the same Maturity Date and Interest Rate and the Owner may, to the extent permitted by law, sell participations in its Notes; provided that the Notes shall always be registered in the name of one owner and the Notes may only be transferred to (a) an affiliate of the Purchaser, (b) a trust or custodial arrangement established by the Purchaser or one of its affiliates, the owners of the beneficial interests in which are limited to qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Rule 144A promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”), or (c) to a Person that is a qualified institutional buyer and a commercial bank having capital and surplus of $5,000,000,000 or more that has executed and delivered to the City and the Paying Agent a Purchaser Letter in the form of Exhibit B hereto. Upon surrender for transfer of a Note, duly endorsed for transfer or accompanied by an assignment duly executed by the Owner or his or her attorney duly authorized in writing, the City shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver in the name of the transferee a new Note. The transferring Owner shall pay any reasonable costs of the City incurred in connection with the transfer of the Note. Section 8. Replacement of Lost, Destroyed or Stolen Note. If a Note shall become lost, apparently destroyed, stolen or wrongfully taken, it may be replaced in the form and tenor of the lost, destroyed, stolen or taken Note and the City shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver a replacement Note upon the Owner furnishing, to the satisfaction of the Paying Agent: (a) proof of ownership (which shall be shown by the registration books of the Paying Agent), (b) proof of loss, destruction or theft, (c) an indemnity to the City and the Paying Agent with respect to the Note lost, destroyed or taken, and (d) payment of the cost of preparing and executing the new Note. Section 9. Reaffirmation of Capital Improvement CCS Fund; Establishment of Accounts. There is hereby reaffirmed the Capital Improvement CCS Fund. Moneys credited to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund shall be appropriated and distributed in accordance with the Municipal Code and this Ordinance. There also are hereby established within the Capital Improvement CCS Fund the following accounts: (a) the Series 2019A Note Account, which shall include the Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account and the Series 2019A Principal Sub-Account; (b) the Series 2019B Note Account, which shall include the Series 2019B Interest Sub Account and the Series 2019B Principal Sub Account; (c) the Series 2019A Project Account; (d) the Series 2019B Project Account; (e) the Series 2019A Issuance Expense Account; and (f) the Series 2019B Issuance Expense Account. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 359 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 10. Application of Proceeds of the Notes. Upon payment to the City of all or a portion of the Loan evidenced by the Series 2019A Note and the Series 2019B Note, the Loan proceeds received by the City shall be credited as follows: $4,524,834.37 shall be credited to the Series 2019A Project Account; $3,519,315.63 shall be credited to the Series 2019B Project Account; $31,415.63 shall be credited to the Series 2019A Issuance Expense Account; and $24,434.37 shall be credited to the Series 2019B Issuance Expense Account. Section 11. Pledged Revenues. All revenues from the Sales and Use Tax shall continue to be credited to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund. The City shall apply the moneys credited to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund in the following order of priority (for purposes of the following, when credits to more than one account or purpose are required at any single priority level, such credits shall rank pari passu with each other and, in the event that Pledged Revenue is not sufficient to fully fund all amounts required at any single priority level, credits shall be made pro rata, in accordance with the relative amounts required to be credited to such accounts or purposes): FIRST, to the credit of the Note Accounts, the amounts required by the Section hereof titled “Note Accounts”, and to the credit of any other account established for the payment of the interest on, and thereafter the principal of, premium if any, on Parity Lien Obligations, the amounts required by the instruments authorizing or controlling the payment of such Parity Lien Obligations; SECOND, to the credit of any other fund or account hereafter established for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on subordinate lien obligations, including any sinking fund, reserve fund, or similar fund or account established therefor, the amounts required by the ordinance or other enactment authorizing issuance of the subordinate lien obligations; and THIRD, to the credit of any other fund or account as may be designated by the City, to be used for any lawful purpose, any moneys remaining in the Capital Improvement CCS Fund after the payments and accumulations set forth in FIRST and SECOND above. Section 12. Note Accounts. (a)Use of Moneys in the Note Accounts. Moneys credited to the Series 2019A Note Account shall be used solely for the purpose of paying the principal of, premium if any, and interest on the Series 2019A Note. The Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account shall be used to pay the interest on the Series 2019A Note and the Series 2019A Principal Sub-Account shall be used to pay the principal of, and premium if any on, the Series 2019A Note. Moneys credited to the Series 2019B Note Account shall be used solely for the purpose of paying the principal of, premium if any, and interest on the Series 2019B Note. The Series 2019B Interest Sub-Account shall be used to pay the interest on the Series 2019B Note and the Series 2019B Principal Sub-Account shall be used to pay the principal of, and premium if any on, the Series 2019B Note. (b)Credits to the Interest Sub-Accounts. Commencing on or before the fifth Business Day of each month following the date of issuance of the Series 2019A Note, and Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 360 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taking into consideration moneys then credited to the Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account, there shall be credited to the Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the Pro Rata Portion of the interest to come due on the Series 2019A Note on the next succeeding Interest Payment Date; provided, however that commencing in January, 2021, there shall be credited to the Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the combined Pro Rata Portion of the interest to come due on the Series 2019A Note for both the next succeeding Interest Payment Date in 2021 and the corresponding Interest Payment Date in 2022. Commencing on or before the fifth Business Day of each month following the date of issuance of the Series 2019B Note, and taking into consideration moneys then credited to the Series 2019B Interest Sub-Account, there shall be credited to the Series 2019B Interest Sub- Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the Pro Rata Portion of the interest to come due on the Series 2019B Note on the next succeeding Interest Payment Date; provided, however that commencing in January, 2021, there shall be credited to the Series 2019B Interest Sub-Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the combined Pro Rata Portion of the interest to come due on the Series 2019B Note for both the next succeeding Interest Payment Date in 2021 and the corresponding Interest Payment Date in 2022. (c)Credits to the Principal Sub-Accounts. Commencing on or before the fifth Business Day of each month following the date of issuance of the Series 2019A Note, and taking into consideration moneys then credited to the Series 2019A Principal Sub-Account, there shall be credited to the Series 2019A Principal Sub-Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the Pro Rata Portion of the principal to come due on the Series 2019A Note on the next succeeding Principal Redemption Date provided, however that commencing in January, 2021, there shall be credited to the Series 2019A Principal Sub-Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the combined Pro Rata Portion of the principal to come due on the Series 2019A Note on both the next succeeding Principal Redemption Date in 2021 and on the Maturity Date in 2022. Commencing on or before the fifth Business Day of each month following the date of issuance of the Series 2019B Note, and taking into consideration moneys then credited to the Series 2019B Principal Sub-Account, there shall be credited to the Series 2019B Principal Sub- Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the Pro Rata Portion of the principal to come due on the Series 2019B Note on the next succeeding Principal Redemption Date provided, however that commencing in January, 2021, there shall be credited to the Series 2019B Principal Sub-Account Pledged Revenues in an amount equal to the combined Pro Rata Portion of the principal to come due on the Series 2019B Note on both the next succeeding Principal Redemption Date in 2021 and on the Maturity Date in 2022. (d)Investments. Moneys credited to the Note Accounts may be invested or credited to securities or obligations that are Permitted Investments. The investment of moneys credited to the Series 2019A Note Account shall, however, be subject to the covenants and provisions of the Section hereof entitled “Covenants Regarding Exclusion of Interest on the Series 2019A Note from Gross Income for Federal Income Tax Purposes.” Except to the extent otherwise required by such Section, all interest income from the investment or reinvestment of moneys credited to any sub-account of the Note Accounts shall remain in and become part of such Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 361 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sub-account. Section 13. Issuance Expense Accounts. Moneys in the Series 2019A Issuance Expense Account and the Series 2019B Issuance Expense Account shall be used to pay costs of issuance in connection with the Series 2019A Note and Series 2019B Note, respectively. Upon the determination of the City that all costs of issuance of the Notes have been paid or are determinable, any balance remaining in the Series 2019A Issuance Expense Account shall be credited to the Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account and any balance remaining in the Series 2019B Issuance Expense Account may be used for any purpose permitted by the Ballot Issue Authorization. Section 14. Project Accounts. (a)Use of Moneys in Project Accounts. All moneys credited to the Series 2019A Project Account shall be applied solely to the payment of the costs of the Series 2019A Project. Upon the determination of the City Manager that all costs of the Series 2019A Project have been paid or are determinable, any balance remaining in the Series 2019A Project Account (less any amounts necessary to pay the costs of the Series 2019A Project not then due and owing) shall be transferred to the Series 2019A Interest Sub-Account. All moneys credited to the Series 2019B Project Account shall be applied to the payment of the costs of the Projects or for any purpose permitted by the Ballot Issue Authorization. (b)Investments. Moneys credited to the Project Accounts may be invested or credited to securities or obligations that are Permitted Investments. The investment of moneys credited to the Series 2019A Project Account shall, however, be subject to the covenants and provisions of the Section hereof entitled “Covenants Regarding Exclusion of Interest on the Series 2019A Note from Gross Income for Federal Income Tax Purposes.” Except to the extent otherwise required by such section, interest income from the investment or reinvestment of moneys shall remain in and become part of the respective Project Accounts. Section 15. Pledge and Lien for Payment of the Notes. (a)Pledge of Revenues. The City hereby pledges for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes, and grants a first lien (but not necessarily an exclusive first lien) for such purpose on (i) the Sales and Use Tax and (ii) all moneys on credited from time-to-time in the Capital Improvement CCS Fund, including without limitation moneys credited to the Note Accounts. The creation, perfection, enforcement, and priority of the pledge of Pledged Revenues shall be governed by Section 11-57-208 of the Supplemental Act and this Ordinance. The Pledged Revenues shall immediately be subject to the lien of such pledge without any physical delivery, filing, or further act. The lien of such pledge shall have the priority described herein. The lien of such pledge shall be valid, binding, and enforceable as against all persons having claims of any kind in tort, contract, or otherwise against the District irrespective of whether such persons have notice of such liens. (b)Superior Liens Prohibited. The City shall not pledge or create any other lien on the revenues and moneys pledged pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Section that is superior to Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 362 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the pledge thereof or lien thereon pursuant to such paragraphs. (c)Subordinate Liens Permitted. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from issuing subordinate lien obligations and pledging or creating a lien on the revenues and moneys pledged and the lien created pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Section that is subordinate to the pledge thereof or lien thereon pursuant to such paragraph, provided that no Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing. (d)No Prohibition on Additional Security. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from crediting any legally available revenues from the Sales and Use Tax that are not Pledged Revenues or any other moneys into any account of the Capital Improvement CCS Fund pledged to the payment of the Notes (and thereby subjecting the moneys so credited to the pledge made and lien granted in paragraph (a) of this Section). (e)The Notes are Special, Limited Obligations of the City. The Notes are special, limited obligations of the City payable solely from the Pledged Revenues. The Notes shall not constitute general obligations of the City. Section 16. Parity Lien Obligations. (a)Conditions to Issuance. The City shall not issue any Parity Lien Obligation without the prior written consent of the Owner unless (i) the Sales and Use Tax for the preceding calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year in which the proposed Parity Lien Obligation is issued have been equal to at least 125% of the sum of the maximum annual principal and interest due or to become due on the Notes and any outstanding Parity Lien Obligation during each calendar year following the date of issuance of the proposed Parity Lien Obligation; and (ii) no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing under this Ordinance. Compliance with such covenant shall be certified by the City Manager or the City Finance Director to the Owner prior to the issuance of the Parity Lien Obligation. All Parity Lien Obligations shall be payable and the same Interest Principal Payment Dates and Principal Redemption Dates as the Notes. (b)Most Favored Provision. In the event that the City has previously entered into or shall hereafter enter into or otherwise consent to any agreement or instrument with another Person constituting a Parity Lien Obligation (or any amendment, supplement or modification thereto) (each a “Relevant Agreement”), which Relevant Agreement (i) provides such Person with a covenant, provision or agreement which is more restrictive, as to the City, or (ii) gives or grants greater rights or remedies to such Person whether as to timing of payment, priority of payment or lien or otherwise (each, a “Favored Covenant”) than, in the case of (i), are undertaken by the City herein or, in the case of (ii), are given or granted to the Purchaser herein, then each such Favored Covenant shall automatically be deemed to be incorporated into this Ordinance and the Purchaser shall have the benefits of each such Favored Covenant as if specifically set forth in this Ordinance for the duration of such Relevant Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section, no provision described in this Section shall be deemed incorporated into this Ordinance if such incorporation would cause the interest on the Series 2019A Note to be includable in the gross income of the Owners Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 363 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thereof for federal tax purposes. Section 17. Additional General Covenants. In addition to the other covenants of the City contained herein, the City hereby further covenants for the benefit of Owner of the Notes that: (a)Maintenance of Sales and Use Tax. The City will not reduce the percentage of the Sales and Use Tax credited to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund pursuant to the Ballot Issue Authorization, will not reduce the current rate of the Sales and Use Tax, and will not alter, exempt or modify the transactions, properties or items subject to the Sales and Use Tax in any manner that the City expects will materially reduce the amounts available for credit to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund. (b)Efficient Collection and Enforcement of the Sales and Use Tax. The City will manage the collection and enforcement of the Sales and Use Tax in the most efficient and economical manner practicable. (c)Inspection of Records. The City will keep or cause to be kept such books and records showing the proceeds of the Sales and Use Tax, in which complete entries shall be made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, as applicable to governmental entities, and the Owner shall have the right at all reasonable times to inspect all non-confidential records, accounts, actions and data of the City relating to the Notes including, without limitation, the Sales and Use Tax and the Capital Improvement CCS Fund. (d)Annual Audit and Related Financial Information. The City will cause an annual audit to be made of the books relating to the Sales and Use Tax each year by an independent certified public accountant and shall furnish a copy thereof to the Owner at the address provided by the Owner within the earlier of (i) thirty days from the date of public release of the audit or (ii) two hundred and seventy (270) days of the close of each fiscal year. The annual audit of the City’s general purpose financial statements shall be deemed to satisfy this covenant. Additionally, the City shall furnish a physical or electronic copy of its annual budget to the Owner, at the address provided by the Owner, within sixty (60) days of the adoption or amendment of the City’s annual budget. Finally, the City will provide such other financial information reasonably requested by the Owner, including without limitation long- term capital improvement plans which have been officially adopted by the City Council. (e)EMMA Filing. Promptly following the issuance of the Notes, the City shall post the Ordinance on EMMA, provided that the pricing and certain other information as directed by the Purchaser shall be redacted prior to such filing. Section 18. Covenants Regarding Exclusion of Interest on the Series 2019A Note from Gross Income for Federal Income Tax Purposes. For purposes of ensuring that the interest on the Series 2019A Note is and remains excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the City hereby covenants that: (a)Prohibited Actions. The City will not use or permit the use of any proceeds of the Series 2019A Note or any other funds of the City from whatever source derived, directly or indirectly, to acquire any securities or obligations and shall not take or permit to be taken any Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 364 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other action or actions, which would cause the Series 2019A Note to be an “arbitrage bond” within the meaning of Section 148 of the Tax Code, or would otherwise cause the interest on the Series 2019A Note to be includible in gross income for federal income tax purposes. (b)Affirmative Actions. The City will at all times do and perform all acts permitted by law that are necessary in order to assure that interest paid by the City on the Series 2019A Note shall not be includible in gross income for federal income tax purposes under the Tax Code or any other valid provision of law. In particular, but without limitation, the City represents, warrants and covenants to comply with the following rules unless it receives an opinion of Note Counsel stating that such compliance is not necessary: (i) gross proceeds of the Series 2019A Note will not be used in a manner that will cause the Series 2019A Note to be considered a “private activity bond” within the meaning of the Tax Code; (ii) the Series 2019A Note is not and will not become directly or indirectly “federally guaranteed”; and (iii) the City will timely file Internal Revenue Form 8038-G which shall contain the information required to be filed pursuant to Section 149(e) of the Tax Code. (c)Letter of Instructions. The City will comply with the Letter of Instructions delivered to it on the date of issuance of the Series 2019A Note, including but not limited by the provisions of the Letter of Instructions regarding the application and investment of Series 2019A Note proceeds, the calculations, the deposits, the disbursements, the investments and the retention of records described in the Letter of Instructions; provided that, in the event the original Letter of Instructions is superseded or amended by a new Letter of Instructions drafted by, and accompanied by an opinion of Note Counsel stating that the use of the new Letter of Instructions will not cause the interest on the Series 2019A Note to become includible in gross income for federal income tax purposes, the City will thereafter comply with the new Letter of Instructions. Section 19. Defeasance. The Notes shall not be deemed to be outstanding hereunder if it shall have been paid and cancelled or if cash or Federal Securities shall have been credited to trust for the payment thereof (whether upon or prior to the maturity of a Note, but if the Note is to be paid prior to maturity, the City shall have given the Paying Agent irrevocable directions to give notice of redemption as required by this Ordinance, or such notice shall have been given in accordance with this Ordinance). In computing the amount of the deposit described above, the City may include interest to be earned on the Federal Securities. If less than all a Note is to be defeased pursuant to this Section, the City, in its sole discretion, may select the principal amount of the Note payable on any Principal Redemption Date which shall be defeased. Section 20. Events of Default. Each of the following events constitutes an Event of Default: (a)Nonpayment of Principal, Premium or Interest. Failure to make any payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Notes when due hereunder; (b)Breach or Nonperformance of Duties. Breach by the City of any covenant set forth herein or failure by the City to perform any duty imposed on it hereunder and continuation of such breach or failure for a period of thirty days after receipt by the City Clerk Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 365 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of written notice thereof from the Paying Agent or from the Owner; or (c)Appointment of Receiver. An order or decree is entered by a court of competent jurisdiction appointing a receiver for all or any portion of the revenues and moneys pledged for the payment of the Notes pursuant hereto is entered with the consent or acquiescence of the City or is entered without the consent or acquiescence of the City but is not vacated, discharged or stayed within thirty days after it is entered. Section 21. Remedies for Events of Default. (a)Remedies. Upon the occurrence and continuance of any Event of Default, the Owner, or a trustee therefor, may protect and enforce its rights hereunder by proper legal or equitable remedy deemed most effectual including mandamus, specific performance of any covenants, the appointment of a receiver (the consent of such appointment being hereby granted), injunctive relief, or requiring the City Council to act as if it were the trustee of an express trust, or any combination of such remedies; provided however, that acceleration of any payments due with respect to the Notes shall not be a remedy available to the Owner. All proceedings shall be maintained for the benefit of the Owner of the Notes. (b)Failure To Pursue Remedies Not a Release; Rights Cumulative. The failure of the Owner to proceed in any manner herein provided shall not relieve the City of any liability for failure to perform or carry out its duties hereunder. The foregoing rights are in addition to any other right available to the Owner of the Notes and the exercise of any right by the Owner shall not be deemed a waiver of any other right. Section 22. Amendment of Ordinance. The City may not amend this Ordinance without the prior written consent of the Owner of the Notes. Section 23. Findings and Determinations. Having been fully informed of and having considered all the pertinent facts and circumstances, the Council does hereby find, determine, and declare: (a)voter approval of the Ballot Issue Authorization was obtained in accordance with all applicable provisions of law and, in accordance with the Ballot Issue Authorization; (b)the issuance of the Notes and all procedures undertaken incident thereto are in full compliance and conformity with all applicable requirements, provisions and limitations prescribed by the Enabling Law, and other applicable law relating to the issuance of the Notes have been satisfied; (c)it is to the best advantage of the City and its residents that the Notes be authorized, sold, issued and delivered at the time, in the manner and for the purposes provided in this Ordinance; and (d)The City Council elects to apply all of the provisions of the Supplemental Act to the issuance of the Notes. Section 24. Appointment and Duties of Paying Agent. The Paying Agent is hereby Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 366 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appointed as paying agent, registrar and authenticating agent for the Notes unless and until the City removes it as such and appoints a successor Paying Agent, in which event such successor shall automatically succeed to the duties of the Paying Agent hereunder and its predecessor shall immediately turn over all its records regarding the Notes to such successor. The Paying Agent, by accepting its duties as such, agrees to perform all duties and to take all actions assigned to it hereunder in accordance with the terms hereof. The appointment and acceptance of the duties of Paying Agent hereunder shall be affected through the execution of an agreement by the Paying Agent. Section 25. Approval of Miscellaneous Documents. The City Council hereby authorizes and approves the execution by the Mayor, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, the Chief Financial Officer or other authorized officer of the City of all documents and certificates necessary or desirable to effectuate the issuance of the Notes and the transaction contemplated hereby, including without limitation the Term Sheet, the Note Purchase Agreement and the Paying Agent Agreement, and the execution by the parties thereto shall constitute the City Council’s approval of such documents and certificates in the form so executed. Section 26. Ratification of Prior Actions. All actions heretofore taken (not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance) by the City Council or by the officers and employees of the City directed toward the issuance of the Notes for the purposes herein set forth, including without limitation actions taken on the City’s behalf by the Municipal Advisor in connection with the request for bids in connection with the financing of the Projects, are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 27. Events Occurring on Days That Are Not Business Days. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein with respect to a particular payment, event or action, if any payment to be made hereunder or any event or action to occur hereunder which, but for this Section, is to be made or is to occur on a day that is not a Business Day shall instead be made or occur on the next succeeding day that is a Business Day. Section 28. Headings. The headings to the various sections and paragraphs to this Ordinance have been inserted solely for the convenience of the reader, are not a part of this Ordinance, and shall not be used in any manner to interpret this Ordinance. Section 29. Ordinance Irrepealable. After a Note has been issued, this Ordinance shall constitute a contract between the Owner and the City, and shall be and remain irrepealable until all Notes issued pursuant to this Ordinance and the interest accruing thereon shall have been fully paid, satisfied, and discharged, as herein provided. Section 30. Severability. It is hereby expressly declared that all provisions hereof and their application are intended to be and are severable. In order to implement such intent, if any provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, such determination shall not affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof or the application of the provision in question to any other situation; and if any provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be valid or enforceable only if its application is limited, its application Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 367 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shall be limited as required to most fully implement its purpose. Section 31. Recordation and Publication. This instrument, immediately on its final passage, shall be recorded in the City’s Ordinance Record kept for that purpose, authenticated by the Mayor and the Clerk, and shall be published by title only in The Daily Camera, a daily newspaper printed, published and of general circulation in the City, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City. Section 32. Emergency and Effective Date. Due to fluctuations in municipal bond prices and interest rates, and due to currently favorable interest rates, and due to the need to finally act upon and accept the bid of the highest responsible bidder (in accordance with the Charter) for the Notes in an expeditious manner (said bids being submitted for immediate acceptance), it is hereby declared that, in the opinion of the Council, an emergency exists, this Instrument is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and property of the City and its inhabitants and shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. Section 33. Repealer. All orders, bylaws, ordinances, and resolutions of the City, or parts thereof, inconsistent or in conflict with this Ordinance, are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency or conflict. [Signatures appear on following page.] Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 368 of 553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 4th day of December, 2018. [CITY SEAL] By Mayor Attest: By Clerk Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 369 of 553 4817-5855-8074.5 EXHIBIT A FORM OF NOTE THIS NOTE MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7(b) OF THE ORDINANCE AND ONLY UPON THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY THE TRANSFEREE OF A PURCHASER LETTER IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE AS EXHIBIT B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO COMMUNITY CULTURE AND SAFETY [TAXABLE] SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE NOTES SERIES 2019[A][B] R-___ $_________ Interest Rate Maturity Date Dated Date % December 1, 2022 January [__], 2019 REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL SUM: DOLLARS CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, in the State of Colorado, a duly organized and validly existing home-rule City and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “City”), for value received, hereby promises to pay, solely out of the special accounts hereinafter designated but not otherwise, to the registered owner named above, or registered assigns, on the Maturity Date specified above or on Principal redemption Dates, the principal amount specified above (capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in City Ordinance No. ______ authorizing the issuance of this Note (the “Ordinance”)). In like manner the City promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of registration and authentication of this Note, except that interest paid on the first Interest Payment Date shall be computed from the Dated Date set forth above, at the Interest Rate per annum specified above, payable semiannually on June 1st and December 1st each year, commencing on June 1, 2019, until the outstanding principal amount is paid in full. The final installment of the principal of and interest on this Note is payable upon presentation and surrender of this Note at the principal operations office of U.S. Bank National Association (the “Paying Agent”), in Denver, Colorado. The Note need not be presented for the payment of principal when redeemed in the case of mandatory scheduled redemption or optional redemption. The Paying Agent may make payments of interest on this Note by such alternative means as may be mutually agreed to between the registered owner of this Note and the Paying Agent. THE ORDINANCE CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 370 of 553 A-2 4817-5855-8074.5 REGISTERED OWNER OF THIS NOTE AND THE CITY. THIS NOTE IS ONLY EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTRACT AND, AS SUCH, IS SUBJECT IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH SUPERSEDES ANY INCONSISTENT STATEMENT IN THIS NOTE. [Redemption Provisions to be Inserted Here.] The Note is special, limited obligation of the City payable solely from and secured solely by the sources provided in the Ordinance and shall not constitute a general obligation of the City. Pursuant to the Ordinance the City pledged for the payment of the principal of, premium if any, and interest on the Note at any time outstanding, and granted a lien for such purpose on all of the City’s 0.3 cents Sales and Use Tax revenues required to be credited to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund pursuant to pursuant to the Ballot Issue Authorization and all moneys credited from time to time to the Capital Improvement CCS Fund. This Note is issued under authority of the City Charter and, among other things, under the authority of the Part 2 of Article 57 of Title 11, of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and the regularity of the issuance of this Note after its deliver for value. The City agrees with the Owner of this Note and with each and every person who may become the Owner hereof, that it will keep and perform all the covenants and agreements contained in the Ordinance. It is hereby certified that all conditions, acts and things required by the City Charter, and the constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, and the ordinances of the City, to exist, to happen and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this Note, exist, have happened and have been performed, and that the Note do not exceed any limitations prescribed by said City Charter, Constitution or laws of the State of Colorado, or the ordinances of the City. This Note shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Ordinance, or become valid or obligatory for any purpose, until the Paying Agent shall have signed the certificate of authentication hereon. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 371 of 553 A-3 4817-5855-8074.5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City of Boulder, Colorado, has caused this Note to be signed in the name and on behalf of the City with the manual or facsimile signature of the City Manager, to be sealed with the seal of the City or a facsimile thereof and to be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk. [SEAL] CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO By (Manual or Facsimile Signature) City Manager ATTEST: By (Manual or Facsimile Signature) City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is the Note described in the within-mentioned Ordinance. U.S. Bank National Association, as Paying Agent By Authorized Representative Date of Authentication: CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER FOR VALUE RECEIVED, __________________________________, the undersigned, hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto __________________________________ (Tax Identification or Social Security No. ______________) the within Note and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints _________________________________ attorney to transfer the within Note on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Note in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 372 of 553 4817-5855-8074.5 EXHIBIT B PURCHASER LETTER [Date] City of Boulder, Colorado 1777 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 $4,556,250 City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects) Series 2019A $3,543,750 City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects) Taxable Series 2019B Ladies and Gentlemen: [_____________________] (the “Purchaser”) has agreed to purchase the City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects) Series 2019A in the amount of $4,556,250 (the “Series 2019A Note”) and the City of Boulder, Colorado Community, Culture, and Safety Sales Tax Revenue Note (Capital Improvement Projects) Taxable Series 2019B in the amount of $3,543,750 (the “Series 2019B Note” and together with the Series 2019A Note, the “Notes”) issued by the City of Boulder, Colorado (the “City”) each bearing interest at the respective Interest Rate set forth in the Ordinance No. [____] of the City dated December 4, 2018 (the “Ordinance”). All capitalized terms used herein, but not defined herein, shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Ordinance. The undersigned, an authorized representative of the Purchaser, hereby represents to you that: 1. The Purchaser has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters, including purchase and ownership of municipal and other tax exempt obligations, to be able to evaluate the risks and merits of the investment represented by the purchase of the Notes. 2. The Purchaser has authority to purchase the Notes and to execute this letter and any other instruments and documents required to be executed by the Purchaser in connection with the purchase of the Notes. 3. The undersigned is a duly appointed, qualified and acting representative of the Purchaser and is authorized to cause the Purchaser to make the certifications, representations and warranties contained herein by execution of this letter on behalf of the Purchaser. 4. The Purchaser is a “qualified institutional buyer” as defined in Rule 144A promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”) and is able to bear the economic risks of such investment. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 373 of 553 B-2 4817-5855-8074.5 5. The Purchaser understands that no official statement, prospectus, offering circular, or other comprehensive offering statement is being provided with respect to the Notes. The Purchaser has made its own inquiry and analysis with respect to the City, the Notes and the security therefor, and other material factors affecting the security for and payment of the Notes. 6. The Purchaser acknowledges that it has either been supplied with or been given access to information, including financial statements and other financial information, regarding the City, to which a reasonable investor would attach significance in making investment decisions, and has had the opportunity to ask questions and receive answers from knowledgeable individuals concerning the City, the Notes and the security therefor, so that as a reasonable investor, it has been able to make its decision to purchase the Notes. 7. The Purchaser understands that the Notes (i) are not registered under the 1933 Act and are not registered or otherwise qualified for sale under the “Blue Sky" laws and regulations of any state, (ii) are not listed on any stock or other securities exchange, and (iii) carry no rating from any credit rating agency. 8. The Notes are being acquired by the Purchaser for investment for its own account and not with a present view toward resale or distribution; provided, however, that the Purchaser reserves the right to sell, transfer or redistribute the Notes in accordance with Section 7(b) of the Ordinance in whole but not in part in an Authorized Denomination equal to its entire outstanding principal amount, but agrees that any such sale, transfer or distribution by the Purchaser shall be to a Person: (a) that is an affiliate of the Purchaser; (b) that is a trust or other custodial arrangement established by the Purchaser or one of its affiliates, the owners of any beneficial interest in which are limited to qualified institutional buyers as defined in Rule 144A promulgated under the 1933 Act; or (c) that is a qualified institutional buyer that is a commercial bank having a combined capital and surplus, determined as of the date of such sale, transfer or distribution, of $5,000,000,000 or more who executes an investor letter substantially in the form of this letter. . [Signature Page to follow] Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 374 of 553 B-3 4817-5855-8074.5 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION By Name Title [Signature Page to Purchaser Letter – City of Boulder, Colorado] Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 375 of 553 4817-5855-8074.5 EXHIBIT C MAKE-WHOLE PREMIUM CALCULATION AND DEFINITIONS The Make-Whole Premium applicable to an optional redemption of the Notes, in whole or in part, pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Ordinance of which this Exhibit C is a part, shall be calculated as set forth in this Exhibit C. 1. Capitalized terms used in this Exhibit C and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned thereto in the Ordinance. The following defined terms are used in this Exhibit C: “Breakage” means the occurrences of a Breakage Event. “Breakage Date” means the date on which a Breakage Event occurs. “Breakage Event” means any optional redemption or prepayment of the Notes pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Ordinance, but not the scheduled sinking fund redemption payments set forth in Section 5(b). “Breakage Payment” means the premium required to be paid by the City in connection with any Breakage, calculated as provided in this Exhibit C. “Calculation Agent” means Wells Fargo Bank, National Association or its affiliates or such other entity designated by the Purchaser. “Day Count Fraction” is the anticipated basis on which interest is to be computed on the Notes. The Day Count Fraction utilizes 30-day months and 360-day years. “Maturity Date” is December 1, 2022. “Reference Rate” means 2.97194% per annum with respect to the Series 2019A Note and 2.97220% per annum with respect to the Series 2019B Note. “Scheduled Date” means each date specified on Schedule 1 hereto in the columns labeled Scheduled Date. “Schedule of Principal Amounts” is the anticipated principal amount of the Note scheduled to be outstanding on the date the Note is funded and on the Scheduled Dates. The Schedule of Principal Amounts for the Scheduled Dates is specified in Schedule 1 to this Exhibit C. 2. In connection with any Breakage, a premium shall be paid by the City to the Purchaser if the Breakage Payment is a positive number. No Breakage Payment shall be payable for a Breakage if the Breakage Payment for that Breakage is a negative number. The Breakage Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 376 of 553 C-2 4817-5855-8074.5 Payment shall be payable on the Breakage Date. The Breakage Payment will be determined by the Calculation Agent on the Breakage Date, as follows: “Breakage Payment” for any Breakage is the difference of: (i) the sum of the present values of a series of amounts computed for each Scheduled Date after the Breakage Date through the Maturity Date, each of which amounts is equal to the product of (A) the Affected Principal Amount for the Affected Principal Period ending on that Scheduled Date, times (B) the Reference Rate times (C) the Day Count Fraction for such Affected Principal Period; minus (ii) the sum of the present values of a series of amounts computed for each Scheduled Date after the Breakage Date through the Maturity Date, each of which amounts is equal to the product of (A) the Affected Principal Amount for the Affected Principal Period ending on that Scheduled Date, times (B) the Breakage Rate, times (C) the Day Count Fraction for such Affected Principal Period; where: (1) the Calculation Agent computes such present values by discounting each such series of amounts described in clauses (i) and (ii) above from their respective Scheduled Date to the Maturity Date using a series of discount factors corresponding to those Scheduled Dates as determined by the Calculation Agent from the swap yield curve that the Calculation Agent would use as of the Breakage Date in valuing a series of fixed rate interest rate swap payments similar to such series of amounts; (2) the “Affected Principal Amount” for an Affected Principal Period is the principal amount of the Note reflected in the Schedule of Principal Amounts scheduled to be outstanding during that Affected Principal Period determined as of the relevant Breakage Date by reference to such Schedule of Principal Amounts before giving effect to any Breakage on that Breakage Date, and for any Breakage, multiplying each such principal amount times the Prepayment Fraction; (3) the “Affected Principal Period” is each period from and including a Scheduled Date to but excluding the next succeeding Scheduled Date; provided, however, if the Breakage Date is not a Scheduled Date, the initial Affected Principal Period shall be the period from and including the Breakage Date to but excluding the next succeeding Scheduled Date and the Affected Principal Amount for such initial Affected Principal Period shall be the amount stated in the Schedule of Principal Amounts Outstanding for the Scheduled Date next preceding the Breakage Date; Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 377 of 553 C-3 4817-5855-8074.5 (4) the “Prepayment Fraction” means, for each Scheduled Date, a fraction the numerator of which is the amount of the credit to be applied pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Agreement to reduce the amount of the payment otherwise due on such date and the denominator of which is the amount of the payment otherwise due on such date (without regard to such credit); and (5) the “Breakage Rate” for any Breakage Date is the fixed rate the Calculation Agent determines is representative of what swap dealers would be willing to pay to the Calculation Agent (or, if required to be cleared under the Commodity Exchange Act or a Commodity Futures Trading Commission rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, to a swap clearinghouse) as fixed rate payors [semi-annually] in return for receiving one month LIBOR based payments monthly under interest rate swap transactions that would commence on such Breakage Date, and mature on, or as close as commercially practicable to, the Maturity Date. 3. The Calculation Agent shall determine the Breakage Payment hereunder with respect to each Breakage reasonably and in good faith. The Calculation Agent’s determination in good faith shall be conclusive and binding except in the case of manifest error. Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 378 of 553 C-4 4817-5855-8074.5 SCHEDULE 1 NOTE DEBT SERVICE  City of Boulder, Colorado  Community Culture and Safety Sales and Use Tax Revenue Note, Series 2019A (Tax‐Exempt)  Wells Fargo  Proposed Final Numbers  Dated Date 01/10/2019  Delivery Date  01/10/2019  Period  Ending Principal  Payment         Note           Outstanding                Balance  12/01/2019 1,092,322 3,463,928  12/01/2020 1,122,908 2,341,020  12/01/2021 1,154,349 1,186,671  12/01/2022 1,186,671 ‐  4,556,250  NOTE DEBT SERVICE  City of Boulder, Colorado  Community Culture and Safety Sales and Use Tax Revenue Note, Series 2019B (Taxable)  Wells Fargo  Proposed Final Numbers  Dated Date 01/10/2019  Delivery Date  01/10/2019  Period  Ending Principal      Note        Outstanding  Balance 12/01/2019 840,759 2,702,991  12/01/2020 870,185 1,832,806  12/01/2021  900,642 932,164  12/01/2022  932,164 ‐  3,543,750  Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT A: Ordinance City Council Meeting Page 379 of 553 Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet City Council Meeting Page 380 of 553 Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet City Council Meeting Page 381 of 553 Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet City Council Meeting Page 382 of 553 Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet City Council Meeting Page 383 of 553 Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet City Council Meeting Page 384 of 553 Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet City Council Meeting Page 385 of 553 Item 3Q - Community Culture and Safety Use Tax Revenue Ordinance 8306 ATTACHMENT B: Term Sheet City Council Meeting Page 386 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Second reading and motion to adopt Ordinance 8302 authorizing the acquisition of property interests used or owned by Public Service Company of C olorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for the electric distribution facilities to serve the city, by negotiation and purchase or through the power of eminent domain, and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt Ordinance 8302 authorizing the acquisition of property interests used or owned by Public Service Company of C olorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for the electric distribution facilities to serve the city, by negotiation and purchase or through the power of eminent domain, and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachment City Council Meeting Page 387 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8302 authorizing the acquisition of property interests used or owned by Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for the electric distribution facilities to serve the city, by negotiation and purchase, or through the power of eminent domain, and setting forth related details. PRESENTER Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tom Carr, City Attorney Kathy Haddock, Senior Counsel EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This proposed ordinance (Attachment A) would be council approval of the acquisition of property interests and equipment of Xcel Energy (“Xcel”) that is necessary for Boulder’s future electric distribution system. This authorization includes filing an action in eminent domain if good faith negotiations are not successful. If council adopts the ordinance, staff would send a Notice of Intent to Acquire to Xcel as required by Colorado law. Consultants would begin negotiations with Xcel that meet the applicable requirements which are a prerequisite to a condemnation action. If negotiations fail or are futile, staff anticipates that a condemnation action would be filed in the first quarter of 2019. Xcel has indicated at various times that this matter will not have a negotiated sale. If Xcel maintains that position during negotiations, such negotiations will be rendered futile which could expedite the timing for filing the petition. Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property Interests City Council Meeting Page 388 of 553 The first reading memorandum explained the recently completed Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) process for determination of the assets that Xcel may transfer and the agreements implementing the condition on transfer by the PUC of Boulder paying all of Xcel’s costs for separating the existing system into two systems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Ordinance 8302 authorizing the acquisition of property interests used or owned by Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for the electric distribution facilities to serve the city, by negotiation and purchase, or through the power of eminent domain, and setting forth related details. IMPACTS • Fiscal - The purchase price and related costs for purchasing the property interests would be paid by the utility created by city council pursuant to Charter Section 178, by bonds issued by the new utility. The staff and consultant costs for acquisition would be paid from the Utility Occupation Tax approved by the voters in November 2017. By the terms of the PUC Decision and the Cost Agreement, the purchase price will not be paid until after the cut-over date when the separation construction will be complete and title to the assets acquired will transfer from Xcel to the city. • Staff time - No additional staff time is anticipated if the city is able to negotiate a purchase price with Xcel; however, finalizing such a purchase would involve a significant amount of time by the City Attorney’s Office. If negotiations are not successful and condemnation is necessary, even with outside counsel primarily responsible for the condemnation, it is anticipated that condemnation would take a substantial portion of several full-time equivalents in the City Attorney’s Office and the Energy Future Office throughout 2019 and first quarter of 2020. This work is included in the city council’s work plan and would be accomplished with existing staff. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK A public meeting to receive community feedback on these issues is planned for December 13, 2018. The city and Xcel jointly filed the Permanent Easement Agreement, Corrected List of Assets, and Cost Agreements on October 26, 2018. They also filed an Easement Sharing Agreement on November 16, 2018. Intervenors in the city’s Transfer of Assets proceeding Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property Interests City Council Meeting Page 389 of 553 at the PUC will now have a chance to respond within 30 days and potentially request a public hearing. BACKGROUND The first reading agenda memorandum explained how the city had identified the assets that may be acquired. It is available here: https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/0/edoc/167067/Agenda_2018_11_8_M eeting.pdf. This memorandum answers first reading questions and explains more specifically how city staff determined its recommendation for what assets council should approve acquiring. The PUC Decision Since first reading of Ordinance 8302, the Easement Sharing Agreement was filed with the PUC, and the PUC provided intervenors until December 17, 2018 to respond. Depending on responses, the PUC may hold a public hearing. At the conclusion of this process, the PUC should release the three conditions on Xcel’s transfer of assets in the conditional approval issued in September 2017. There are benefits to the city that result from the PUC Separation Decision. First, the PUC has evaluated the system that will remain with Xcel after the implementation of the city’s separation plan as leaving Xcel with a system that has the same or better safety, effectiveness and reliability as the system it has today. This protects the court from having to decide whether there are any damages to the system that Xcel will retain after separation construction and completion of the acquisition, because the PUC has already said there are no such damages. In response to the city’s proposal in its Second Supplemental Application that the city take possession of the property after the condemnation case and before separation construction, Xcel objected and requested that the PUC require Xcel to retain ownership and possession of the property until all of the separation construction was completed at Boulder’s cost. Boulder incorporated the request into its Third Application to Transfer As sets before the PUC. The PUC Separation Decision agreed with the proposal that no assets would be transferred from Xcel until separation construction was complete. As a result, the payment for acquisition will occur at the time of possession after all of the separation construction has been completed. At that time, Boulder will be able to operate its system serving Boulder customers separately from PSCo’s system serving PSCo customers, and Boulder rather than PSCo will be receiving revenues from Boulder customers. The PUC Decision also requires PSCo to work with Boulder in good faith to determine the assets for transfer inside the substations and configuration of the facilities that will provide distribution services after separation. Through a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission process, PSCo identified the facilities that would be required to serve both Boulder and Xcel inside substations and how the substation assets will be shared. The final location of Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property Interests City Council Meeting Page 390 of 553 Boulder facilities at two of the substations will be resolved in the “near” future under the SIS process. Identification of the Property to be Acquired Distribution System: The distribution system the city will acquire generally includes everything that serves city customers from the transformers that reduce the voltage from transmission level to distribution level to the meters serving each customer. The distribution system includes all overhead and underground distribution lines, distribution transformers, protection and sectionalizing equipment, voltage regulating equipment, secondary and services, customer meters, fiber and communications systems, ancillary interests and appurtenances, as well as the property interests related to the facilities acquired. Real Property: Staff, supported by outside experts, has identified the property interests that are necessary for the Boulder electric distribution system as those that have distribution facilities and the portion of substations where Boulder facilities will be located. Ordinance 8302 designates the Acquisition Property as that identified on Exhibit 5 filed with the city’s Motion for Final Approval of Assets for Transfer and those that are part of the SIS Study dated October 31, 2018. Both of those documents identify the descriptions as the best efforts from what the parties can determine before doing field work. It is believed that the documents include a vast majority of the property interests that are necessary for acquisition, but there may be others that need to be added as stated in Exhibit 5. Even though a few property interests may need to be added, it is likely that Exhibit 5 is over- inclusive on the number of property interests identified. The precise square footage of those areas inside and outside of the existing substations that are necessary for the city’s electric distribution system will be determined through the detailed design process that is the next step. As the parties go through detailed design, they will discover whether property interests can be removed from the list and if there are any that need to be added. Therefore, the staff recommends council approval of Ordinance 8302, including designation of the property interests that are necessary for acquisition be subject to amendment as designs are refined and as determined by the Director of Climate Initiatives. Facilities: The spreadsheets that are Exhibit 5-A of the city’s Motion for Final Approval of Assets for Transfer before the PUC identifies over 104,000 different facilities that may be necessary for the Boulder electric distribution system. In addition, the PUC authorization for transfer includes all street lights in the city and all ancillary assets and appurtenances to the facilities identified in the spreadsheets such as downstream equipment, manholes, customer meters, services and secondaries, vaults, and fiber optic and communication facilities. Exhibit 5-A provides for the list of facilities to be amended to include more or fewer facilities as the parties proceed with detailed design of the separation, including field work. For the facilities, the staff recommends council approval of Ordinance 8302, including designation of the facilities that are necessary for acquisition Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property Interests City Council Meeting Page 391 of 553 be subject to amendment as designs are refined and as determined by the Director of Climate Initiatives. Shared Easements: The PUC required that Xcel identify the portion of the property interests it needs for its gas facilities and electric transmission facilities in Boulder. Xcel has not completed that work but included on the list of property interests the property interests it could find that may include such facilities. The parties negotiated an Easement Sharing Agreement for the property interests with electric distribution facilities the city needs to acquire that also include Xcel gas or electric facilities. As the parties go through the detailed design process, those easements that include Xcel electric transmission or gas facilities and electric distribution facilities that are necessary for the city to acquire will be identified and subject to the Easement Sharing Agreement. Substations: The determination of what property is needed inside of substations was determined from the System Impact Study performed by Xcel, at Boulder’s expense, pursuant to Xcel’s Open Access Transmission Tariff. Ordinance 8302 authorizes the acquisition of the real property interests and facilities that are necessary inside the existing six substations and expansions to adjacent properties consistent with the System Impact Study. Public Disclosure of Details of Assets: Portions of the electric system nationwide are considered Critical Energy Infrastructure Information under the Homeland Security Act. The Act protects disclosure of the location and some of the types of electric infrastructure. While many of the documents identifying assets may not be useful by themselves, as the acquisition process proceeds, public disclosure of all of them could provide information publicly that would violate the Act. To avoid disclosure of protected material, the exhibits to Ordinance 8302 only include the first page of the list of property interests and the first page of the facilities so that the public can see the city’s process. However, the approval provided for in the ordinance is for the entire list filed with the PUC. If council would like further information, staff will determine what additional information might be disclosed publicly, or if not, provide it to council confidentially. ANALYSIS AND FIRST READING QUESTIONS In addition to the analysis that defined the facilities and property interests, engineers, other consultants and city staff analyzed particular equipment and substations in more detail and established the following additional considerations. Facilities that will not be used for either distribution system - SmartGrid: There are facilities that will not be necessary after there are two operating systems or that have been abandoned in place. SmartGrid facilities are a good example of those facilities that will be abandoned in place and were described in more detail in the first reading memorandum. The facilities were installed and are being used in limited fashion by Xcel, or not used at all. As a policy matter, the city intends to acquire those facilities so that the city will be able to remove them properly rather than allow them to interfere with the city’s system because they are not being maintained. While the costs for installation of the SmartGrid Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property Interests City Council Meeting Page 392 of 553 facilities was large, the city pays for value which we expect is minimal. These are referred to as stranded distribution facilities. This is different than stranded costs that are part of FERC Rule 888 related to generation assets and use of the transmission. Going Concern: Going concern is a claim for compensation in a condemnation action that is related to acquiring a business. Colorado does not allow for an award of going concern except in limited circumstances related to agricultural uses. Xcel claims that it will be entitled to a going concern component of the just compensation award in condemnation. Boulder is not taking Xcel’s business and will argue that Xcel is not entitled to compensation for going concern. When acquiring a business, the purchaser usually obtains logos, manuals, proprietary software, best practices studies, goodwill of the business, and other matters obtained through the way the business operates and its advertising. The city is not acquiring any of those items from Xcel. In response to numerous discovery requests during the PUC proceeding, Xcel refused to provide anything it considered proprietary saying the city would have to pay separately for those items. The city is not acquiring those items; if the city was acquiring the business, such items would be included. Developer Constructed Facilities: Xcel argues that it owns all of the distribution facilities, including streetlights and signal lights in the city, however, it has provided no proof of ownership. Usually the developer of a project pays for the work necessary for the electric distribution system, with a Contribution in Aid of Construction from Xcel. Usually that contribution is five to 10 percent of the cost of installation and there is not necessarily a conveyance of the facilities to Xcel. The city is only required to pay for what Xcel owns . Because ownership of some of the facilities is unclear, it is one of the areas that makes valuation difficult. Timing: The attached ordinance authorizes the filing of a condemnation action after February 1, 2019. There had been some concern expressed that approving a condemnation ordinance when negotiations had not started was premature. However, to make clear that the negotiations are with the intent of acquiring the property interests, it is important that the authorization for filing the condemnation be granted. If negotiations are going well, rather than having failed, the ordinance does not require that a condemnation action be filed at all. The two prerequisites to actually filing a condemnation action are (1) that good faith negotiations have occurred but have not been successful, and (2) that it is after February 1, 2019. A condemnation action can be settled between the parties at any time. ATTACHMENTS A – Proposed Condemnation Ordinance 8302 Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property Interests City Council Meeting Page 393 of 553 K:\CMEN\o-8302 2nd Rdg-2971.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 8302 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS USED OR OWNED BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, FOR THE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES TO SERVE THE CITY, BY NEGOTIATION AND PURCHASE OR THROUGH THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, FINDS: A. The City of Boulder (“city”) is a home rule municipality of the State of Colorado. B. The city and its utility enterprises are empowered pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §§ 1 and 6, and the city’s Home Rule Charter, including without limitation Article I, § 2(b) and (d) and Article XIII, § 180(a) to exercise the power of eminent domain, in the manner provided by Title 38, Colorado Revised Statutes, to acquire electric utility facilities and other interests associated therewith. C. The franchise agreement between the city and Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel Energy (“Xcel”) provided for the city’s right to condemn Xcel’s property interests and Xcel’s obligation to provide its records regarding such interests. D. On November 1, 2011, the voters of the Boulder community approved Ballot Question No. 2C authorizing the city to establish, acquire, erect, maintain, and operate a municipal light and power utility (the “Project”). E. The city negotiated with Xcel in 2014, and when good faith negotiations failed to meet mutually agreeable objectives, the city filed an action in eminent domain designated as Civil Action No. 2014CV30890 in Boulder County District Court. G. Upon request by Xcel, the Colorado Public Utitlities Commission (“PUC”) concluded that it had jurisdiction and obligation to approve the transfer of assets before the city could condemn Xcel’s electric distribution facilities in the City of Boulder. The city appealed the ruling to the district court, Civil Action No. 2014CV30047. The court affirmed the decision of the PUC finding: “This finding does not abrogate the City’s constitutional right to eminent domain, but rather just delays the City’s constitutional right.” As a result of that case, the court dismissed the condemnation case. The city’s constitutional right to condemn has now been delayed for over four years. H. Rather than appeal the district court decision, the city proceeded with a case before the PUC for transfer of electric distribution assets from Xcel. The Commission issued a decision on September 14, 2017, (the “PUC Separation Decision”) conditionally approving the Attachment A – Proposed Condemnation Ordinance 8302 City Council Meeting Page 394 of 553 K:\CMEN\o-8302 2nd Rdg-2971.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 transfer of assets outside the substations, and for transfer of property inside substations in accordance with proceedings under Xcel’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (the “OATT”) that has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I. The city has met the three conditions for transfer of the assets set forth in the PUC Separation Decision by entering into an Agrement for Payment of Costs (“Cost Agreement”) and Notice of Filing of Permanent Easement Agreement (“Permanent Easement Agreement”) and a corrected list of assets (“Assets Approved for Transfer”) as provided in PUC Decision No. C17- 0750 (“PUC Asset Decision”). The list of assets approved by the PUC includes the assets outside of substations that the city intends to acquire (the “Non-Substation Property Interests and Assets”). The Non-Substation Property Interests and Assets include an itemization of over 110,000 pieces of major equipment, plus associated property interests used for the equipment identified. J. The PUC Separation Decision identified the assets to be transferred and found that completion of the Separation Plan construction: i. “supports the conclusion that Public Service can provide safe and reliable service to its customers during separation and after the Cut-Over Date upon the transfer of assets outside the substations” PUC Separation Decision paragraph 144; and ii. “Public Service will be able to provide safe, reliable, and effective service upon Boulder’s acquisition of the feeders, particularly since decision on substation configurations would be subject to the transmission load interconnection process under Public Service’s own OATT.” PUC Separation Decision paragraph 147. K. Pursuant to Xcel’s OATT, Xcel has issued its Final System Impact Study designating the areas in six substations for sharing equipment and the existing equipment to be acquired by the city (the “Substation Property Interests and Assets”). L. The format of the Non-Substation Property Interests and Assets is attached as Exhibit A. The format of the Substation Property Interests and Assets is attached as Exhibit B. M. The city is not seeking to condemn or acquire any of the business of Xcel, including without limitation, manuals, system techniques, software, marketing programs, maintenance contracts, goodwill or technical expertise. N. Some of the assets the city seeks to acquire, and the location of all of the assets, are Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, which are precluded from public disclosure by the Homeland Security Act and, therefore, the complete list of the Acquisition Property including the Non-Substation Interests and Assets and the Substation Property Interests and A ssets cannot be attached. O. The Non-Substation Property Interests and Assets the city intends to acquire are identified in Exhibit 5 in Case No. 15A-0589E before the PUC, from which both the PUC Separation Decision and the PUC Asset Decision were determined, to which Xcel has unlimited Attachment A – Proposed Condemnation Ordinance 8302 City Council Meeting Page 395 of 553 K:\CMEN\o-8302 2nd Rdg-2971.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 access. The Substation Property Interests and Assets the city intends to acquire are identified in the System Impact Study Report dated October 31, 2018 that was prepared by Xcel. Collectively, the Substation Property Interests and Assets and the Non-Substation Property Interests and Assets are referred to as the “Acquisition Property.” P. The PUC Separation Decision found that Xcel will be left with a system at least as reliable, safe, and effective as its existing system upon completion of separation of the Acquisition Property from the remainder of Xcel’s electric system and upon completion of the Separation Plan as defined and contemplated in the PUC Separation Decision and the Cost Agreement. Q. The city’s efforts to condemn and acquire facilities and equipment from Xcel is in pursuit of the goals of the city to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, increase the use of renewable energy, to have local control over the provision of electric power, to increase the reliability of the power provided, and is a public purpose under the laws of Colorado and as approved by the voters of the city. R. The Acquisition Property is used and useful in connection with the Project and constitutes a complete economic unit for the purpose of separation from Xcel. S. The city determines that the Acquisition Property is necessary for the city to complete the Project, including the Separation Plan. T. The attainment of the Acquisition Property is necessary for the Project, is for a public purpose and in furtherance of public uses. U. There is a public, local, and municipal need and necessity for the city to acquire the Acquisition Property for the Project, which will benefit the public health, welfare and safety of the businesses and residents of the City of Boulder. V. The city continues to comply with all conditions precedent to the acquisition of the electric distribution system as described herein and set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes and the City Charter. W. The city has been delayed in proceeding to acquire the Acquisition Property by over four years by complying with the PUC’s claim of jurisdiction and proceeding through the PUC and OATT processes before acquiring the property. That process has yielded a defined category of assets. The city finds that the Non-Substation Interests and Assets and the Substation Property Interests and Assets constitute the assets necessary for the Project and leave a safe, reliable and effective system for service by Xcel to its remaining customers. X. By the PUC Separation Decision and the Cost Agreement, while the determination of the fair compensation for the Acquisition Assets is to be determined before February 2020, “Public Service is obligated to serve customers in Boulder until the Cut-Over Date.” PUC Separation Decision, paragraph 247. The Cut-Over Date occurs after completion of the Separation Plan construction that will separate the existing system into two separate operable electric distribution systems, during which time Xcel will be using the assets and receiving rates from Boulder customers. Therefore, the title for the Acquisition Property cannot transfer until Attachment A – Proposed Condemnation Ordinance 8302 City Council Meeting Page 396 of 553 K:\CMEN\o-8302 2nd Rdg-2971.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 after completion of the Separation Plan which may require three to four years. By the terms of the Cost Agreement, neither party will request appreciation or depreciation of the determination of just compensation between the time of the hearing and the Cut-Over Date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The city council authorizes the city manager through her designee to negotiate for the attainment of the Acquisition Property or any parts thereof, as they may be adjusted to construct the Project. Section 2. Should negotiations for the attainment of the Acquisition Property fail, or to be deemed by city negotiators to be futile, the city council authorizes the city manager to acquire the Acquisition Property, or any parts thereof, by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, and further authorizes the city attorney to initiate condemnation proceedings to acquire the Acquisition Propert. The city and its designees may from time to time amend the property described in Property Interests and Assets to add or delete real property or equipment to adequately reflect and carry out the intent of this ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city and covers matters of local concern. Section 4. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. Attachment A – Proposed Condemnation Ordinance 8302 City Council Meeting Page 397 of 553 K:\CMEN\o-8302 2nd Rdg-2971.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 8th day of November 2018. ___________________________ Suzanne Jones, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Lynnette Beck, City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December 2018. ___________________________ Suzanne Jones, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Lynnette Beck, City Clerk Attachment A – Proposed Condemnation Ordinance 8302 City Council Meeting Page 398 of 553 Assets for TransferCreated and Collaboratively Updated by Boulder and PSCo in October 2018 from 2018 System DataBoulder System Distribution Asset TotalsAsset NameAsset Database FieldCurrent OwnershipTotal Asset Count Existing Install Remove/Retired Units Description TotalsAnchor GuyAnchor_Guy_Location.shpPSCo27842708 3442Qty.BusbarBusbar_Route.shpPSCo20031964 327Qty.Capacitor RackCapacitor_Rack_Location.shpPSCo5857 10Qty.Duct BankDuct_Bank_Actuai_Route.shpPSCo14881415 3142Feet Total Length 152500Elbow LocationElbow_Location.shpPSCo10094 60Qty.Electric LocatorElectric_Locator_Location.shpPSCo11 00Qty.Lot CentroidLot_Centroid_and_Premise_location.shpServed by PSCo28546N/A N/AN/AQty.OH FuseOH_Fuse_Location.shpPSCo130412662315Qty.375970251436FeetSingle Phase377431160690260FeetDouble Phase16329430164 3239972FeetThree Phase434376Overhead Secondary Change MarkerOH_Secondary_w_wires_Change_Marker.shpPSCo14331400 033Qty.Overhead Secondary WiresOH_Secondary_w_wires_Route.shpPSCo73727148 66158Feet Total Length 0Overhead SwitchOH_Switch_location.shpPSCo326320 51Qty.3 00Qty. 0kVA31 00Qty. 5kVA121 00Qty. 10kVA 2131 00Qty. 15kVA 310 00Qty. 20kVA 0391 07Qty. 25kVA 3986 00Qty. 30kVA 60 00Qty. 35kVA 02 00Qty. 37.5kVA 21 00Qty. 40kVA 13 00Qty. 45kVA 3336 00Qty. 50kVA 33626 02Qty. 75kVA 2840 00Qty. 100kVA 403 00Qty. 110kVA 31 00Qty. 115kVA 14 00Qty. 125kVA 428 00Qty. 150kVA 283 00Qty. 167kVA 31 00Qty. 215kVA 12 00Qty. 225kVA 21 00Qty. 267kVA 118 00Qty. 300kVA 182 00Qty. 500kVA 214 00Qty. Unknown 14Overhead Transformer Secondary ConnectionOH_Transformer_Bank_Secondary_Connection.shpPSCo14121402 010Qty.Overhead Transformer Secondary LocationOH_Transformer_Bank_Secondary_Location.shpPSCo14121402 010Qty.Transformer PadPad_location.shpPSCo26102600 17Qty.Service PedestalPedestal_Location.shpPSCo0000Qty.Pole BracePole_Brace_location.shpPSCo1100Qty.Pole  Pole_location.shpPSCo1068110054 100527Qty.Power Quality MeterPower_Quality_Meter_Location.shpPSCo99 00Qty.Primary Intersect ConnectPrimary_Intersect_Connect_Location.shpPSCo66 00Qty.Primary Meter Customer ConnectionPrimary_Meter_Customer_Connection.shpPSCo3331 11Qty.Primary MeterPrimary_Meter_Location.shpPSCo3532 21Qty.Primary Open PointPrimary_Open_Point_Location.shpPSCo317307 73Qty.Primary SplicePrimary_Splice_Location.shpPSCo379328 447Qty.Recloser BankRecloser_Bank_Location.shpPSCo2020 00Qty.OH_Primary_w_Wires_Route.shpPSCo6415PSCo947Exhibit 5A: Boulder and Public Service acknowledge that the distribution assets outside substations may change as a result of Scopes of Work, Detailed Design Drawings and during Separation. Inclusion on the spreadsheets is not evidence of agreement regarding ownership of the assets by PSCo. WARNING:  If printed, it is estimated that the spreadsheets would use approximately 1600 pages of letter size paper.  Overhead Primary WiresOverhead Transformer BankOH_Transformer_Bank_Location.shpAsset Sums & TotalsPage 1 of 1581Exhibit A to Proposed Ordinance 8302Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property InterestsCity Council Meeting Page 399 of 553 Orig Fid Record Number Site Own 1Util Types at 10 feet Util Types at 20 feetAdditional Hit at 20 feet Util Types at 30 feetAdditional Hit at 30 feet Util Types at 40 feetAdditional Hit at 40 feetUtil Types at 50 feetAdditional Hit at 50 feet00Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist11EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist22Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist33EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist, GdistYES44EdistEdistEdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, Gdist55GdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist66Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist77EdistEdistEdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, Gdist88EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist, GdistYES99EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist1010 84178GEdistEdistEdistEdistEdist1111 156237Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist1212 77095Edist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, Gtran1313 76579Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist1414 76579Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist1515 85729Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist1616 26451Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist1717 26451Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist1818 91637NoneNoneNoneEdist, GdistYESEdist, Gdist1919 26451Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist2020 91637Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist2121 64496Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist2222Edist, Etran, GdistEdist, Etran, GdistEdist, Etran, GdistEdist, Etran, GdistEdist, Etran, Gdist2323 91637Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist2424 152686 GEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist2525Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist2626 81047Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist2727EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist2828NoneEdistYESEdistEdistEdist2929 85713EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist3030 137533Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist3131 144891Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist3232 87380EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist3333 88379EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist3434Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist3535 137643Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist3636 149418 EEdistEdistEdistEdistEdist, GdistYES3737 146406Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist3838 152537 EEdistEdistEdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, Gdist3939 152954 EEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist4040 162484Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist4141Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist4242NoneNoneEdist, GdistYESEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist4343EdistEdistEdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, Gdist4444Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist4545EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist4646 47642Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist4747 87713Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist4848 150075GGdistGdistGdistGdistGdist4949Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist5050Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist5151NoneNoneNoneNoneNone5252Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist5353Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist5454Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist5555 66279EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist5656GdistGdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist5757 70030EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist5858 73995EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist5959 76556Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist6060Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist6161 152964 EEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist6262 152088 GEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist6363 156234-GGdistGdistGdistGdistGdist6464EdistEdistEdistEdistEdist6565 154030 EEdistEdistEdistEdistEdist6666 68681NoneNoneNoneNoneGdistYES6767 68060Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist6868 64957AGdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist6969 64957AEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist7070 64957AGdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist7171 78676NoneNoneNoneNoneNone7272 156235 GGdistGdistGdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, Gdist7373 83543Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist7474 81411-AEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist7575 81412-AEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist7676 84927NoneNoneNoneGdistYESGdist7777 84948Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist7878 88380NoneNoneEdistYESEdistEdist, GdistYES7979 88380Edist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist8080 88380EdistEdistEdist, GdistYESEdist, GdistEdist, Gdist8181Edist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, GtranEdist, Gdist, GtranExhibit 5B: Boulder and Public Service acknowledge that there may be other Public Service easements or other property rights associated with assets outside substations that Boulder is authorized to acquire that have not yet been identified by the City and Public Service, including but not limited to recorded and non-recorded easements, prescriptive and other common law easements, easements created by plats, tariffs, licenses, and rights granted or reserved by other instruments or otherwise existing. Inclusion on the spreadsheets is not evidence of agreement regarding ownership of the property interests by PSCo.WARNING: If printed, it is estimated that the list of property interests would use 23 pages of letter size paper.5B Boulder Page1Exhibit B to Proposed Ordinance 8302Item 5A - Acquisition of Xcel Property InterestsCity Council Meeting Page 400 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C all-Up: Use Review (LUR2017-00049) to demolish an existing McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window and construct a new McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window at 2920 Baseline in the BC-2 (Business – C ommunity 2) zoning district P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C harles Ferro, Development Review Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C all-Up: Use Review (LUR2017-00049) to demolish an existing McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window and construct a new McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window at 2920 Baseline in the BC-2 (Business – C ommunity 2) zoning district B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Approved with conditions by Planning Board on 11/15 AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 401 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Call-Up Item: Use Review (LUR2017-00049) to demolish an existing McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window and construct a new McDonald's restaurant with a drive-thru window at 2920 Baseline in the BC-2 (Business – Community 2) zoning district. Applicant: Strategic Land Solutions Owner: McDonald’s Real Estate Company PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager Chris Meschuk, Assistant City Manager / Interim Planning Director Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On November 15, 2018, the Planning Board reviewed and approved the above-referenced application. The city council may call up a concept plan application for a public hearing within thirty days of the board's review. Because the 30-day call-up period concludes on Saturday, December 15, 2018, the land use code section 1-1-10(b), B.R.C. 1981 requires that if the last day of the call-up period is on a Saturday, “the period is extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.” In this case, the 30-day call-up period is extended to Monday, December 17, 2018. City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its December 4, 2018 public meeting. The staff memorandum to Planning Board, meeting audio, and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available on the Planning Board’s website (scroll down to 2018, select November 15th) . Minutes can be found in Attachment A. Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 402 of 553 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – The sale of food provides sales tax revenue to the city. • Environmental – None identified. • Social – None identified. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – None identified. • Staff time – This application was processed under normal staff time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK On November 15, 2018, the Planning Board reviewed and approved the subject application (6-0, Vitale recused). The board discussed the proposed improvements to the site that would help improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety as well as vehicular access through and around the site. The disposition of approval can be found in Attachment B. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff received one letter of opposition from a neighboring property owner indicating that the redevelopment should be considered in a future redevelopment of the William Village Shopping Center (currently there are no plans for redevelopment). All correspondence can be found here. BACKGROUND The property is located south of Baseline Road, east/north of US 36, and west of 30th Street, and is currently used as a McDonald’s restaurant with drive-thru. The existing building was built in 1970 and modifications to the drive-thru were approved as part of a Drive-up Review (#D-79-1) in 1979. The site is zoned Business – Community 2 (BC-2), which is defined as “Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate” in section 9-5-2(c)(2)(G), B.R.C. 1981. Properties to the west, south, and east are also zoned BC-2 and consist of stand-alone and multi-tenant commercial buildings, including restaurants, a coffee shop, grocery store, liquor store, convenience store, gas station, internet service provider, and the Rodeway Inn. Properties to the north across Baseline Road are zoned BT-1, Business-Transitional 1, and consist of commercial and office buildings fronting Baseline. Williams Village exists to the east across 30th Street. To the south, across US 36, are single-family homes in Martin Acres. Pursuant to section 9-6-1, B.R.C. 1981, a Use Review is required for drive-thru uses to operate in the BC-2 zone district. In addition to the Use Review standards found in section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981, a request for a drive-thru use must meet the conditional use standards for drive-thru uses found in section 9-6-9(c), B.R.C. 1981. The Use Review Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 403 of 553 decision is a staff-level decision subject to call-up by the Planning Board. The subject application was called up by a neighboring property owner on September 24, 2018. Project Proposal The applicant is requesting approval of Use Review to replace the existing McDonald’s restaurant with drive-thru on the site with a proposed 4,590 square-foot McDonald’s restaurant with drive-thru restaurant, including new building, lighting, parking lot, landscaping, and utilities. The proposed use consists of a restaurant with 80 indoor seats, nine outdoor seats on a 292 square-foot patio, and dual drive-thru lanes. The proposed drive-thru would remain open 24-hour hours per day and the interior of the restaurant would be open from 5 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week. The existing building is currently set back over 100’ from Baseline Rd. The proposal calls for a building-forward design approximately 20’ from Baseline Rd. and provides transparency and better pedestrian interest on the front (north) and west elevations, where public entrances are located, with substantial windows and human-scaled awnings. Materials provide a high-quality, durable design and consist of brick, tile, corrugated metal accents, and glass. The proposed site design includes outdoor seating and six short-term bike parking spaces north of the restaurant. Four long-term bike parking spaces for employees are provided south of the building under an awning. Proposed parking lot landscaping, screening, and open space meets or exceeds minimum requirements. A 12-foot detached multi-use path and 8-foot tree lawn will be provided along Baseline Road with new street trees and landscaping. The proposal will maintain one right-in and one right-out vehicular access point from Baseline Road however, the distance between the access will be significantly lengthened to allow for safer, one-way channelized traffic. Once vehicular access to the west will be eliminated. The proposal will provide separate approaches to two menu boards and lengthen the stacking lane between the menu boards and the entry driveway. Vehicular parking and drive-thru lanes are appropriately screened and landscaped on all sides. The drive-thru order board and drive-thru windows are located at the rear and east sides of the building, adjacent to parking lots for other commercial businesses, to minimize visibility and impact on the public realm. The proposal provides for 29 vehicle parking spaces where a minimum of 26 are required, and 10 short- and long-term bike parking spaces where a minimum of 3 are required. Refer to the Applicant’s proposed plans for additional details. ANALYSIS Staff has identified the following key issues for council’s consideration: Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 404 of 553 1. Does the proposed project meet the Use Review criteria as set forth in section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981? Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981 includes the procedures and review criteria for approval of a Use Review. The proposal was found to be consistent with the criteria for Use Review found in section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. Please refer to Attachment C for staff’s complete analysis of the review criteria. 2. Does the proposed project meet the standards for drive thru uses set forth in section 9-6-9(c), BRC, 1981? The proposal was found to be consistent with the criteria for Drive-Thru Uses found in section 9-6-9(c), B.R.C. 1981. Please refer to Attachment C for staff’s complete analysis of the review criteria. MATRIX OF OPTIONS Consistent with the land use code section 9-4-4(c), B.R.C. 1981, if City Council disagrees with the decision of the Planning Board, it may call up the application by a majority vote on or before December 17, 2018. There is a City Council meeting within this time-period for call-up consideration on December 4, 2018. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Board Minutes B. Disposition of Approval C. Staff’s Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 405 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 1, 2018 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Liz Payton, Chair Bryan Bowen, Vice Chair John Gerstle Crystal Gray Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ensign STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, Planning Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Carolyn Fahey, Associate Planner Planning Manager, Planning Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Edward Stafford, Department Review Manager, Planning Chris Meschuk, Assistant City Manager / Interim Director of Planning Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager / Greenways Amanda Bevis, Public Works Project Specialist Jeff Yegian, Senior Project Manager, Housing Michele Crane, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Christopher Parezo, Principal at Civitas, Consultant on the Project Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Chris Ranglos, Associate Planner 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Payton, declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to Approve 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 406 of 553 4.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A.CALL UP ITEM: LUR2018-00041: Use Review for the professional and technical office uses with an approximately 1,067 square foot tenant space at 2150 Pearl Street in the Mixed Use 3 (MU-3) zoning district (“SOBO Design & Build”). The proposed hours of operation are 8AM to 9PM Monday thru Friday, and 6PM-12PM Saturday and Sunday. The call-up period expires on November 4, 2018. This item was not called up. 5.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of the University Place Addition Final Plat (TEC2017-00038): Final Plat to subdivide two developed lots (745 and 765 14th Street) totaling 0.64-acres to create 3 residential lots: Lot 1 (13,818 sf), Lot 2 (7,237 sf), and Lot 3 (7,010 sf). Lot 1 and 2 will each contain an existing single-family home. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. •C. Gray disclosed that she had received an email from the Sierra Club asking about the meeting and indicated that the property was an important animal corridor. C. Gray, L. Payton and J. Gerstle had conducted site visits. P. Vitale, H. Zuckerman and B. Bowen did not have any ex- parte contacts. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: There was no presentation by the applicant to the board. Board Questions: David Raduziner, the owner, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Kate Howard, a neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project specifically regarding the proposed density it could add to the area. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed final plat consistent with the minimum lot standards set forth in Section 9-12-12(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981? •L. Payton said that given the limited criteria, she would approve the item. She said she was sympathetic to it being in an historic district and preserving the historic character. She is confident that whatever would be constructed, it would be compatible by the Landmarks Design Review Board. The proposal would meet the minimum lot standards. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 407 of 553 •C. Gray reminded the board that she had called up this item for it to be fully discussed. This board has a limited review and she agreed with the staff recommendation. •H. Zuckerman explained the criteria that needs to be applied and said that staff exhibited the standards have been met. He said he would vote for approval. •J. Gerstle agreed with the comments and the criteria has been satisfied. Motion: On a motion by H. Zuckerman seconded by P. Vitale the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve Technical Document Review # TEC2017-00038 for the University Place Addition Replat E Subdivision incorporating this staff memorandum and the Final Plat Subdivision Review Criteria found in Attachment B as findings of fact. B.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and Planning Board recommendation on a request to: 1) Approve a Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue; and 2) Adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. •All board members disclosed that they had made a site visit. P. Vitale added he is familiar with the applicant through the commercial real estate development community within Boulder, however he has not personal worked with him and can be impartial on this matter. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Terry Palmos, with Palmos Development, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Terry Palmos, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one spoke. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is rezoning from RR-1 to RL-2 appropriate for the subject property? •All board members said the proposed rezoning was appropriate. •H. Zuckerman said the rezoning does meet the criteria because it would be in line with the underlying land use designations in the area. •J. Gerstle add that the rezoning would correspond to the subcommunity plan. •L. Payton said the rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the low-density Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 408 of 553 residential land use designation on the BVCP land use designation map. Key Issue #2: Is the post-annexation agreement consistent with the terms of the 1997 Crestview West annexation agreement? • All board members thought it was consistent. • L. Payton stated that staff has drawn up a plan that is consistent. Motion: On a motion by B. Bowen seconded by H. Zuckerman the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve the Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue in Attachment A and to adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. AGENDA TITLE: Identify Joint Advisory Board Rep to Participate in Ecosystems Summit Panel – November 16, 2018 • P. Vitale will attend. B. AGENDA TITLE: Alpine-Balsam Area Plan: Update on Results of Community Feedback and Discussion of Key Topics for Site Design Staff Presentation: J. Gatza presented the item to the board. Board Questions: City of Boulder staff answered questions from the board. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: What are the board’s priorities for mix of uses? • B. Bowen said that civic use on that property does not make sense. This location would be difficult to have multi-parking below grade; therefore, office uses will pay a penalty in terms of floor area. We are lacking affordable housing for people who work downtown. This location would not be well-served by vehicles or other bus lines besides the SKIP. He said the best use of the site would be to wrap Broadway, Alpine and Balsam roads with ground-story mixed uses, review how much parking could be done at one-story below grade, review storm water capacity and find out how much yield can be obtained for people that live there. This location has walkable access to jobs and services. Regarding the civic and county offices, the employees would not be well-served to work in this area due to transportation issues. The offices need to be where the employees can get to them, such as the Transit Village (TVAP2). This location would benefit by having less in-commuters. Regarding housing types, we should look at units to yield at income levels. He suggested transitional housing for families. While he agrees with co- locating city and county facilities, it would be better served at the TVAP location or the BVRC. • P. Vitale agreed with B. Bowen. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 409 of 553 •C. Gray recommended not having any buildings close to the sidewalk on Broadway. That corridor needs a respite for pedestrians. The city needs more housing; therefore, she would like to see a mix of housing such as transitional housing for families or co-ops. She suggested dedicating some county services in the area. She would like the city to demonstrate some small affordable retail on the site. She would not recommend a full civic campus with limited housing. She would prefer mixed housing with some civic uses that are not everyday uses. •J. Gerstle would like to centralize activities that benefit most by being located next to each other for related services. However, the parking and access may not be practical. In general, for this site, a considerable proportion of the area should be designated for civic uses. Transitional housing for families which require social services should be located nearby. •P. Vitale added that it seems as if putting all the civic uses in one place makes the most sense otherwise, we will be facing the same problem years from now by having the civic offices spread out all over the city. •H. Zuckerman to locate all city facilities in one place sounds good. But co-locating with city and county offices is not impressive. To accommodate both would eat up the site in a desirable section of town. Other uses would benefit and the transportation would not be ideal for in- commuters. He said a mix of multi-family housing with strategically placed retail would be ideal. •L. Payton said she would prefer to see housing at this site and city facilities at another location. There is an existing park nearby, as well as schools. •B. Bowen said, if city services were placed on the site, that the choice of which city facilities would need to be considered. If it would make sense to have social services nearby for the housing community, then that should be done. If adding county services would be too much as mentioned by H. Zuckerman, then it should not be done. •P. Vitale said another site could offer more architecturally for the sense of a civic plaza than this location. •Regarding the co-location of county and city services at this location, the board appeared split. •J. Gerstle said there is significant benefit to having some city and county services at a co- location. In terms of what logical civic activities should be located at this site, more social services than cultural facilities would make sense. •H. Zuckerman said that having some community services at that site would be important. It would be good for businesses in that area. A bold government campus, on transit rich environment area, would work be best. •The board largely supported housing on this site with some level of civic or mixed use. •J. Gatza gave a summary that the board overall supported housing. Depending on the discussion surrounding intensity and height, potentially a small variety of types of mixed uses and looking at who it would serve and the needs. And some consideration of the trade-offs along the corridor with the county. Possibly incorporating some pockets of retail. Key Issue #2: How this should be accomplished? a)Intensity and Building Heights? •H. Zuckerman said the choice of zoning district would be important. He suggested BR-1 which would allow many different uses and support a vibrant mix. He recommended changing Appendix L in Title 9 to add the Alpine-Balsam area on to the map of Form Based Code areas. In addition, he suggested modifying Appendix J so that heights above 35 feet could be considered. Regarding heights, buildings above 35 feet could blend in well. The feathering of heights into the Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 410 of 553 community through setbacks should be done. Site Review and 55 feet needs to be available in that neighborhood and the vibrate mix or affordable housing will not be achieved without it. •P. Vitale said to get the value out of land, it would need to be developed as multi-family. To get the value desired for a true campus, it would need to be placed where intensity and heights blend better, but he expressed concern that it may be unattainable in this neighborhood. He said that more height on Broadway and feathering down to the park would be best. •B. Bowen said a mix of 35 feet to 55 feet have found to be supportable. He said looking at the yield on property would make sense to determine value. It may be better to have tall buildings next to the park. There has been a history of tall buildings wrapping parks and they create great viewsheds. And in the end, the market rate could be higher for the park-facing units, and then they can assist in paying for the affordable units. •C. Gray agreed that doing a Form Based Code for this area could be a promising idea. She supported variety of heights. She had concern surrounding a fifth story. She agreed about an opportunity for taller buildings overlooking the park. She suggested maintaining cross streets to help shape the buildings. •J. Gerstle agreed that the buildings do not need to feather down to three floors on the western edge of the site. He said the roads should continue through on 10th Street and 11th Street to integrate with the rest of the neighborhood. And he would support five stories along Broadway. •L. Payton would support buildings at 55 feet along Broadway if there is not too much bulk. She would prefer a more urban feel and more density in this location. She was uncertain about the feathering but in support of taller buildings along Broadway. •C. Gray said that renewables should be demonstrated. •B. Bowen said this location would be ideal to do an Eco district. He suggested extending the streets as private drives or crossings. •J. Gatza gave a summary that the board would support higher buildings and higher intensities along the eastern edge of the site. The design should not be too bulky. A range between three and five stories for buildings through the site with a good street grid to achieve vibrancy and mix of uses. b)Access and Mobility? •B. Bowen said that due to the existing parking in the area, there is not a lot of sharing happening within these lots. He said the costs of the parking proposed were reasonable but seemed low. If looking at parking above-grade level, they will need to be skirted with other uses. The crossing of the north-south streets will be important. The TMP should be used. He would like to see a yield study based on the scenarios presented. •J. Gerstle said the TMP should be used. •C. Gray would like to see a survey of the low-income housing needs regarding parking. The TDMP needs to be updated. There should be an NPP in this area. The amount of proposed parking seemed to overwhelm the site. •H. Zuckerman said this site should have wide sidewalks, long-term bike parking, solar panels, and covered bus shelters with solar. •L. Payton said she would like to see the plans be more aggressive towards the reduction of parking. She agreed with H. Zuckerman’s comments regarding the pedestrian experience. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 411 of 553 c)Flood Mitigation? •H. Zuckerman would encourage reviewing the accessibility surrounding the creek and greenways and to make landscaping plans that would make sense. He suggested altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side rather than the Balsam side. •C. Gray said a North Boulder Park flood mitigation should be done. She would support daylighting the creek. •B. Bowen would support daylighting the creek and it could be made a feature. He said the park should accommodate flood capacity however, the current uses should remain. He also supported altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side. •J. Gerstle said the park should be used for flood mitigation but to not destroying its uses. He agreed with moving the creek to the Alpine side. He would prefer a wider flood way rather than a narrow one. He recommended changing the flood criteria to be based on a 500-yr flood. He questioned the option of using the streets for flood water conveyance. •P. Vitale said that using the park will be essential. •L. Payton long range vision for these greenways. She would support daylighting the creek. She said that a 500-year base flood elevation should be used as a base line rather than a 100-year. She summarized that the board supported daylighting and that it would be a useful and enjoyable space. C.AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Planning Board 2019 Application •The board discussed possible edits to the application. •C. Spence will make the edits and submit to the City Managers Office by November 15, 2018. D.AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Retreat Letter •L. Payton asked a board member to volunteer to be the editor of the letter, who will then review last year’s letter to see what has/has not been addressed, set deadlines, compile the information and wordsmith the final document. •L. Payton said that she would review last year’s letter regarding accomplishments. H. Zuckerman said he would assist with the editing of the final letter. •The board decided to hold a special study session to solely address the Letter to Council on November 29, 2018. 7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8.ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 412 of 553 ___________________ DATE Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 413 of 553 Attachment B - Disposition of Approval Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 414 of 553 Attachment B - Disposition of Approval Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 415 of 553 Attachment B - Disposition of Approval Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 416 of 553 Attachment C: Analysis of Review Criteria 9-2-15 “Use Review” (e)Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: (1) Consistency with Zoning and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2(c), "Zoning Districts Purposes," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non- conforming use; The property is located in the BC-2 (Business - Community 2) zoning district, which is defined as “business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate” in section 9-5-2(c)(2)(G), B.R.C. 1981. A restaurant with drive-thru may be located in this zoning district with approval of a Use Review. (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; The proposal will improve existing conditions by replacing an existing outdated 1970s-era McDonald’s drive-thru with a new building, landscaping, sidewalks, and parking areas meeting current standards. The proposal is configured to reduce impacts to the surrounding uses with a redesigned site layout which reconfigures and improves vehicle access points, eliminates one vehicular access point to the west, and provides parking lot and drive-thru landscaping and screening where none currently exist. The use will continue to provide direct convenience to the neighborhood as part of a primarily auto-oriented commercial area adjacent to major vehicular thoroughfares (Baseline Road, US 36, and 30th Street). n/a (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; Not applicable; the proposal is generally surrounded by other commercial uses and major vehicular thoroughfares. n/a (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or Not applicable. n/a (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section; Not applicable. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 417 of 553  3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; The proposed development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on nearby properties. Properties to the west, south, and east consist of stand-alone and multi-tenant commercial buildings, including restaurants, a coffee shop, grocery store, liquor store, convenience store, gas station, internet service provider, and the Rodeway Inn. Properties to the north across Baseline Road consist of commercial and office buildings fronting Baseline. An existing McDonald’s restaurant with drive-thru has been in operation on the site since the 1970s. The replacement of the drive-thru on the property is in keeping with the existing character of the area as a multi- modal commercial corridor. The design of the proposed rebuilt drive-thru use is expected to reduce impacts on adjacent properties as compared to the existing drive-thru configuration with adequate provision of landscaping and screening, improved / reconfigured vehicular access points, improved stacking / cuing and the elimination of one vehicular access point to the west and compliance with all currently applicable development standards. The size and operating characteristics of the proposal are similar to the existing drive-thru restaurant and are not intended or expected to increase traffic volumes or the number of employees working at the site.  (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; The proposed development will not adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area. Infrastructure in the area is existing and serves the existing drive-thru on the site. The proposal will provide improvements to the existing infrastructure including narrowing the access points to the public right-of-way, providing a 12-foot detached multi-use path with 8-foot tree lawn along Baseline Road, and providing stormwater quality features on a site where none currently exist.  (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area; and An existing McDonald’s restaurant with drive-thru has been in operation on the site since the 1970s. The replacement of the drive-thru on the property will not change the predominant character of the area as an auto- oriented commercial corridor. The proposal is not located within any area subject to adopted design guidelines or an adopted area plan. n/a (6) Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Residential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in Subsection 9-5-2(c)(1)(a), B.R.C. 1981, to non-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one non- conforming use to another non-conforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 418 of 553 Not applicable; the proposal does not involve conversion of a dwelling unit to a non-residential use. 9-6-9 “Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses” (c) Drive-Thru Uses: The following criteria will apply to any drive-thru use:  (1) No drive-thru facility is allowed in any Downtown (DT) district unless the property is located directly abutting Canyon Boulevard. The proposal is not located in the Downtown (DT) district.  (2) Hazardous and other adverse effects on adjacent sites and streets are avoided. The existing site has an operational restaurant with drive-thru and the proposal would maintain this use with an updated site design meeting current development standards that will provide separate approaches to two menu boards and lengthen the stacking lane between the menu boards and the entry driveway. Vehicular access will be improved / reconfigured and will allow for better stacking / cuing and one vehicular access point to the west will be eliminated.  (3) The location of any access to the drive-thru facility from an adjacent street does not impair its traffic-carrying capacity. The proposal will maintain one right-in and one right-out vehicular access point from Baseline Road however, the distance between the access will be significantly lengthened to allow for safer, one way channelized traffic. Once vehicular access to the west will be eliminated. The proposal will provide separate approaches to two menu boards and lengthen the stacking lane between the menu boards and the entry driveway.  (4) Internal circulation and access to and egress from the site do not substantially impair the movement of other modes of transportation, such as bicycles and pedestrians, to and through the site. The proposal provides a 12-foot detached multi-use path and 8-foot tree lawn along the front of the site and a direct sidewalk connection for pedestrians and cyclists from the public right-of- way to the building entry, bike racks, and outdoor dining patio. A sidewalk connection is also provided along the entire length of the west side of the building connecting to long-term employee bike parking at the rear of the building. Improved vehicular access will improve and allow for safer bike / ped mobility.  (5) Clearly marked pedestrian crosswalks are provided for each walk-in customer access to the facility adjacent to the drive-thru lanes. At the south end of the site, customer access from the parking area to the building entry adjacent to the drive-thru lanes will be clearly marked with a pedestrian crosswalk. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 419 of 553 (6)The drive-thru use is screened from adjacent rights-of-way and properties through placement of the use, screening, landscaping or other site design techniques. The site, including all parking and drive-thru lanes, is screened on all sides by landscaping areas which provide a substantial increase in the amount of trees and shrubs on-site. (7)Environmental impacts, including, without limitation, noise, air emissions and glare are not significant for the employees of the facility or the surrounding area. As with the current building configuration, the proposed building places drive-thru windows on the east façade adjacent to existing parking lots serving other commercial uses. The proposal provides additional landscaping and screening along the east property line where none exists today. No significant environmental impacts for employees of the facility or the surrounding area have been identified. (8)Any curb cuts serving the use are not located within two hundred feet of any intersection of the rights-of-way of any two of the major streets or major arterials shown on the map of major streets. The proposed curb cuts serving the use are located more than 200 feet from the intersections of any major streets or arterials on the map of major streets in Appendix A. The property itself is located over 350 feet from the intersection of Baseline Road and the US-36 exit ramp, and over 450 feet from the intersection of Baseline Road and 30th Street. (9)The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed facility are such that the drive-thru operation will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed drive-thru operation will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on nearby properties. Properties on all sides consist of other commercial uses. The replacement of the existing 1970s-era McDonald’s drive-thru on the property is in keeping with the existing character of the area as an auto-oriented commercial corridor. The design of the proposed rebuilt drive-thru use is expected to reduce impacts on adjacent properties as compared to the existing drive-thru configuration with adequate provision of landscaping and screening, reduction of a vehicular access points, and compliance with all currently applicable development standards. The size and operating characteristics of the proposal are similar to the existing drive-thru restaurant and are not intended or expected to increase traffic volumes or the number of employees working at the site. n/a (10) The noise generated on the site is inaudible to adjacent residential uses, measured at or inside the property line of property other than that on which the sound source is located. Not applicable; there are no adjacent residential uses. n/a (11) Nonconforming drive-thrus shall comply with the criteria of subsection 9-10-2(d), B.R.C. 1981. Not applicable; the proposal is a conforming drive-thru. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8A - Call-up: 2920 Baseline Use Review City Council Meeting Page 420 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C all-up: Use Review (LUR2017-00063) to demolish an existing gas station, carwash, convenience store with a Starbucks restaurant with a drive-thru window at 2990 Diagonal Hwy. in the BC -1 (Business – Community 1) zoning district P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C harles Ferro, Development Review Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C all-up: Use Review (LUR2017-00063) to demolish an existing gas station, carwash, convenience store with a Starbucks restaurant with a drive-thru window at 2990 Diagonal Hwy. in the BC -1 (Business – Community 1) zoning district B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Approved with conditions by Planning Board on 11/15. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 421 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Call-Up Item: Use Review (LUR2017-00063) to demolish an existing gas station, carwash, convenience store with a Starbucks restaurant with a drive- thru window at 2990 Diagonal Hwy. in the BC-1 (Business – Community 1) zoning district. Applicant: SCM Solutions Owner: Fill’n Go Company, LLC PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager Chris Meschuk, Assistant City Manager / Interim Planning Director Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On November 15, 2018, the Planning Board reviewed and approved the above-referenced application. The city council may call up a concept plan application for a public hearing within thirty days of the board's review. Because the 30-day call-up period concludes on Saturday, December 15, 2018, the land use code section 1-1-10(b), B.R.C. 1981 requires that if the last day of the call-up period is on a Saturday, “the period is extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.” In this case, the 30-day call-up period is extended to Monday, December 17, 2018. City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its December 4, 2018 public meeting. The staff memorandum to Planning Board, meeting audio, and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available on the Planning Board’s website. Minutes can be found in Attachment A. Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 422 of 553 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – The sale of food generates sales tax revenue for the city. • Environmental – None identified. • Social – None identified. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – None identified. • Staff time – This application was processed under normal staff time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK On November 15, 2018, the Planning Board reviewed and approved the subject application (6-1, Vitale opposed). The board discussed the proposed improvements to the site that would help improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety as well as vehicular access through and around the site. The disposition of approval can be found in Attachment B. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff received nine letters of support and three letters of opposition one of which requested the project be called up. All correspondences can be found here. BACKGROUND The approximately 0.58-acre property is located southwest of the intersection of Diagonal Highway and 30th Street and includes an existing convenience store, car wash, and fuel pump canopy. The structure was built in 1969 and previously included auto service bays. Site Review SI-97-7 approved a remodel to convert a service bay into a car wash. Refer to Figure 1 for an aerial photo and Figure 2 for a photo of the site looking southwest from Diagonal Hwy. The site is zoned BC-1, Business - Community 1, which is defined as “Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate” in section 9-5- 2(c)(2)(G), B.R.C. 1981. Pursuant to section 9-6-1, B.R.C. 1981, a Use Review is required for drive-thru uses to operate in the BC-1 zone district. In addition to the Use Review standards found in section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981, a request for a drive-thru use must meet the conditional use standards for drive-thru uses found in section 9-6-9(c), B.R.C. 1981. The Use Review decision is a staff-level decision subject to call-up by the Planning Board. The subject application was called up by a resident on September 26, 2018. Project Proposal The applicant is requesting approval of Site Review Amendment and a Use Review to replace the existing 1,480 square-foot convenience store, 481 square-foot car wash, and Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 423 of 553 associated eight-pump covered filling station on the site with a proposed 1,720 square- foot Starbucks coffee shop with drive-thru, including new building, vehicle and bike parking, lighting, and landscaping. The existing gas station operates from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily with 24-hour access to the existing gas pumps. The proposed use consists of a 1,720 square-foot coffee shop (restaurant) with 32 indoor seats, a 290 square-foot patio with 14 outdoor seats, and a drive-thru lane located south of the building, with proposed hours of operation from 4:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week. The nearest adjacent use, Elevations Credit Union, provides drive up ATMs offering 24-hour access. Overall, staff finds the proposed use would be compatible with and have minimal negative impacts on nearby properties. The site has been designed to maximize street presence at the intersection of 30th and Diagonal with a building-forward design, reduced setback along Diagonal, and a prominent patio at the corner featuring outdoor seating, short- and long-term bike parking, and a bike repair station. The drive-thru and parking area are proposed at the rear of the building and are surrounded by ample landscaping and screening to minimize visual impacts to the public realm. The proposed building design consists of a one-story, contemporary design featuring concrete, locally sourced wood siding, gray stucco, glass, and a sloping roof form. A prominent pillar and awning anchor an outdoor patio space. The proposed building provides storefronts and building entries along both Diagonal and 30th Street to enhance transparency and activity at the street frontages. Refer to the Applicant’s proposed plans for additional details. ANALYSIS Staff has identified the following key issues for council’s consideration: 1. Does the proposed project meet the Use Review criteria as set forth in section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981? Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981 includes the procedures and review criteria for approval of a Use Review. The proposal was found to be consistent with the criteria for Use Review found in section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. Please refer to Attachment C for staff’s complete analysis of the review criteria. 2. Does the proposed project meet the standards for drive thru uses set forth in section 9-6-9(c), BRC, 1981? The proposal was found to be consistent with the criteria for Drive-Thru Uses found in section 9-6-9(c), B.R.C. 1981. Please refer to Attachment C for staff’s complete analysis of the review criteria. Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 424 of 553 MATRIX OF OPTIONS Consistent with the land use code section 9-4-4(c), B.R.C. 1981, if City Council disagrees with the decision of the Planning Board, it may call up the application by a majority vote on or before December 17, 2018. There is a City Council meeting within this time-period for call-up consideration on December 4, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: A. Planning Board Minutes B. Disposition of Approval C. Staff’s Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 425 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 1, 2018 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Liz Payton, Chair Bryan Bowen, Vice Chair John Gerstle Crystal Gray Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ensign STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, Planning Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Carolyn Fahey, Associate Planner Planning Manager, Planning Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Edward Stafford, Department Review Manager, Planning Chris Meschuk, Assistant City Manager / Interim Director of Planning Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager / Greenways Amanda Bevis, Public Works Project Specialist Jeff Yegian, Senior Project Manager, Housing Michele Crane, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Christopher Parezo, Principal at Civitas, Consultant on the Project Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Chris Ranglos, Associate Planner 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Payton, declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to Approve 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 426 of 553 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL UP ITEM: LUR2018-00041: Use Review for the professional and technical office uses with an approximately 1,067 square foot tenant space at 2150 Pearl Street in the Mixed Use 3 (MU-3) zoning district (“SOBO Design & Build”). The proposed hours of operation are 8AM to 9PM Monday thru Friday, and 6PM-12PM Saturday and Sunday. The call-up period expires on November 4, 2018. This item was not called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of the University Place Addition Final Plat (TEC2017-00038): Final Plat to subdivide two developed lots (745 and 765 14th Street) totaling 0.64-acres to create 3 residential lots: Lot 1 (13,818 sf), Lot 2 (7,237 sf), and Lot 3 (7,010 sf). Lot 1 and 2 will each contain an existing single-family home. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • C. Gray disclosed that she had received an email from the Sierra Club asking about the meeting and indicated that the property was an important animal corridor. C. Gray, L. Payton and J. Gerstle had conducted site visits. P. Vitale, H. Zuckerman and B. Bowen did not have any ex- parte contacts. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: There was no presentation by the applicant to the board. Board Questions: David Raduziner, the owner, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Kate Howard, a neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project specifically regarding the proposed density it could add to the area. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed final plat consistent with the minimum lot standards set forth in Section 9-12-12(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981? • L. Payton said that given the limited criteria, she would approve the item. She said she was sympathetic to it being in an historic district and preserving the historic character. She is confident that whatever would be constructed, it would be compatible by the Landmarks Design Review Board. The proposal would meet the minimum lot standards. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 427 of 553 •C. Gray reminded the board that she had called up this item for it to be fully discussed. This board has a limited review and she agreed with the staff recommendation. •H. Zuckerman explained the criteria that needs to be applied and said that staff exhibited the standards have been met. He said he would vote for approval. •J. Gerstle agreed with the comments and the criteria has been satisfied. Motion: On a motion by H. Zuckerman seconded by P. Vitale the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve Technical Document Review # TEC2017-00038 for the University Place Addition Replat E Subdivision incorporating this staff memorandum and the Final Plat Subdivision Review Criteria found in Attachment B as findings of fact. B.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and Planning Board recommendation on a request to: 1) Approve a Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue; and 2) Adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. •All board members disclosed that they had made a site visit. P. Vitale added he is familiar with the applicant through the commercial real estate development community within Boulder, however he has not personal worked with him and can be impartial on this matter. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Terry Palmos, with Palmos Development, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Terry Palmos, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one spoke. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is rezoning from RR-1 to RL-2 appropriate for the subject property? •All board members said the proposed rezoning was appropriate. •H. Zuckerman said the rezoning does meet the criteria because it would be in line with the underlying land use designations in the area. •J. Gerstle add that the rezoning would correspond to the subcommunity plan. •L. Payton said the rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the low-density Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 428 of 553 residential land use designation on the BVCP land use designation map. Key Issue #2: Is the post-annexation agreement consistent with the terms of the 1997 Crestview West annexation agreement? •All board members thought it was consistent. •L. Payton stated that staff has drawn up a plan that is consistent. Motion: On a motion by B. Bowen seconded by H. Zuckerman the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve the Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue in Attachment A and to adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). 6.MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A.AGENDA TITLE: Identify Joint Advisory Board Rep to Participate in Ecosystems Summit Panel – November 16, 2018 •P. Vitale will attend. B.AGENDA TITLE: Alpine-Balsam Area Plan: Update on Results of Community Feedback and Discussion of Key Topics for Site Design Staff Presentation: J. Gatza presented the item to the board. Board Questions: City of Boulder staff answered questions from the board. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: What are the board’s priorities for mix of uses? •B. Bowen said that civic use on that property does not make sense. This location would be difficult to have multi-parking below grade; therefore, office uses will pay a penalty in terms of floor area. We are lacking affordable housing for people who work downtown. This location would not be well-served by vehicles or other bus lines besides the SKIP. He said the best use of the site would be to wrap Broadway, Alpine and Balsam roads with ground-story mixed uses, review how much parking could be done at one-story below grade, review storm water capacity and find out how much yield can be obtained for people that live there. This location has walkable access to jobs and services. Regarding the civic and county offices, the employees would not be well-served to work in this area due to transportation issues. The offices need to be where the employees can get to them, such as the Transit Village (TVAP2). This location would benefit by having less in-commuters. Regarding housing types, we should look at units to yield at income levels. He suggested transitional housing for families. While he agrees with co- locating city and county facilities, it would be better served at the TVAP location or the BVRC. •P. Vitale agreed with B. Bowen. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 429 of 553 •C. Gray recommended not having any buildings close to the sidewalk on Broadway. That corridor needs a respite for pedestrians. The city needs more housing; therefore, she would like to see a mix of housing such as transitional housing for families or co-ops. She suggested dedicating some county services in the area. She would like the city to demonstrate some small affordable retail on the site. She would not recommend a full civic campus with limited housing. She would prefer mixed housing with some civic uses that are not everyday uses. •J. Gerstle would like to centralize activities that benefit most by being located next to each other for related services. However, the parking and access may not be practical. In general, for this site, a considerable proportion of the area should be designated for civic uses. Transitional housing for families which require social services should be located nearby. •P. Vitale added that it seems as if putting all the civic uses in one place makes the most sense otherwise, we will be facing the same problem years from now by having the civic offices spread out all over the city. •H. Zuckerman to locate all city facilities in one place sounds good. But co-locating with city and county offices is not impressive. To accommodate both would eat up the site in a desirable section of town. Other uses would benefit and the transportation would not be ideal for in- commuters. He said a mix of multi-family housing with strategically placed retail would be ideal. •L. Payton said she would prefer to see housing at this site and city facilities at another location. There is an existing park nearby, as well as schools. •B. Bowen said, if city services were placed on the site, that the choice of which city facilities would need to be considered. If it would make sense to have social services nearby for the housing community, then that should be done. If adding county services would be too much as mentioned by H. Zuckerman, then it should not be done. •P. Vitale said another site could offer more architecturally for the sense of a civic plaza than this location. •Regarding the co-location of county and city services at this location, the board appeared split. •J. Gerstle said there is significant benefit to having some city and county services at a co- location. In terms of what logical civic activities should be located at this site, more social services than cultural facilities would make sense. •H. Zuckerman said that having some community services at that site would be important. It would be good for businesses in that area. A bold government campus, on transit rich environment area, would work be best. •The board largely supported housing on this site with some level of civic or mixed use. •J. Gatza gave a summary that the board overall supported housing. Depending on the discussion surrounding intensity and height, potentially a small variety of types of mixed uses and looking at who it would serve and the needs. And some consideration of the trade-offs along the corridor with the county. Possibly incorporating some pockets of retail. Key Issue #2: How this should be accomplished? a)Intensity and Building Heights? •H. Zuckerman said the choice of zoning district would be important. He suggested BR-1 which would allow many different uses and support a vibrant mix. He recommended changing Appendix L in Title 9 to add the Alpine-Balsam area on to the map of Form Based Code areas. In addition, he suggested modifying Appendix J so that heights above 35 feet could be considered. Regarding heights, buildings above 35 feet could blend in well. The feathering of heights into the Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 430 of 553 community through setbacks should be done. Site Review and 55 feet needs to be available in that neighborhood and the vibrate mix or affordable housing will not be achieved without it. • P. Vitale said to get the value out of land, it would need to be developed as multi-family. To get the value desired for a true campus, it would need to be placed where intensity and heights blend better, but he expressed concern that it may be unattainable in this neighborhood. He said that more height on Broadway and feathering down to the park would be best. • B. Bowen said a mix of 35 feet to 55 feet have found to be supportable. He said looking at the yield on property would make sense to determine value. It may be better to have tall buildings next to the park. There has been a history of tall buildings wrapping parks and they create great viewsheds. And in the end, the market rate could be higher for the park-facing units, and then they can assist in paying for the affordable units. • C. Gray agreed that doing a Form Based Code for this area could be a promising idea. She supported variety of heights. She had concern surrounding a fifth story. She agreed about an opportunity for taller buildings overlooking the park. She suggested maintaining cross streets to help shape the buildings. • J. Gerstle agreed that the buildings do not need to feather down to three floors on the western edge of the site. He said the roads should continue through on 10th Street and 11th Street to integrate with the rest of the neighborhood. And he would support five stories along Broadway. • L. Payton would support buildings at 55 feet along Broadway if there is not too much bulk. She would prefer a more urban feel and more density in this location. She was uncertain about the feathering but in support of taller buildings along Broadway. • C. Gray said that renewables should be demonstrated. • B. Bowen said this location would be ideal to do an Eco district. He suggested extending the streets as private drives or crossings. • J. Gatza gave a summary that the board would support higher buildings and higher intensities along the eastern edge of the site. The design should not be too bulky. A range between three and five stories for buildings through the site with a good street grid to achieve vibrancy and mix of uses. b) Access and Mobility? • B. Bowen said that due to the existing parking in the area, there is not a lot of sharing happening within these lots. He said the costs of the parking proposed were reasonable but seemed low. If looking at parking above-grade level, they will need to be skirted with other uses. The crossing of the north-south streets will be important. The TMP should be used. He would like to see a yield study based on the scenarios presented. • J. Gerstle said the TMP should be used. • C. Gray would like to see a survey of the low-income housing needs regarding parking. The TDMP needs to be updated. There should be an NPP in this area. The amount of proposed parking seemed to overwhelm the site. • H. Zuckerman said this site should have wide sidewalks, long-term bike parking, solar panels, and covered bus shelters with solar. • L. Payton said she would like to see the plans be more aggressive towards the reduction of parking. She agreed with H. Zuckerman’s comments regarding the pedestrian experience. Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 431 of 553 c) Flood Mitigation? • H. Zuckerman would encourage reviewing the accessibility surrounding the creek and greenways and to make landscaping plans that would make sense. He suggested altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side rather than the Balsam side. • C. Gray said a North Boulder Park flood mitigation should be done. She would support daylighting the creek. • B. Bowen would support daylighting the creek and it could be made a feature. He said the park should accommodate flood capacity however, the current uses should remain. He also supported altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side. • J. Gerstle said the park should be used for flood mitigation but to not destroying its uses. He agreed with moving the creek to the Alpine side. He would prefer a wider flood way rather than a narrow one. He recommended changing the flood criteria to be based on a 500-yr flood. He questioned the option of using the streets for flood water conveyance. • P. Vitale said that using the park will be essential. • L. Payton long range vision for these greenways. She would support daylighting the creek. She said that a 500-year base flood elevation should be used as a base line rather than a 100-year. She summarized that the board supported daylighting and that it would be a useful and enjoyable space. C. AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Planning Board 2019 Application • The board discussed possible edits to the application. • C. Spence will make the edits and submit to the City Managers Office by November 15, 2018. D. AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Retreat Letter • L. Payton asked a board member to volunteer to be the editor of the letter, who will then review last year’s letter to see what has/has not been addressed, set deadlines, compile the information and wordsmith the final document. • L. Payton said that she would review last year’s letter regarding accomplishments. H. Zuckerman said he would assist with the editing of the final letter. • The board decided to hold a special study session to solely address the Letter to Council on November 29, 2018. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 432 of 553 ___________________ DATE Attachment A - Planning Board Minutes Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 433 of 553 Attachment B - Disposition of Approval Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 434 of 553 Attachment B - Disposition of Approval Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 435 of 553 Attachment B - Disposition of Approval Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 436 of 553 Address: 2990 DIAGONAL HY Page 1 Attachment C: Analysis of Review Criteria 9-2-15 “Use Review” (e) Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following:  (1) Consistency with Zoning and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-2(c), "Zoning Districts Purposes," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; The property is in the BC-1, Business - Community 1 zoning district, which is defined as “Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate” in section 9-5-2(c)(2)(G), B.R.C. 1981. Drive-thru uses may be permitted by approval of a Use Review per section 9-6-1, B.R.C. 1981 and shall comply with section 9-6-9(c), B.R.C. 1981. (2)Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; The proposal would renovate an existing developed site, which is a gas station with convenience store and car wash constructed in approximately 1969. The proposal would reduce existing adverse impacts to surrounding uses and the neighborhood by reducing the number of curb cuts onto Diagonal Highway and 30th Street from three to one, thereby reducing potential vehicular conflict points, and would incorporate water quality features to appropriately treat and direct existing runoff. n/a (B)Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; n/a (C)Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or n/a (D)Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section;  3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 437 of 553 Address: 2990 DIAGONAL HY Page 2 proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; The proposal is located in an auto-oriented area at the intersection of two major thoroughfares, Diagonal Highway and 30th Street. It would replace an approximately 1,480 square-foot convenience store with 481 square-foot car wash and associated eight-pump covered filling station with a 1,720 square-foot coffee shop with drive-thru lane. The site design places the building close to the corner of Diagonal Highway and 30th Street to maximize street presence, and places parking and the drive-thru lane to the rear of the building with ample landscaping and screening to minimize visual impacts to the public realm. The existing convenience store is open from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily with 24-hour access to the existing gas pumps; the proposed hours of operation for the coffee shop and drive-thru are 4:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. The nearest adjacent use, Elevations Credit Union, provides drive-up ATMs offering 24-hour access. Overall, staff found that the proposed development would be compatible with and have minimal negative impacts on nearby properties.  (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; The proposed development is served by existing infrastructure, which will be upgraded with the development, and thus will positively affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area. The proposal will reduce the number of curb cuts from Diagonal Highway and 30th Street from three to one, will provide water quality features to appropriately treat and direct existing runoff, and will provide a new 10-foot detached sidewalk along 30th Street and updated 5-foot bike lane within 30th Street.  (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area; and The predominant character of the area includes a mix of commercial uses, including auto-oriented uses at existing bank drive-thrus to the south (Elevations Credit Union) and southeast (First National Bank). The proposal is not located within an area with adopted design guidelines or plans. n/a (6)Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Residential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in Subsection 9-5-2(c)(1)(a), B.R.C. 1981, to non- residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 438 of 553 Address: 2990 DIAGONAL HY Page 3 approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. Not applicable, the proposal does not involve the conversion of a dwelling unit. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 439 of 553 Address: 2990 DIAGONAL HY Page 4 9-6-9 “Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses” (c)Drive-Thru Uses: The following criteria will apply to any drive-thru use:  (1) No drive-thru facility is allowed in any Downtown (DT) district unless the property is located directly abutting Canyon Boulevard. The property is not located in the DT district.  (2) Hazardous and other adverse effects on adjacent sites and streets are avoided. The proposal avoids hazardous and adverse effects to adjacent sites and streets by reducing the number of access points to the site from three to one and allowing only right-in, right-out turning movements to reduce points of vehicle and pedestrian conflict. The proposal provides ten stacking spaces for the drive- thru operations, as well as additional space between the stacking spaces and the public right-of-way to ensure for adequate vehicular ingress and egress.  (3) The location of any access to the drive-thru facility from an adjacent street does not impair its traffic-carrying capacity. The proposed site design eliminates excess points of access and locates the one remaining access to the drive-thru at the southernmost extents of the property. The applicant’s provided Traffic Impact Study indicates that the proposed drive- thru will not impair the adjacent street traffic-carrying capacity based on anticipated peak hour queue lengths.  (4) Internal circulation and access to and egress from the site do not substantially impair the movement of other modes of transportation, such as bicycles and pedestrians, to and through the site. The proposal provides clear separation of vehicular and bike/pedestrian movement by confining vehicular movements in the drive-thru lane and parking area entirely to the south of the structure. Clearly defined pedestrian and cyclist routes will be available along both Diagonal and 30th, including 10-foot detached sidewalks and a 5-foot on-street bike lane within 30th Street. Direct access for pedestrians and cyclists is provided from both Diagonal and 30th via sidewalks to the building entries and outdoor patio area. The patio area will include short- and long-term bike parking and a bicycle repair station. Sidewalks and a raised crosswalk across the drive-thru lane provide clearly defined pedestrian access from the parking area into the building.  (5) Clearly marked pedestrian crosswalks are provided for each walk-in customer access to the facility adjacent to the drive-thru lanes. A raised, integral-colored concrete crosswalk across the drive-thru lane will provide clearly defined walk-in customer access from the parking lot to the building entrance. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 440 of 553 Address: 2990 DIAGONAL HY Page 5  (6) The drive-thru use is screened from adjacent rights-of-way and properties through placement of the use, screening, landscaping or other site design techniques. The drive-thru window faces south, internal to the site. The drive-thru lane is screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way on all sides by the building, landscaping, and/or low screening walls.  (7) Environmental impacts, including, without limitation, noise, air emissions and glare are not significant for the employees of the facility or the surrounding area. The proposal locates the drive-thru window on the southern façade away from nearby streets, thereby mitigating the impact of noise, emissions, and glare on employees serving customers at the drive-thru window.  (8) Any curb cuts serving the use are not located within two hundred feet of any intersection of the rights-of-way of any two of the major streets or major arterials shown on the map of major streets. The proposal provides one curb cut which is over two hundred feet from the intersection of 30th and Diagonal.  (9) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed facility are such that the drive-thru operation will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposal is located in an auto-oriented area at the intersection of two major thoroughfares, Diagonal Highway and 30th Street. It would replace an approximately 1,480 square-foot convenience store with 481 square-foot car wash and associated eight-pump covered filling station with a 1,720 square-foot coffee shop with drive-thru lane. The site design places the building close to the corner of Diagonal Highway and 30th Street to maximize street presence, and places parking and the drive-thru lane to the rear of the building with ample landscaping and screening to minimize visual impacts to the public realm. The existing convenience store is open from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily with 24-hour access to the existing gas pumps; the proposed hours of operation for the coffee shop and drive-thru are 4:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. The nearest adjacent use, Elevations Credit Union, provides drive-up ATMs offering 24-hour access. Overall, staff found that the proposed development would be compatible with and have minimal negative impacts on nearby properties. n/a (10)The noise generated on the site is inaudible to adjacent residential uses, measured at or inside the property line of property other than that on which the sound source is located. Not applicable; there are no residential uses directly adjacent to the property. n/a (11)Nonconforming drive-thrus shall comply with the criteria of subsection 9-10-2(d), B.R.C. 1981. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 441 of 553 Address: 2990 DIAGONAL HY Page 6 Not applicable; the drive-thru is a conforming use that may be approved through a Use Review in the zoning district. Attachment C - Staff's Review of Use Review Criteria Item 8B - Call-up: 2990 Diagonal Hwy Use Review City Council Meeting Page 442 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E C all-Up: Amendment to a previously approved Site Review application for the new Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services building at 5100 Reservoir Road, to amend previous conditions of approval related to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and photo-voltaic readiness, and to amend the building square footage and bike parking layout and locations (LUR2018-00065) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Andrew C ollins, Planner II RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C all-Up: Amendment to a previously approved Site Review application for the new Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services building at 5100 Reservoir Road, to amend previous conditions of approval related to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and photo-voltaic readiness, and to amend the building square footage and bike parking layout and locations (LUR2018-00065) B RI E F H I STO RY O F I T E M Approved with conditions by Planning Board on 11/15 AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachments City Council Meeting Page 443 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Call-Up Item: Amendment to a previously approved Site Plan for the new Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center building at 5100 Reservoir Road, to amend previous conditions of approval related to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and photo-voltaic readiness, and to amend the building square footage and bike parking layout and locations (LUR2018-00065). PRESENTER/S Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Asst. City Manager/Interim Director of Planning Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Andrew Collins, Planner II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On November 15, 2018, the Planning Board unanimously (6-0) approved with conditions the Site Review Amendment LUR2018-00065 as provided in the attached Notice of Disposition (Attachment A), finding the project consistent with the Site Review Criteria of Land Use Code Section 9-2-14(m), B.R.C. 1981 and the applicable criteria of Section 9-2-14(h). Approval of the case would amend the previous conditions of approval for the Boulder Reservoir Visitor Center project (LUR200018-00013) related to the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and the timing of the photovoltaic (PV) array installation on the building. Minor changes also include revisions to the bike parking layout and a 123 square foot increase in the building square footage due to a change in the exterior wall system. The Planning Board decision is subject to City Council call-up within 30 days. Because the 30- day call-up period concludes on Saturday, December 15, 2018, the land use code Section 1-1- 10(b), B.R.C. 1981 requires that if the last day of the call-up period is on a Saturday, “the period is extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.” In this case, the 30-day call-up period is extended to Monday, December 17, 2018. There is a City Council meeting within this time-period for call-up consideration on: December 4, 2018. The Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 444 of 553 staff memorandum of recommendation to Planning Board and other related background materials are available on the city website for Planning Board here. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic - The proposal supports a diverse and sustainable economy by providing improvements which support a variety of events at the Boulder Reservoir. •Environmental - The proposal was previously found to be consistent with the following Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies related to environmental sustainability including: 2.37 Environmentally Sensitive Urban Design 4.08 Energy-Efficient Building Design •Social - The proposal has been previously found consistent with the following Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies related to social sustainability including: 2.36 Physical Design for People 8.14 City Parks & Recreation OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – $3.4 million was approved for the 2017/2018 CIP to fund design and construction of the facility. •Staff time – The Site Review Amendment was completed under normal staff time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK By a unanimous vote (6-0) the Planning Board approved the application with conditions. The board’s approval revised the previous conditions of approval related to the amount of EV charging stations and the timing of the photovoltaic system installation. The revised conditions require the project to provide a photovoltaic system within three years’ time and sized to meet the projected annual energy demands of the building, site lighting, and parking areas; and to provide a minimum of four outlets for Electric Bike (eBike) charging located in the projects’ bike parking areas, monitoring the utilization of bike parking and increasing the number of bicycle racks and charging outlets to meet demand if needed. The project will also comply with Section 10-6-4, Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements for New Commercial Structures, based upon the normal parking count of 26 spaces for the proposed building – requiring three parking spaces to be equipped with 240v and 120v outlets, with at least one dual port charging station installed. Consistent with the Land Use Code section 9-4-4(c), B.R.C. 1981, if the City Council disagrees with the decision of the Planning Board, it may call up the application within a 30-day call up period which expires on December 17, 2018. The City Council may consider this application for call-up at the December 4, 2018 City Council public hearing. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981 have been met. No public comments have been received regarding this Site Review Amendment request. Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 445 of 553 BACKGROUND The prior approval on the Boulder Reservoir property (LUR2018-00013) allowed the replacement of the existing three-story Boulder Reservoir Visitor Center building constructed circa 1983 with a new one-story facility of approximately 7,830 square-feet. The replacement of the facility was identified as a need in 2011/2012 as part of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and the Facilities Strategic Plan. The project was previously approved with conditions on Aug. 16, 2018 by the Planning Board, and included the following conditions added by the board: 6. To minimize and mitigate energy use and to offset the parking lot heat island effect, the final site plan shall include electric vehicle charging stations based on the parking count of 288 stalls meeting the requirements of Title 10, B.R.C. 1981, and a photovoltaic system sized to meet the projected energy demands of the building, electric vehicle charging stations, and site lighting. 7. The Applicant shall provide adequate EV charging stations for bicycles and monitor the utilization of bike parking and increase the number of bicycle racks to meet demand if bike parking is found to be insufficient. PROPOSED AMENDMENT The applicant is proposing to move forward with the building, architecture, landscape and site design as was previously approved with conditions (LUR2018-00013 memorandum, and the August 16, 2018 meeting minutes), with the exception of the following changes: Photovoltaic System: Boulder Parks and Recreation will install a photovoltaic system sized to meet the energy demand of the building, through a separate construction and RFP process. The Visitor Center building is a separate construction project and budget than the photovoltaic system which is currently in the RFP process. The building will be constructed to be Solar Ready with space provided in the building for required electrical equipment (inverter and meter), and conduit provided to the roof for future electrical equipment and photovoltaic arrays. Electric Vehicle Charging: The applicant is requesting the removal of the requirement to provide Electric Vehicle Charging Stations contained within Condition 6 of the previous Site Review approval (LUR2018-00013), which would have required that 28 EV charging stations be installed. While there are 288 parking spaces near the new Visitor Center, those spaces serve many uses in addition to the new Visitor Center building. The Land Use Code requires one parking space per 300 square feet for the Visitor Center building, resulting in 26 parking spaces (rather than 288 spaces) required by code. Section 10-6-4, Electric Vehicle Charging Requirements for New Commercial Structures, requires that 10% of the 26 parking spaces – three parking spaces – be equipped with 240v and 120v outlets, with at least one dual port Level 2 charging station be installed. The applicant and the city’s climate and sustainability staff has indicated that the city’s energy goals would be better achieved through different investments than the installation of 28 EV charging stations at this location. Based on staff’s experience, the previously required 28 charging stations would likely far exceed the demand for EV charging at this location considering it’s a seasonal facility and the lack of demand for the existing EV charger already on-site. Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 446 of 553 Bicycle EV (eBike) Charging Stations and Bicycle Parking: The applicant proposes four 120v outlets (two receptacles) for bicycle charging: two outlets located in the north long-term bike parking area, and another two outlets by the drop-off zone along the parking lot. These will accommodate four electric bikes. The applicant has committed to monitor and increase the eBike charging and all bike parking as may be necessary. After an initial Technical Document review by city staff, the applicant proposes to increase the short-term trailer bike parking area in size to 15’ x 10’ to fully accommodate bike trailers. In addition, the layout of the long-term bicycle parking on the north side of the building has been revised to achieve the required clearances to allow for pedestrian movement around the bicycle parking area. Building Square Footage: The applicant is requesting an increase of 123 square feet to the proposed Visitor Center’s square footage to allow a 7,953 square foot building, up from the previous approved size of 7,830 square feet (LUR2018-00013). Per the applicant, the 123 SF increase is due to an error from the original proposal where a switch to a different exterior wall system with a larger cross-section was not reflected in their building square footage calculations on the submittal cover sheet. ANALYSIS The Planning Board approved the application with conditions and also concluded the following: • The project and the proposed amendments meet the relevant policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. • The project and the proposed amendments meet the criteria of Section 9-2-14(m) Amendments to Approved Site Plans, and the applicable criteria of Section 9-2-14(h) Criteria for Review, B.R.C. 1981. MATRIX OF OPTIONS Consistent with the land use code section 9-4-4(c), B.R.C. 1981, if City Council disagrees with the decision of the Planning Board, it may call up the application on or before December 17, 2018. There is one City Council meeting within this time-period for call-up consideration on: December 4, 2018. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Board Notice of Disposition dated November 15, 2018 B. Planning Board Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 447 of 553 Attachment A - PB Notice of Disposition dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 448 of 553 Attachment A - PB Notice of Disposition dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 449 of 553 Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center Site Review Application Requirement 4 - Legal Description Legal Description N 1/2 NE 1/4 9-1N-70 62 ACS M/ L BOULDER RESERVOIR The North 1220 feet of the Northeast ¼ of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, expressly excepting and excluding from the said North 1220 feet any part thereof which is within the boundaries of the tracts of land described in Book 926 at Page 187, and Book 163 at Page 527 as the same appear in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Boulder County, Colorado. And Beginning at a point on the North line of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, 2365 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner of the said Section 9; thence South 32°54’ East, 242.18 feet; thence on a curve to the right, the radius of said curve being 925 feet, the central angle of said curve being 32°, the long chord of said curve being South 16°54’ East, 509.94 feet; thence East, to the East line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the said Section 9; thence Northerly along the said East line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, to the North Quarter corner of the said Section 9;thence Westerly, in a straight line, the point of beginning. Attachment A - PB Notice of Disposition dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 450 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 1, 2018 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Liz Payton, Chair Bryan Bowen, Vice Chair John Gerstle Crystal Gray Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ensign STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, Planning Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Carolyn Fahey, Associate Planner Planning Manager, Planning Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Edward Stafford, Department Review Manager, Planning Chris Meschuk, Assistant City Manager / Interim Director of Planning Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager / Greenways Amanda Bevis, Public Works Project Specialist Jeff Yegian, Senior Project Manager, Housing Michele Crane, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Christopher Parezo, Principal at Civitas, Consultant on the Project Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Chris Ranglos, Associate Planner 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Payton, declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to Approve 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 451 of 553 4.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A.CALL UP ITEM: LUR2018-00041: Use Review for the professional and technical office uses with an approximately 1,067 square foot tenant space at 2150 Pearl Street in the Mixed Use 3 (MU-3) zoning district (“SOBO Design & Build”). The proposed hours of operation are 8AM to 9PM Monday thru Friday, and 6PM-12PM Saturday and Sunday. The call-up period expires on November 4, 2018. This item was not called up. 5.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A.AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of the University Place Addition Final Plat (TEC2017-00038): Final Plat to subdivide two developed lots (745 and 765 14th Street) totaling 0.64-acres to create 3 residential lots: Lot 1 (13,818 sf), Lot 2 (7,237 sf), and Lot 3 (7,010 sf). Lot 1 and 2 will each contain an existing single-family home. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. •C. Gray disclosed that she had received an email from the Sierra Club asking about the meeting and indicated that the property was an important animal corridor. C. Gray, L. Payton and J. Gerstle had conducted site visits. P. Vitale, H. Zuckerman and B. Bowen did not have any ex- parte contacts. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: There was no presentation by the applicant to the board. Board Questions: David Raduziner, the owner, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Kate Howard, a neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project specifically regarding the proposed density it could add to the area. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed final plat consistent with the minimum lot standards set forth in Section 9-12-12(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981? •L. Payton said that given the limited criteria, she would approve the item. She said she was sympathetic to it being in an historic district and preserving the historic character. She is confident that whatever would be constructed, it would be compatible by the Landmarks Design Review Board. The proposal would meet the minimum lot standards. Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 452 of 553 • C. Gray reminded the board that she had called up this item for it to be fully discussed. This board has a limited review and she agreed with the staff recommendation. • H. Zuckerman explained the criteria that needs to be applied and said that staff exhibited the standards have been met. He said he would vote for approval. • J. Gerstle agreed with the comments and the criteria has been satisfied. Motion: On a motion by H. Zuckerman seconded by P. Vitale the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve Technical Document Review # TEC2017-00038 for the University Place Addition Replat E Subdivision incorporating this staff memorandum and the Final Plat Subdivision Review Criteria found in Attachment B as findings of fact. B. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and Planning Board recommendation on a request to: 1) Approve a Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue; and 2) Adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • All board members disclosed that they had made a site visit. P. Vitale added he is familiar with the applicant through the commercial real estate development community within Boulder, however he has not personal worked with him and can be impartial on this matter. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Ferro answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Terry Palmos, with Palmos Development, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Terry Palmos, the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: No one spoke. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is rezoning from RR-1 to RL-2 appropriate for the subject property? • All board members said the proposed rezoning was appropriate. • H. Zuckerman said the rezoning does meet the criteria because it would be in line with the underlying land use designations in the area. • J. Gerstle add that the rezoning would correspond to the subcommunity plan. • L. Payton said the rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the low-density Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 453 of 553 residential land use designation on the BVCP land use designation map. Key Issue #2: Is the post-annexation agreement consistent with the terms of the 1997 Crestview West annexation agreement? • All board members thought it was consistent. • L. Payton stated that staff has drawn up a plan that is consistent. Motion: On a motion by B. Bowen seconded by H. Zuckerman the Planning Board voted 6-0 (D. Ensign absent) to approve the Post-Annexation Agreement for 1204 Upland Avenue in Attachment A and to adopt an ordinance amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to rezone approximately 33,067 square feet of land located at 1204 Upland Avenue from Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) to Residential - Low 2 (RL-2). 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. AGENDA TITLE: Identify Joint Advisory Board Rep to Participate in Ecosystems Summit Panel – November 16, 2018 • P. Vitale will attend. B. AGENDA TITLE: Alpine-Balsam Area Plan: Update on Results of Community Feedback and Discussion of Key Topics for Site Design Staff Presentation: J. Gatza presented the item to the board. Board Questions: City of Boulder staff answered questions from the board. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: What are the board’s priorities for mix of uses? • B. Bowen said that civic use on that property does not make sense. This location would be difficult to have multi-parking below grade; therefore, office uses will pay a penalty in terms of floor area. We are lacking affordable housing for people who work downtown. This location would not be well-served by vehicles or other bus lines besides the SKIP. He said the best use of the site would be to wrap Broadway, Alpine and Balsam roads with ground-story mixed uses, review how much parking could be done at one-story below grade, review storm water capacity and find out how much yield can be obtained for people that live there. This location has walkable access to jobs and services. Regarding the civic and county offices, the employees would not be well-served to work in this area due to transportation issues. The offices need to be where the employees can get to them, such as the Transit Village (TVAP2). This location would benefit by having less in-commuters. Regarding housing types, we should look at units to yield at income levels. He suggested transitional housing for families. While he agrees with co- locating city and county facilities, it would be better served at the TVAP location or the BVRC. • P. Vitale agreed with B. Bowen. Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 454 of 553 • C. Gray recommended not having any buildings close to the sidewalk on Broadway. That corridor needs a respite for pedestrians. The city needs more housing; therefore, she would like to see a mix of housing such as transitional housing for families or co-ops. She suggested dedicating some county services in the area. She would like the city to demonstrate some small affordable retail on the site. She would not recommend a full civic campus with limited housing. She would prefer mixed housing with some civic uses that are not everyday uses. • J. Gerstle would like to centralize activities that benefit most by being located next to each other for related services. However, the parking and access may not be practical. In general, for this site, a considerable proportion of the area should be designated for civic uses. Transitional housing for families which require social services should be located nearby. • P. Vitale added that it seems as if putting all the civic uses in one place makes the most sense otherwise, we will be facing the same problem years from now by having the civic offices spread out all over the city. • H. Zuckerman to locate all city facilities in one place sounds good. But co-locating with city and county offices is not impressive. To accommodate both would eat up the site in a desirable section of town. Other uses would benefit and the transportation would not be ideal for in- commuters. He said a mix of multi-family housing with strategically placed retail would be ideal. • L. Payton said she would prefer to see housing at this site and city facilities at another location. There is an existing park nearby, as well as schools. • B. Bowen said, if city services were placed on the site, that the choice of which city facilities would need to be considered. If it would make sense to have social services nearby for the housing community, then that should be done. If adding county services would be too much as mentioned by H. Zuckerman, then it should not be done. • P. Vitale said another site could offer more architecturally for the sense of a civic plaza than this location. • Regarding the co-location of county and city services at this location, the board appeared split. • J. Gerstle said there is significant benefit to having some city and county services at a co- location. In terms of what logical civic activities should be located at this site, more social services than cultural facilities would make sense. • H. Zuckerman said that having some community services at that site would be important. It would be good for businesses in that area. A bold government campus, on transit rich environment area, would work be best. • The board largely supported housing on this site with some level of civic or mixed use. • J. Gatza gave a summary that the board overall supported housing. Depending on the discussion surrounding intensity and height, potentially a small variety of types of mixed uses and looking at who it would serve and the needs. And some consideration of the trade-offs along the corridor with the county. Possibly incorporating some pockets of retail. Key Issue #2: How this should be accomplished? a) Intensity and Building Heights? • H. Zuckerman said the choice of zoning district would be important. He suggested BR-1 which would allow many different uses and support a vibrant mix. He recommended changing Appendix L in Title 9 to add the Alpine-Balsam area on to the map of Form Based Code areas. In addition, he suggested modifying Appendix J so that heights above 35 feet could be considered. Regarding heights, buildings above 35 feet could blend in well. The feathering of heights into the Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 455 of 553 community through setbacks should be done. Site Review and 55 feet needs to be available in that neighborhood and the vibrate mix or affordable housing will not be achieved without it. • P. Vitale said to get the value out of land, it would need to be developed as multi-family. To get the value desired for a true campus, it would need to be placed where intensity and heights blend better, but he expressed concern that it may be unattainable in this neighborhood. He said that more height on Broadway and feathering down to the park would be best. • B. Bowen said a mix of 35 feet to 55 feet have found to be supportable. He said looking at the yield on property would make sense to determine value. It may be better to have tall buildings next to the park. There has been a history of tall buildings wrapping parks and they create great viewsheds. And in the end, the market rate could be higher for the park-facing units, and then they can assist in paying for the affordable units. • C. Gray agreed that doing a Form Based Code for this area could be a promising idea. She supported variety of heights. She had concern surrounding a fifth story. She agreed about an opportunity for taller buildings overlooking the park. She suggested maintaining cross streets to help shape the buildings. • J. Gerstle agreed that the buildings do not need to feather down to three floors on the western edge of the site. He said the roads should continue through on 10th Street and 11th Street to integrate with the rest of the neighborhood. And he would support five stories along Broadway. • L. Payton would support buildings at 55 feet along Broadway if there is not too much bulk. She would prefer a more urban feel and more density in this location. She was uncertain about the feathering but in support of taller buildings along Broadway. • C. Gray said that renewables should be demonstrated. • B. Bowen said this location would be ideal to do an Eco district. He suggested extending the streets as private drives or crossings. • J. Gatza gave a summary that the board would support higher buildings and higher intensities along the eastern edge of the site. The design should not be too bulky. A range between three and five stories for buildings through the site with a good street grid to achieve vibrancy and mix of uses. b) Access and Mobility? • B. Bowen said that due to the existing parking in the area, there is not a lot of sharing happening within these lots. He said the costs of the parking proposed were reasonable but seemed low. If looking at parking above-grade level, they will need to be skirted with other uses. The crossing of the north-south streets will be important. The TMP should be used. He would like to see a yield study based on the scenarios presented. • J. Gerstle said the TMP should be used. • C. Gray would like to see a survey of the low-income housing needs regarding parking. The TDMP needs to be updated. There should be an NPP in this area. The amount of proposed parking seemed to overwhelm the site. • H. Zuckerman said this site should have wide sidewalks, long-term bike parking, solar panels, and covered bus shelters with solar. • L. Payton said she would like to see the plans be more aggressive towards the reduction of parking. She agreed with H. Zuckerman’s comments regarding the pedestrian experience. Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 456 of 553 c)Flood Mitigation? •H. Zuckerman would encourage reviewing the accessibility surrounding the creek and greenways and to make landscaping plans that would make sense. He suggested altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side rather than the Balsam side. •C. Gray said a North Boulder Park flood mitigation should be done. She would support daylighting the creek. •B. Bowen would support daylighting the creek and it could be made a feature. He said the park should accommodate flood capacity however, the current uses should remain. He also supported altering the creek’s location to the Alpine side. •J. Gerstle said the park should be used for flood mitigation but to not destroying its uses. He agreed with moving the creek to the Alpine side. He would prefer a wider flood way rather than a narrow one. He recommended changing the flood criteria to be based on a 500-yr flood. He questioned the option of using the streets for flood water conveyance. •P. Vitale said that using the park will be essential. •L. Payton long range vision for these greenways. She would support daylighting the creek. She said that a 500-year base flood elevation should be used as a base line rather than a 100-year. She summarized that the board supported daylighting and that it would be a useful and enjoyable space. C.AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Planning Board 2019 Application •The board discussed possible edits to the application. •C. Spence will make the edits and submit to the City Managers Office by November 15, 2018. D.AGENDA TITLE: Review Boards & Commissions Retreat Letter •L. Payton asked a board member to volunteer to be the editor of the letter, who will then review last year’s letter to see what has/has not been addressed, set deadlines, compile the information and wordsmith the final document. •L. Payton said that she would review last year’s letter regarding accomplishments. H. Zuckerman said he would assist with the editing of the final letter. •The board decided to hold a special study session to solely address the Letter to Council on November 29, 2018. 7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8.ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 457 of 553 ___________________ DATE Attachment B - PB Draft Minutes of Meeting dated November 15, 2018 Item 8C - Call-up: 5100 Reservoir Rd Amendment to Site Review City Council Meeting Page 458 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Discussion of the Large Homes and Lots in residential zoning districts code change project including but not limited to a proposed phased schedule/timeline, draft community engagement plan, updated scope and purpose statements, additional data, and proposed options moving forward. T he council will also discuss whether a temporary Suspension of Permits or interim development regulations related to Large Homes and Lots should be undertaken to allow the project to be completed in phases. P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Karl Guiler, Senior Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Discussion of the Large Homes and Lots in residential zoning districts code change project including but not limited to a proposed phased schedule/timeline, draft community engagement plan, updated scope and purpose statements, additional data, and proposed options moving forward. T he council will also discuss whether a temporary Suspension of Permits or interim development regulations related to Large Homes and Lots should be undertaken to allow the project to be completed in phases. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Memo and Attachaments City Council Meeting Page 459 of 553 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: December 4, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of the Large Homes and Lots in residential zoning districts code change project including but not limited to a proposed phased schedule/timeline, draft community engagement plan, updated scope and purpose statements, additional data, and proposed options moving forward. The council will also discuss whether a temporary Suspension of Permits or interim development regulations related to Large Homes and Lots should be undertaken to allow the project to be completed in phases. PRESENTERS Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Chris Meschuk, Asst. City Manager/Interim Director of Planning Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, Planning Karl Guiler, Senior Planner / Code Amendment Specialist Andrew Collins, Planner II / Code Amendment Specialist EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum is to update the City Council on the next steps of the Large Home and Lots code change project currently in progress. The discussion is intended as a follow up from the Sept. 25, 2018 study session where council commented on the proposed project scope, goals and areas of focus, and the Oct. 16, 2018 public hearing where two moratoria options were discussed but not acted upon. Staff is seeking any additional feedback on the project the council may have before moving forward with community outreach and code drafting, including whether or not a temporary suspension on permits for homes over a certain size or an interim development regulation will be necessary as part of the first phase or later phases of the project. Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 460 of 553 This memo contains the updated Scope, Why and Purpose Statements, and the preliminary goals for the project. This includes encouraging and/or requiring smaller home sizes to align with the city’s goals for improved energy conservation, providing creative housing and affordability choices within residential neighborhoods, encouraging a more efficient use of land, and improving the form and bulk standards where needed. A draft Community Engagement Plan (Attachment D) and recommended project phasing is included within the memo. This includes potential options and strategies to create new development regulations that address the project’s goals and purpose. Phase One is anticipated as a 3-6 month process to develop near-term form and bulk recommendations (such as floor area ratio) to address large homes sizes and allowing for community input. Phase Two is a longer term (9- 12 months) process to develop creative residential infill regulations that by their nature will require more time to create and analyze, as well as requiring additional community involvement. The materials and summaries from the prior discussions can be found below: Sept. 25th Study Session memorandum Sept. 25th Study Session summary dated Oct. 16th Oct. 16th Public Hearing presentation The main components of this memorandum are as follows: Large Homes and Lots Code Change project I. Updated Why and Purpose Statements, Preliminary Goals, & Scope (page 6) II. Community Engagement and Revised Project Timeline (page 8) III. Data on Large Homes Construction and Demolition of Existing Homes (page 10) IV. Case Studies of Peer Community Approaches to Large Homes (page 17) V. Potential Regulatory Strategies and Matrix of Options (page 18) VI. Questions for City Council (page 20) 1. Project Scope - Does council agree with the updated scope of the project? a. Which zones should be included in the scope (all residential zones, or only RR and RE, etc.)? b. Should the scope include all lots in the applicable zones, regardless of lot size? 2. Project Goals - Does council agree with the updated why and purpose statements, the preliminary goals for the project, and the community engagement plan? 3. Project Phasing and Options - Does council wish to move forward with a phased approach and timeline as outlined in the matrix of options? a. Does council have any questions about the data and case studies provided? b. Does council agree with the options that will be explored in each phase? c. Are there options that should be added, removed, or prioritized at this time? Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 461 of 553 BACKGROUND The Large Homes and Lots code change project stems out of concerns about the size of recent home construction in the city, particularly in North Boulder, and its impact on neighborhood character, diversity of housing type and housing affordability. Previous city efforts to address house size and neighborhood character were done through the Compatible Infill Development project of 2008/2009, the background of which can be found in the Sept. 25th Study Session memorandum here. City Council provided planning staff detailed comments on the scope, goals, areas of focus and timeline of the project as well as discussing potential code changes to address the character and affordability concerns including but not limited to updated floor area ratio (FAR) regulations, a new floor area maximum, and accelerating the city’s energy code regulations with respect to single-family homes and net zero construction. Incentives such as allowing appropriate infill of smaller homes or duplexes etc. and special subdivision standards aimed at preserving existing housing stock were also topics discussed. On Oct. 16, 2018, City Council considered two potential moratorium options on the construction of single-family residences 3,500 square feet or greater on lot sizes 10,000 square feet or greater, to allow for the development of new regulations to address the issue of large homes and result in homes more in character within residential neighborhoods. Following public comment, council opted not to pass a moratorium, but requested that an updated project plan be prepared including potential regulatory options, phasing approaches, a draft community engagement plan and timeline that would inform whether or not a moratorium should be passed. As part of this consideration, City Council requested specific data on single-family home construction, including demolition permits, to assess the extent of the problem. That data can be reviewed here. Additional data since the Oct. 16th meeting has also been assembled and can be found on page 13. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – This project is considering a number of potential options to encourage or require smaller homes sizes and creative residential infill solutions on large lots. Strategies considered may include fee increases or fee reductions (for example increased fees for the demolition of homes in good-standing, or reduced fees for construction of creative infill development with affordable units). In addition, allowing more smaller homes, may potentially increase the amount of residential building permits. At this time given the multiple strategies and variables still being considered, the economic impacts would require further study. • Environmental – This project has the potential to improve the environmental impact of new infill residential development. A key strategy being considered is accelerating Boulder’s Energy Conservation Code requirements by reducing the Energy Rating Index (ERI) score requirements for new homes, thereby attaining net-zero energy goals sooner. In addition, the project is considering new residential infill solutions of large lots, which when viewed on a city-wide or regional context, Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 462 of 553 encourages an efficient and sustainable use of land, rather than continuing a sprawling development pattern of a single home on a single large lot. Other potential energy conservation measures that mitigate environmental impacts of infill residential development, include potential embodied energy parameters for the construction of new homes and the demolition of existing homes that could be included as part of the Energy Conservation Code update. For more information see Attachment B. • Social – This project seeks to encourage creative residential infill resolutions, which have the potential to support a broader housing and economic diversity in the city’s residential neighborhoods. The project also recognizes that care must be given to ensure that the scale and form of infill development is compatible with the neighborhoods. Acknowledging that the current trend of large home infill development is incongruent with the scale and form of the established neighborhoods, requiring smaller homes and encouraging a broader array of housing and economic diversity within the city’s neighborhoods will be a benefit for the community. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – This project is being completed using existing resources. • Staff time – This project is being completed using existing staff resources. The prioritization of this project will be a focus of planning staff’s immediate work program for the coming year, including phase one near term solutions and community engagement beginning in January 2019. The project is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2019. Other work plan items including the Community Benefits project, Urban Open Space, and Comprehensive Design Standards will be pushed out approximately 4 to 7 months more than previously anticipated at the start of 2018. Those projects are now anticipated to be complete by the middle of 2020. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK A Matters Item was held with the Planning Board to discuss the Large Homes and Lots project on Nov. 15, 2018. The purpose of the discussion was to update the board on the preliminary scope and goals of the project and to receive feedback. The three questions below framed the discussion and feedback from Planning Board: 1. Does Planning Board have any feedback regarding the project scope, draft Why and Purpose statements, and the community engagement approach? 2. Does the board have any suggestions for potential solutions to address the goals of the project? 3. Does the board have any suggestions on phasing the project to achieve near-term solutions on home size, and potentially longer-term creative infill solutions? Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 463 of 553 Planning Board was generally in support of the project scope, Why and Purpose statements, and community engagement approach. One board member questioned the urgency of the project when only approximately 25 large homes where being constructed per year. Other board members stated that each large home that is constructed or lot that is infilled, represents a lost opportunity for better residential development that would accomplish the city’s goals and policies as reflected in the project scope. Suggestions included: • Consider Agriculture zones within the scope. • The project may be two separate projects: Large Homes, and then Large Lot infill redevelopment – but both should be addressed. • Large homes seem to be the prevailing issue, regardless of lot size. • Saving existing housing alone will not preserve affordability. • Need a predictable outcome and streamlined review process for creative infill, and it should incentivized. • Rural Character may or may/not factor in – does it even exist in the RR and RE districts given the exiting large homes, and is it something to preserve? • Visual surveys will be important during the community engagement to help the public visualize different infill concepts. The board had a thorough discussion regarding potential solutions to address the goals of the project, many of them echoing the ideas discussed by council during the Sept. 25, 2018 study session. Suggestions included: • A fee component will be important to incorporate as incentives/disincentives. • A Second home tax should be applied, similar to Steamboat Springs, CO. • Increased fees for demolition of homes could be a strategy. • Inclusionary housing fee should still apply to a one-to-one replacement of an existing home. • Supportive of subdivisions of large lots into more than one lot, and supportive of potentially additional ADU’s on a single lot. Revise review process to expedite. • Should be a pathway both for affordability requirements, but also for people who may not want to provide an affordable second unit on their land. • Increasing density should be on the table, perhaps on a set schedule, potentially with FAR adjustments. • Consider developing a tiny home pilot-project and pocket neighborhoods such as the Poplar Project. Planning Board was generally supportive of a phased approach to the project (near-term size adjustments, and longer-term creative infill solutions), provided community engagement took place. The board was generally not in support of an immediate moratorium. Interim regulations without a level of community engagement occurring was also a concern. Additional feedback included: Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 464 of 553 • An immediate moratorium would not be prudent given the investments many people have already made on design and engineering of homes that may not already be in the system. There does not seem to be an immediate emergency necessitating a moratorium. • Interim regulations could make sense if community engagement occurs along with it. • Supportive of a phased approach, so long as community engagement occurs before implementing FAR or other form and bulk adjustments. • The creative infill solutions will require much more community conversation. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The announcement of a possible moratorium on house size to preserve existing neighborhood character and promote affordability prompted the attendance of potentially impacted residents and design professionals to the Oct. 16th public hearing. Opinions ranged from some support for a moratorium and to others that expressed concern that their ‘in progress’ plans to build large homes would be seriously impacted after significant investment. A link to the video of the public hearing is provided here and written public feedback received up to the publishing of this memorandum are found within Attachment E. ANALYSIS I. UPDATED WHY AND PURPOSE STATEMENTS, GOALS, & SCOPE At the Sept. 25th Study Session, City Council made specific comments on the proposed Why and Purpose Statements, the preliminary goals, and the scope for the project. These can be found in the study session summary found here. Based on this feedback, staff has included an updated Why and Purpose Statements, as well as the preliminary goals, and the scope of the project for council review below. The project’s preliminary goals are a starting point for the project, and council recognizes and expects the community’s input to inform any recommendations and decisions made on the project throughout the process. The public’s feedback will inform the development of potential options, and as yet-to-be-determined recommendations. Suggestions and ideas from the community are strongly encouraged, and the community’s feedback will be imperative to the success of the project. Updated Why Statement: The city’s residential neighborhoods are experiencing a dramatic demographic and economic shift with the replacement of modest more-affordable homes with larger more-expensive homes. These large homes are often inconsistent with the existing character of the neighborhoods, and are an inefficient use of land that has exacerbated the city’s housing / jobs imbalance and the high-cost of housing. In addition, large homes do not align with the city’s energy-conservation goals and Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 465 of 553 policies as they consume greater amounts of energy, both in operation and construction, than do modest-sized homes. To address these shortcomings, smaller home sizes and creative infill solutions that consider the potential for multiple smaller-homes in large lot areas (where appropriate), should be encouraged to foster a more efficient use of land, energy and resources, and to support a broader housing and economic diversity in the city’s residential neighborhoods. Updated Purpose Statement: Consistent with newly updated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies (see below), staff will amend the Land Use Code to require smaller homes in residential zones that are consistent with the character of the existing neighborhoods, and that advance the city’s energy-efficiency, climate sustainability, and housing affordability goals and policies. This includes creative solutions for both the preservation of existing homes and the development of more small houses (rather than fewer large houses) in residential zones. Preliminary Goals: 1) Consider creative solutions to potentially allow infill redevelopment of large lots into two or more houses / units – additional units may be allowed where appropriate, provided they are more affordable and designed in such a way as to be sensitive to the neighborhood context. 2) Consider a hard cap on floor area for single family residential development. 3) Study incentives / disincentives for preserving existing housing stock, and creative infill solutions that are also affordable. 4) Analyze potential strategies and phasing for adjusting the Land Use Code’s size, form and bulk compatibility standards. 5) Consider updates to the city Energy Conservation Code to accelerate the city’s energy conservation goals. Scope: The project includes the study of potential land use and energy related regulatory tools to address large homes being constructed within the residential zoning districts of the city, including but not limited to the Residential – Estate (RE) and Residential – Rural (RR) zoning districts, that may be incompatible with the existing neighborhood character, and the city’s energy-efficiency and affordability goals. The project will explore regulations related to: • Form, bulk, and intensity standards of the Land Use Code. • Incentives or disincentives, to encourage the construction of smaller energy-efficient homes and/or the preservation of existing homes. • Creative infill standards to consider multiple smaller-units on large lots (where appropriate), including the subdivision of large lots into two or more smaller lots. Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 466 of 553 II. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & REVISED PROJECT TIMELINE Draft Community Engagement Plan: The project will follow Boulder’s Decision-Making Process as outlined in the City’s Strategic Engagement Framework. This will include meaningful public engagement and participation at community events, as well as online resources, and tools for feedback. The project is currently in the initial Planning Stage, where the project is scoped, issues and affected stakeholders are identified, and a Community Engagement Plan is drafted. The Planning Stage is anticipated to run through Winter 2018/2019. Community engagement events for the Large Homes and Lots project have been conceptualized to run concurrently with the engagement for the Use Table and Standards project. This will enable staff to work efficiently through both projects, and avoids meeting fatigue for the public, who would otherwise have to attend twice the number of meetings. Ultimately, the project may be phased such that readily attainable adjustments to the form and bulk standards of the Land Use Code are implemented within a three to six- month timeframe, and strategies requiring more in-depth consideration and community discussion phased to conclude by the winter of 2019. Any proposed changes to the Land Use Code will require a recommendation from Planning Board and ultimately City Council approval, including public hearings. An initial draft community engagement outline is found in Attachment D. Proposed Project Timeline: Figure 1- Previously proposed timeline (Sept. 25, 2018) Figure 2- Proposed phased timeline Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 467 of 553 Above is the original timeframe of the project that was presented to the City Council at the Sept. 25, 2018 study session. Based on recently expressed council concerns on the timing, staff is proposing a phased approach including short-term and long-term code changes such that readily attainable adjustments to the form and bulk standards of the Land Use Code (e.g., a revised floor area calculation or new floor area maximum) and/or changes to the energy code (e.g., acceleration of the net zero requirements for single- family homes) could be implemented within a shorter timeframe (i.e., 3-6 months), and strategies requiring more in-depth consideration and community discussion (e.g., new subdivision or density incentives etc.) would be a later phase intended to conclude by the 4th Quarter 2019, at least two months after the original projected conclusion of the project timeline shown above. Staff suggests the subdivision and additional density options as the second phase since this will require more public outreach, but may also necessitate Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use map changes or rezoning’s to implement. The total timeframe would generally fit within the original one-year timeline of the project, albeit would be at least 2-3 months longer than originally planned to allow for the interim, phase one adoption processes. Any proposed changes to the Land Use Code will require a recommendation from Planning Board and ultimately City Council approval, including public hearings. Following community outreach, staff is proposing to return with a package of code changes in December 2019 to hear input from the council. Impact to other 2018/2019 Work Plan Items: Acceleration of the first phase of the project will impact the timing of other work program items, as staff resources will be focused on conducting community outreach and analyzing different floor area and/or energy code options. Much of the outreach for Large Homes and Lots can be done to some extent in unison with the underway Use Standards and Tables project, which may or may not also include changes to use requirements in single-family zoning districts - staff is not proposing to slow down the Use Standards project. The Use Standards and Table project, which was included in the Land Use Code change list as a top priority and was recommended by Planning Board, commenced in August of this year and has already included four productive sessions with the subcommittee. Council will receive an Information Packet on Dec. 6th detailing the work of the subcommittee including the project scope, Why and Purpose statements, preliminary goals, and the community engagement plan. There will be a joint community engagement workshop planned for January 2019, staff proposes to keep that project on its original timeline to complete code changes by the 3rd quarter of next year. Staff is proposing that the following projects have adjusted timelines to allow for the Phase 1 Large Homes and Lots effort: 1. Community benefit and enhanced Site Review criteria – (4 month delay, anticipated completion Dec. 2019-Feb. 2020) 2. Urban Open Space in Development Projects (6-7 month delay, anticipated completion Mid-2020). Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 468 of 553 3. Comprehensive Design Standards (6-7 month delay, anticipated completion mid- 2020) III. DATA ON LARGE HOMES CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOMES To inform whether or not to pass an interim development regulation limiting house size, council requested that data concerning house size, demolitions and remodels in the Rural Residential, Estate Residential and Low Density Residential zoning districts per year be provided to the council so that it could be better understand the extent of the issue. The Residential Low – 2 (RL-2) zone was not included in the study session discussion or included for further analysis since the zone generally includes smaller sized lots (e.g., many less than 6,000 square feet in size) through the aggregation of common open space. In addition, home sizes in the RL-2 zone are generally limited by Planned Unit Development or Site Review approvals, unlike the other zones that have larger lot sizes and generally are not subject to PUD or Site Review approvals. All data represented in the memo was compiled with the assistance of the city’s Information Resources team using issued final certificate of occupancy data as well as demolition permit data. 2018 year data are incomplete as reflected in the charts below. Pre-2004 data was added in the city’s permitting system prior to consistent implementation of the building permit valuation calculator, therefore square footage data from before 2004 may include gaps and/or inaccurate information. On Oct. 16th, staff prepared a presentation (found here) that provided a holistic overview of construction in residential zoning districts city wide. The following observations were made:  Per Figure 2 below, most lots that are 10,000 square feet or greater are in the Rural Residential (RR) and Estate Residential (RE) zones – both with over 80 percent of the lots greater than 10,000 square feet. Nearly 20 percent of lots in Residential Low – 1 (RL-1) are greater than 10,000 square feet. The minimum lots size in each district is as follows: RR – 30,000 square feet; RE – 15,000 square feet, and RL-1 – 7,000 square feet. Figure 2- Number and percentages of lots over 10,000 sf in residential zones. Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 469 of 553  In the RE, RR and RL-1 zones, the number of demolitions on lots 10,000 SF or greater between 2010 and 2018, has ranged from four to 23 per year, with 2015 having the highest amount. The 2018 number will likely be more than that represented in Figure 3 below once more projects are given certificates of occupancy before the end of the year. The average between 2010 and 2017 is twelve per year. Figure 3 below: Figure 3- Number of existing homes demolished on lot over 10,000 sf from 2010 to 2018 in the RE, RR, and RL-1 zones.  In the same zones, Figure 4 shows that there has been an increasing trend of new homes being constructed on lots greater than 10,000 square feet. Again, the 2018 figure is low because not all are yet finalized. The replacement homes are significantly larger with an average home size of 2,206 square feet being demolished since 2010, and being replaced by an average new home size of 6,105 square feet. Figure 4- New of new homes constructed on lots greater than 10,000 sf and average new home size versus existing home size on lots greater than 10,000 sf from 2010 to 2018 in the RE, RR, and RL-1 zones. Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 470 of 553  In terms of remodels with new square footage, this has also been trending upward; however, with the exception of 2012, the amount of additions has remained relatively constant since 2010 as Figure 5 below demonstrates in the RE, RR, and RL-1 zones: Figure 5- Number of permits for new additions between 2010 and 2018 and the average home size after an addition per year in the RE, RR, and RL-1 zones. Note: due to permit data constraints the difference in size is not reported.  While there is no discernable increase in square footage in new homes since 2010 when viewing the table in Figure 6 below, the extended view back to 2000 shows that there has been a cityside and localized (i.e., RE, RR and RL-1 zones) increase in house size with the RE, RR and RL-1 zones seeing the largest sized homes comparatively. The average new homes size in 2000 was approximately 3,318 SF across all residential zones and 4,747 SF in the RE, RR, and RL-1 zones, and approximately in 2018 is 4,835 SF across all residential zones and 6,520 SF in the RE, RR, and RL-1 zones. Figure 6- Average home size trends by residential zones citywide and in the RE, RR, and RL-1 zones between 2000 and 2018. Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 471 of 553 Additional Data Staff has compiled additional figures for new home size and demolition in response to council’s feedback during the Oct. 16, 2018 council meeting. 2018 year data are incomplete and therefore are not included in the updated charts below. Figure 7- Median size (sf) of new homes constructed and of demolished homes per year in residential zones over time.  In 2017, the median new home size in the residential zones was approximately 5,600 SF. Since 2006 the trend in median new home size is consistently in the 5,000 to 6,000 SF range. The homes that have been demolished in residential zones since 2006 have had a median size in the 1,200 to 2,000 SF range. New homes constructed have been nearly three times as large as the homes that have been demolished since 2001. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Median New Home Size & Demolition Size -Residential Zones Median New SF Median Demo SF Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 472 of 553 Figure 8 - Median size (sf) of new homes constructed versus demolished homes they replaced for 2000 to present.  Figure 8 displays the median size of replacement homes by zoning district from 2001 to present. This is derived from comparing the square footage of an existing house that was demolished to the new home size constructed on the same lot. RE and RR zones have the largest new homes constructed, as well as the largest existing home size. Replacement median home size in the RE zone has been nearly four times as large as the homes they have replaced since 2001. The RE and RR zones have a larger minimum lot size which in turn allows a greater floor area under today’s regulations. Number of Replacement Homes per Residential Zone Zone Number of Replacement Homes Median New Size (SF) Median Demolished Size (SF) RE 31 6,274 1,596 RR-1 16 6,333 2,628 RR-2 35 6,392 2,200 RMX-1 12 3,823 1,115 RM-2 6 3,439 1,097 RL-1 252 5,003 1,436 RL-2 15 4,051 1,400 RH-2 1 1,387 500 RH-5 1 2,807 480 Figure 9 – Number of Replacement Homes (“pops & scrapes”) per residential zone, and median size (sf) of new homes constructed versus demolished homes they replaced for 2000 to present. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 RE RR-1 RR-2 RMX-1 RM-2 RL-1 RL-2 RH-2 RH-5 Median Replacement Home Size vs. Demolished Home Median new size Median Demo Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 473 of 553  Figure 9 displays the number of replacement homes per zoning district since 2001. The RL-1 zoning district has seen the highest number of replacement homes at 252, which in-part led to the original compatible development ordinance in 2008/2009 that established more restrictive floor area limits. The RE and RR zoning districts have seen a combined 92 Replacement Homes since 2001, and with the largest new home median size at approximately 6,300 SF. Figure 10 – Median size (sf) of new homes constructed per Year by Zone from 2004 to 2017. Note: If there is not a Zone column shown in a given year, then no new homes where issued a certificate of occupancy within the zone that year. The small number at the bottom of each column is the number of final certificate of occupancies issued that year for each zone.  Figure 10 displays the median square foot size of new homes constructed within the RE, RL-1, RL-2, RMX-1, RR1 and RR2 zones from 2004 to 20017. Since 2010, median home size has increased the greatest amount within the RE and RR zones particularly within the last three years. RL-1, which accounts for the greatest number of new homes constructed within these zones, has seen it’s median home size slightly decrease from its 2010 peak of 6,000 SF - but remains around the 5,000 SF mark. Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 474 of 553  Figure 11 below displays the number of replacements homes by subcommunity planning area since 2001. The RL-1 infill development accounts for the bulk of replacement homes in the Central Boulder subcommunity. The North Boulder subcommunity has experience the greatest number of replacement homes in the RE zones and a high number of RR zones, and to a lesser extent the RL zones. The RE, RR, and RL zone replacement homes have largely been confined to the Central and North Boulder subcommunities. Number of Replacement Homes by Subcommunity and Zone Number of Replaced Homes Median Demolished Home SF Median New Home SF Central Boulder RE 7 2,526 8,563 RR's 16 2,114 6,781 RL-1 228 1,400 4,980 RL-2 2 1,981 3,940 RMX's 12 1,115 3,823 RM's 4 1,047 3,925 RH's 2 490 2,097 Crossroads RM's 1 1,540 2,806 North Boulder RE 23 1,080 5,947 RR's 14 2,877 6,510 RL-1 10 1,594 4,363 RL-2 11 1,100 4,051 RM's 1 1,100 1,104 South Boulder RL-1 14 2,120 6,299 Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 475 of 553 RL-2 2 1,900 4,276 Southeast Boulder RE 1 2,980 5,518 Figure 11 – Number of Replacement Homes (“pops & scrapes”) by Subcommunity planning area, and per residential zone, with median size (sf) of new homes constructed versus demolished homes they replaced for 2000 to present. Note: The table only displays Subcommunities and zones that have at least one replacement home. IV.CASE STUDIES OF PEER COMMUNITY APPROACHES TO LARGE HOMES Much like the City of Boulder, many different communities grapple with compatibility and affordability issues associated with the ongoing residential infill of their neighborhoods. Staff has reviewed 13 communities’ single-family development regulations to glean insight into how their respective regulations compare. The case studies also highlight potential regulatory tools (such as FAR bonuses, overlays, and conservation districts) that could be implemented in addition to adjustments to typical form, bulk and intensity standards. Below are key takeaways from the case studies review (Attachment C): •Boulder’s current FAR regulations are generally in-line or more restrictive for moderate to large-sized lots (lots greater than 7,000 SF), compared to the communities reviewed that have FAR requirements (.25 to .5 in Boulder vs. approx. .3 to .7 for other communities). •Boulder allows a greater FAR for smaller lots (lots 7,000 SF and smaller) compared to the communities reviewed that have FAR requirements (.5 to .62 in Boulder vs. approx. .3 to .4 for other communities). •Of the communities’ reviewed that have FAR requirements, none have hard cap limits on floor area, only a ratio or a sliding percentage calculation. •Boulder permits among the tallest building height for single-family development (35’) compared to the 13 communities reviewed (typically 30’ range, or a sliding scale from as low as 24’ to 36’ max. depending on roof structure, design and/or special review). Note that Boulder measures height from the lowest adjacent grade within 25’ of the structure, and varies among the other communities. •Additional potential tools to regulate homes, size, character and compatibility: o Neighborhood Conservation Districts – Denver, Boulder County o FAR Overlay Districts – Glendale, CA o Design Review Boards – Glendale, CA, Santa Clara, CA, Sausalito, CA •Potential context-based / designated neighborhood standards – Boulder County, Malibu, CA •Potential creative residential infill incentives and tools: o Portland – Residential Infill Project – FAR bonuses from duplexes, Triplexes, ADU’s and affordability restrictions. Reduction in single- family home allowed FAR Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 476 of 553 o Denver – Form-based infill design regulations such as garden courts, townhomes, etc. V. POTENTIAL REGULATORY STRATEGIES AND MATRIX OF OPTIONS Following the Sept. 25, 2018 study session on large home and lots, staff moved forward with the development of an array of options suggested by the City Council in efforts to encourage or require smaller homes, allow for more creative infill of multiple smaller units, enhance housing affordability, promote sustainable development and the efficient use of land, preserve and protect neighborhood character, allow for permeability (openness between homes) and preserve existing housing stock. To address these goals, the following categories have been created as areas to address: •Limit Home Size, Bulk and Massing •Energy Conservation Code •Creative Infill •Incentivize Preservation of Existing Homes For more detail on what is included in each of the categories, Attachment A includes a comprehensive list. For additional detail on potential Energy Conservation Code strategies and accelerated timing see Attachment B. Using these options, staff has created a summary matrix on the following page that outlines addressing these options in part and/or in a phased timeline. The proposed phases of the project have been conceptualized as follows: Phase 0: Immediate code changes / Interim development regulations Phase 1: Revise regulations related to home size including form and bulk, and intensity standards. Phase 2: Revise regulations related to additional dwelling unit / density options. City Council Potential Options Matrix Phase 0 (before the end of 2018) Description of Options Staff notes Prepare an ordinance for an interim regulation of 6 months to limit the issuance of building permits for single-family homes to 4,000 square feet on lots 10,000 square feet or greater to allow Phase 1 provisions to be developed and adopted •Based on council feedback, staff could bring back an ordinance for consideration on Dec. 18, 2018 Prepare an ordinance for an interim regulation of one year to limit the issuance of building permits for single- family homes to 4,000 square feet on lots 10,000 square feet or greater to allow Phase 1 and Phase 2 provisions to be developed and adopted Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 477 of 553 Prepare an ordinance for an interim regulation that includes a different timeframe (e.g., 4 months, 9 months) or scope (e.g., lot size, square footage) No interim regulation ordinance N/A Phase 1 – Short Term options (3-6 months) Description of Options Staff notes Create new floor area maximum for RE and RR zoned lots1 • Staff will begin an outreach process in Jan. 2019 to discuss the different options with stakeholders before returning to City Council with developed options, followed by ordinance drafting Create new floor area maximum for RE, RR, RL-1 and RMX-1 zoned lots1 Accelerate net zero requirements for single-family homes such that a 3,000 sf home must be net zero by the end of 2019 instead of 2022.4 Combination of options above1 No action N/A Phase 2 – Long Term options (6 months after Phase 1) Description of Options Staff notes Explore and develop regulations for limited subdivisions that encourage cottage court type infill homes instead of single large homes 2 • May alter neighborhood character • May necessitate creation of special subdivision regulations • May necessitate BVCP land use map changes and rezonings • New floor area or bulk reducing regulations may be necessary to limit bulk of new units Explore and develop regulations for the allowance for limited duplexes and triplexes instead of single large homes 2 Explore and develop regulations for the allowance for limited additional accessory dwelling units instead of single large homes 2 Explore and develop a tiny home pilot project2 Explore and develop regulations or incentives to preserve existing housing stock, including but not limited to new regulations or financial incentives3 Explore and develop incentives to reduce embodied energy in construction materials4 Includes all options above Same as above Some options above Same as above No action N/A Alternative Phase – Combination of Phase 1 and 2 Above (9-10 months) Follow the original timeline and conduct outreach on both Phase 1 and 2 changes simultaneously with only one Planning Board/City Council adoption process with anticipated completion by the Aug.-Sept. 2019. Same as above. 1 also includes other bulk limiting possibilities listed within the “Limit Home Size, Bulk and Massing” category in Attachment A. Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 478 of 553 2 for a more detailed description of the option see the “Creative Infill” category in Attachment A. 3 other financial options are listed in the “Incentivize Preservation of Existing Homes” category in Attachment A. 4 for more information on potential Energy Conservation Code options see Attachment B. IV. QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL 1. Project Scope - Does council agree with the updated scope of the project? a. Which zones should be included in the scope (all residential zones, or only RR and RE, etc.)? b. Should the scope include all lots in the applicable zones, regardless of lot size? 2. Project Goals - Does council agree with the updated why and purpose statements, the preliminary goals for the project, and the community engagement plan? 3. Project Phasing and Options - Does council wish to move forward with a phased approach and timeline as outlined in the matrix of options? a. Does council have any questions about the data and case studies provided? b. Does council agree with the options that will be explored in each phase? c. Are there options that should be added, removed, or prioritized at this time? ATTACHMENTS A: Potential Regulatory Strategies B: Energy Conservation Code Potential Strategies C: Case Studies Review D: Draft Community Engagement Plan E: Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 479 of 553 LARGE HOMES AND LOTS - STRATEGY OPTIONS DRAFT v2.2 11/29/2018 Approach Strategy What it Achieves Zones affected Phase Depts. Involved Council Target Goals Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Reduced Reduces the buildable square footage RE, RR's, RL's?1 Planning • smaller homes • compatible neighborhood character • sustainable development Building Coverage reduced Reduces the building footprint (ground level coverage)RE, RR's, RL's?1 Planning • smaller homes • compatible neighborhood character • sustainable development • permeability (openess between homes) Side and/or Rear Setback increased Pushes buildings further away from side/rear property lines, reduces the building envelope RE, RR's, RL's?1 Planning • compatible neighborhood character • permeability (openess between homes) Side-Yard Bulk-Plane reduced Reduces the volume of the 3dimensional building envelope RE, RR's, RL's?1 Planning • smaller homes • compatible neighborhood character Side-Yard Wall Articulation increased Require a shorter length or greater setback for tall walls along side property lines RE, RR's, RL's?1 Planning • compatible neighborhood character • permeability (openess between homes) Building Height reduced Reduce the allowable building height for homes RE, RR's, RL's?1 Planning • smaller homer • compatible neighborhood character Neighborhood Conservation Districts / overlays Opt-in overlay districts at the neighborhood level that establish additional form, design, massing, and character requirements based on the unique neighborhood context. May or may not include a historic element. TBD, opt-in 2 Planning • smaller homes (potentially) • compatible neighborhood character • creative residential infill (potentially) • permeability (potentially) • preserves existing homes (potentially) Accelerate Net-Zero requirements disincentive to build larger homes that trigger more stringent compliance. Requires homes to achieve net- zero sooner; lowers the SF threshold tied to greater energy conservation All 1 - Parallel but separate process Public Works (Building Services Division), Planning, Climate Initiatives • smaller homes • sustainable development Institute Embodied Energy reduction incentives for construction materials Adds to the standards for energy conservation - regulations for building materials All 2 - Parallel but separate process Public Works (Building Services Division), Planning, Climate Initiatives • sustainable development Disincentivize heated pools and spas Adds to the requirements for energy conservation - regulations to discourage pools and spas that consume energy All 2 - Parallel but separate process Public Works (Building Services Division), Planning, Climate Initiatives • sustainable development Allow large lots to subdivide into two or more smaller lots Allows multiple smaller-homes on a large lot rather than single large- home TBD 2 Planning • smaller homes • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability (potentially) Explicitly allow Cottage Court type infill as a use. Develop design regs, use standards, and conditions. Allows multiple smaller-homes around a shared courtyard / greenspace RE, RR's, RL's, RMX's, RM's?2 Planning • smaller homes • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability (potentially) • compatible neighborhood character (potentially) Develop a tiny-home pilot project Permits tiny homes in a pilot project, provides alternative housing TBD 2 Planning, Housing • smaller homes • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability • sustainable development (potentially) Allow ADU's in RL-2, and additional ADU's in other zones (not permitted today), follows same ADU's regs. as will be adopted by ADU Ord. 8256 Allows Accessory Dwelling Units in the city's largest residential zone RL-2 2 Planning, Housing • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability Allow multiple ADU's on a given lot (not permitted today), follows same ADU's regs. as will be adopted by ADU Ord. 8257 Allows Accessory Dwelling Units in the city's largest residential zone RE, RR's, RL-1 2 Planning, Housing • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability Allow Duplexes and Triplexes in zones not currently permitted scaled to fit the neighborhood, and read as one home - in zones not currently permitted Require affordability / deed restrictions on all units other than one market rate unit permitted. Develop design regs, use standards, and conditions. Allows greater housing variety and multiple smaller-units on a given property, rather than a single larger home. RE, RR's, RL's, RMX's, RM's?2 Planning • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability Allow large lots that preserve an existing home as a principal dwelling to have a detached ADU at market rate prices and SF. Conservation easement must be recorded. Relax occupancy limits. Provides incentives to preserve an existing home on a large lot.RE, RR's 2 Planning, Housing • preserves existing housing • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability Allow lots that preserve an existing home as a principal dwelling a bonus SF for any attached/detached ADU. Protection ordinance/ Easement must be in place. Relax occupancy limits. Provides incentives to preserve an existing home on a lot.TBD 2 Planning, Housing • preserves existing homes • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability Allow lots that Landmark an existing home an additional floor area or density bonus and market rate prices for any attached / detached ADU. Official Landmark procedures must be followed. Relax occupancy limits. Provides incentives to preserve an existing home on a lot.TBD 2 Planning, Housing, Historic • preserves existing homes • creative residential infill • efficient use of land • housing affordability • compatible neighborhood character Institute an additional fee for the demolition of existing homes in good-repair (scrapes), and not due to disaster or dereliction Institutes a disincentive for the demolition of existing homes.TBD 2 Planning, Finance • preserves existing homes • compatible neighborhood character Provide a property tax-break to homeowners 65+ years old, and that have owned the same home for over 15 years. Provides an incentive to preserve an existing home, and to abate rising property tax costs for established residents. TBD 2 Boulder County Assessor, Planning, Finance • preserves existing housing • compatible neighborhood character ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE INCENTIVIZE PRESERVATION OF EXISITING HOMES CREATIVE INFILL LIMIT HOME SIZE, BULK AND MASSING Goals are to encourage: smaller homes, creative infill of large lots with multiple smaller-units (where appropriate), housing affordability, sustainable development, efficient use of land, compatible neighborhood character, permeability (openess between homes), preservation of existing homes. Attachment A City Council Meeting Page 480 of 553 1 BOULDER ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE – POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR HOME SIZE AND ENERGY A factor to consider as average home size increases each year is the correlation between home size and energy consumption. As square footage increases, the burden on heating and cooling equipment rises, lighting requirements increase, and the likelihood that the household uses more than one refrigerator increases, as does the presence of home theaters, outdoor pools, spas, and similar high-energy-consuming features. Home energy usage is well regulated by Boulder’s energy code and homes are increasingly being required to be Net Zero Energy, however, there is room for increasing these requirements as a tool to incentivize smaller homes, or to at least further mitigate the impact of larger homes. Below, energy conservation staff have proposed an acceleration of existing energy code requirements as well as other strategies that might be considered. Operational Energy Boulder has approximately 44,000 residential dwelling units that consume 15% of the city’s energy annually. A key strategy in the city’s roadmap for meeting our climate commitment goals is developing an increasingly stringent energy code to curb this consumption. The city currently has a robust energy code that is one of the strictest in the nation. New homes and major renovations must achieve an Energy Rating Index (ERI) score no greater than 60. An ERI score is a common energy efficiency metric defined as a numerical score from 0-100, where 100 is equivalent to the 2006 code compliant home and zero is equivalent to a Net Zero Energy (NZE) home. To mitigate the environmental impact of larger homes, a sliding scale was incorporated into the code that increased the stringency of the code for homes with larger floor area. As Figure 1 illustrates, under the current code, all homes greater than 5,000 square feet are required to be NZE. The current long-term code strategy is to incrementally work towards NZE codes by 2031 with increasing stringency every three years, which is also illustrated in Figure 1. The next planned update to the energy code will occur in 2019. Analysis to support the development of the new code language is currently underway. The new code will advance requirements for all homes as well as commercial construction. Attachment B - Energy Conservation Code Potential Strategies Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 481 of 553 2 Figure 1: Residential Energy Code ERI Requirements for New Construction. Staff propose an acceleration of these ERI requirements with the 2019 planned update; and propose moving straight to the 2022 ERI requirements in Figure 1. This would require all new homes to have an ERI score of 40 or less and all new homes greater than 3,000 square feet would be required to be NZE. The current timeline for new energy code adoption is December 2019. These increased efficiency requirements are well supported by new cost effectiveness studies suggesting the economics for building NZE homes are improving. Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) recently released Economics of Zero-Energy Homes: Single Family Insights, which shows NZE homes are reaching cost parity with conventional construction and that, as the underlying technologies and design elements continue to improve and scale, these costs will continue to decline. In Boulder, a reduction in the price of solar, as well as technical advancement in heat pump technology and adoption is paving the way for this new math. In the September 25, 2018 Study Session with City Council, there was discussion of requiring large homes to go beyond net zero energy and to be net positive, energy producing. Over producing electricity in Colorado has a regulated limit. The size of the solar panel system allowed on a customer's residence is determined by the customer’s total electricity usage. The total output of the system must not be greater than 120% of the energy used by the customer. Therefore, grid connectivity becomes a barrier to requiring homes to be net positive. In future net positive metering may be possible; either through a municipal electric utility or further partnership with Xcel Energy to reinterpret the 120% policy. Staff will continue to monitor this topic and look for ways to increase distributed solar generation through building codes. Attachment B - Energy Conservation Code Potential Strategies Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 482 of 553 3 Embodied Energy As home size increases, the energy used to build and maintain the home increases, as well. Home construction contributes significantly to resource consumption and CO2 emissions. Larger homes consume more energy to construct. Electricity and fuels are consumed during the extraction, manufacture, delivery and maintenance of a home’s constituent materials. Energy that is embedded in all products and processes used in constructing a building is known as embodied energy. Boulder’s energy codes currently only address operational energy. Most homes are being built tighter, with better insulation, high performance heating and ventilation systems, and high efficiency lighting and water heating equipment. As the operational energy requirements of high-performance homes drop, the embodied energy due to home construction become a more significant part of the life cycle building energy. Refer to Figure 2 Figure 2: Building Life-cycle Energy 1 Tracking, understanding, and curbing this consumption is challenging due to the various calculation methodologies, source data, and calculation boundaries. Nevertheless, staff is beginning to engage local design professionals to understand how the city could best encourage reduction in embodied energy. Further analysis during the community outreach process will help in formulating strategies around embodied energy. 1 Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Building Materials: Embodied Energy Analysis of a High- Performance Building, May 2017 Attachment B - Energy Conservation Code Potential Strategies Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 483 of 553 1 Case Studies Review – Large Homes and Lots Project This attachment describes how several communities regulate single-family residential development including Floor Area requirements and form, bulk and intensity standards. This review is based on existing city ordinances and additional information available online. The 13 case studies also highlight potential regulatory tools (such as FAR bonuses, overlays, and conservation districts) that could be implemented in addition to adjustments to typical form, bulk and intensity standards. Below are key takeaways from the from case studies: •Of the communities’ reviewed that have FAR requirements, none have a hard cap on floor area, only a ratio or sliding percentage calculation. •Boulder’s current FAR regulations are generally in-line or more restrictive for moderate to large- sized lots (lots greater than 7,000 SF), compared to the communities reviewed that have FAR requirements (.25 to .5 in Boulder vs. approx. .3 to .7 for other communities). •Boulder allows a greater FAR for smaller lots (lots 7,000 SF and smaller) compared to the communities reviewed that have FAR requirements (.5 to .62 in Boulder vs. approx. .3 to .4 for other communities). •Boulder permits among the tallest building height for single-family development (35’) compared to the 13 communities reviewed (typically 30’ range, or a sliding scale from as low as 24’ to 36’ max. depending on roof structure, design and/or special review). •Additional potential tools to regulate homes, size, character and compatibility: o Neighborhood Conservation Districts – City of Denver, Boulder County, CO o FAR Overlay Districts – City of Glendale, CA o Design Review Boards – City of Glendale, CA, City of Santa Clara, CA, City of Sausalito, CA •Potential context-based / designated neighborhood standards – Boulder County, CO, City of Malibu, CA •Potential creative residential infill incentives and tools: o City of Portland – Residential Infill Project – FAR bonuses for duplexes, Triplexes, ADU’s and affordability restrictions. Reduction in single-family allowed FAR o City of Denver – Form-based infill design regulations such as garden courts, townhomes, etc. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 484 of 553 2 Boulder County, CO Single-Family Zoning Overview Boulder County regulates new home size to the greater of 125% of the median residential floor area in the defined neighborhood, or 1,500 SF in townsites and 2,500 SF everywhere else in the county. Development of a lot requires administrative review per the Site Plan Review (SPR) process and criteria. Essentially 2,500 SF is the floor for single-family home size in the majority of Boulder County, and 1,500 SF in the townsites. • Neighborhoods are defined as the platted subdivision of a given parcel. If not within a platted subdivision with 7 or more developed parcels, then defined as any developed parcels within 1,500 feet of the applicable parcel. • Townsites – the mapped townsites of Eldora, Allenspark, Eldorado Springs, Raymond, and Riverside. • New homes 6,000 SF and greater are required to purchase TDC (Transferable Development credits). Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Control - Floor Area Rural Residential (RE) zone - Residential areas developed at a density and charter compatible with agricultural uses. 1 acre Front: 25’ Rear: 15’ Side: 7’ 30’, not to exceed 35’ via site review or if platted prior to 1994 Must be within the greater of 125% of the median floor area of the defined neighborhood; or a total residential floor area of up to 1,500 SF within Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Raymond, and Riverside, and 2,500 SF within all other areas of the County. Exceptions may be allowed if the adjacent properties exceed the above limits and proposal is compatible with them. Estate Residential (ER) zone - Low density urban residential areas. 1 acre Front: 35’ Rear: 25’ Side: 10’ Suburban Residential (SR) zone - Low density suburban residential areas. 7,500 square feet Front: 25’ Rear: 15’ Side: 7’ Additional Information: Site Plan Review: Administrative review required for: 1. Any development on vacant parcels in unincorporated Boulder County. 2. Any increase in residential floor area which results in a total residential floor area greater than 125% of the median residential floor area for the defined neighborhood in which the subject parcel is located. In determining if the proposed development is greater than 125%of the residential median floor area, any demolition and rebuilding of any existing residential structure or any portions thereof, shall be counted toward the threshold. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 485 of 553 3 Floor Area compatibility of residential structures: Either: (1) 125% of the median residential floor area for that defined neighborhood or (2) of a total residential floor area of 1,500 square feet in the mapped townsites of Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Raymond, and Riverside, or 2,500 square feet for all other areas of the County, are compatible with that neighborhood, subject also to a determination that the resulting size complies with the other Site Plan Review standards of the Land Use Code. A project may exceed the above provisions if it can demonstrate it’s compatible with the adjacent properties (additional factors covered by site review also apply): The distribution of residential floor area within the defined neighborhood, taking into consideration the sizes (a minimum of two) adjacent to the subject property. (1) If the proposed development is able to overcome the size presumption due to the adjacent sizes, the size of the resulting development may not exceed the median residential floor area of those adjacent to the subject property that are over the size presumption. Residential Floor Area Definition: For the purposes of Site Plan Review and the presumptive size thresholds associated with the Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program, Residential Floor Area includes all attached and detached floor area (as defined in 18-162) on a parcel including principal and accessory structures used or customarily used for residential purposes, such as garages, studios, pool houses, storage sheds, home offices, and workshops. (Exemptions: Gazebos, carports, detached greenhouses and hoop houses up to a total combined size of 400 square feet.) Boulder County Neighborhood Conservation Overlay (NCO) Districts: NCO’s are another potential tool for regulating home size and compatibility in the county, however no such overlays do so today. Establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Overlays require 60% consent of the affected property owners, Planning Commission review, and Board of County Commissioner’s approval. Only one Neighborhood Conservation Overlay currently exists in the county - Fairview Estates with regulations to preserve westward views. Purpose of NCO Districts: 1. To preserve and protect the character or valued features of established neighborhoods 2. To recognize the diversity of issues and character in individual neighborhoods in the unincorporated parts of Boulder County. 3. To reduce conflicts between new construction and existing development in established neighborhoods. 4. To provide knowledge and reliance about the parameters of neighborhood character. 5. To allow neighborhoods to work together with the County to formulate a plan that defines their community of common interest and that fosters a defined community character consistent with County zoning, the Land Use Code, and the Comprehensive Plan. 6. To complement the County's Site Plan Review process in neighborhoods that have defined their community character pursuant to these regulations. NCO’s may regulate form, massing, size, height and other development regulations. Development in Neighborhood Conservation Overlays may not require Site Plan Review. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 486 of 553 4 City of Bozeman Montana, Single-Family Zoning Overview The City of Bozeman, Montana adopted a new Unified Development Code in 2018, with streamlined zoning regulations including for single-family residential development. The city’s FAR regulations are straightforward and moderate in terms of allowance. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls R-1 Residential Low Density 5,000 SF Min. Lot width: 40’-50’ Front: 15’ Rear: 20’ Side: 5’ 24’ – 36’, depending on roof pitch. An area up to 10% of the building footprint may extend above the max. building height by up to 12’ (this includes habitable space), so long as it’s setback at least 5’ from the building edge. 40% max. lot coverage .5 max. FAR R-2 Residential Moderate Density 4,000 SF Min. Lot width: 40’-50’ 40% max. lot coverage .75 max. FAR Additional Information: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (historic): Creates additional Design Board regulations and review requirements. However, the overlay covers historic districts and landmarked buildings, thus its purpose is for compatible infill development in Bozeman’s historic neighborhoods only. Purpose: to protect and enhance neighborhoods or areas of significant land planning or architectural character, historic landmarks or other built or natural features for the educational, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of citizens of the city. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 487 of 553 5 City of Denver Conservation Overlay Districts & Residential Zoning Conservation Overlay Districts (from Historic Denver) Overview The City of Denver updated the city zoning code in 2010 and included a new tool, the Conservation Overlay District. The conservation districts create special zoning that supports the character of a neighborhood, often times near established historic districts or in neighborhoods where the preservation of an existing character is important. For example, if a neighborhood is a low-slung, mid- century neighborhood you can create zoning that reinforces these attributes and requires new construction to meet certain, objective, parameters. If a neighborhood has tall homes on narrow lots, a conservation district can provide the opportunity to build a little differently than allowed in a typical zone district. Like historic districts, conservation districts must ultimately be approved by the Denver City Council. Unlike historic districts, conservation districts require 51% landowner consent. They also do not regulate demolition of historic structures and require design review for modifications. There are currently five Conservation Districts in Denver each with specific regulations tailored to meet the need of their given neighborhood. For instance, the Krisana Park district incorporates development regulations that ensure low profile and single story heights, and compatible building additions. Denver’s Zoning Code underwent a major updated in 2010 with a Form-Based approach. As such, the zoning code is based on building form rather than intensity controls based on traditional zoning. Some comparisons can be drawn, but in general Denver’s zoning is more permissive of development intensity. Their zoning code does allow for creative infill opportunities such as “Garden Courts” in addition to traditional single-family houses. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls Suburban Neighborhood context Urban Edge Neighborhood context Varies from 3,000 SF to 12,000 SF Street: 10’-20’min. Side: 5’-15’ min. Rear: 10’-20’ min. Generally 2 to 3 stories & 30’ - 32’ Bulk Plane - 10’ up at side property lines, then 45 degree inward angle. Building Coverage: 37.5% or 50% max., or N/A - depending on lot size and building type , and zone. Garden Court for example in Urban Neighborhood context has no max. lot coverage. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 488 of 553 6 Additional Information (City of Denver) Examples from Denver’s form-based Zoning Code for residential development in the Suburban and Urban Neighborhood Contexts: Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 489 of 553 7 Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 490 of 553 8 City of Glendale CA, Single-Family Zoning Overview The City of Glendale adopted FAR regulations for Single-Family residential zones in the 1990’s. The regulations establish FAR districts tiered from least FAR to the greatest at District I, II, and III. These FAR districts are a zoning map overlay, and generally correspond the existing lot size pattern, such that the larger lots are within the FAR District III, and the smaller lots generally within FAR District I. As part of the review process a Design Review Board must approve any new homes, as well as additions over 700 SF to existing homes, as well as fences over three feet in height. Design guidelines such as materials and aesthetic cues are also part of the review. The city also further protects historic residential neighborhoods through Historic Overlay Districts. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls ROS Residential Open Space 12,000 SF for new lots, 7,500 SF for lots created prior to 1986 Min. Lot Width: 100’ Front: 15’ Side: 10’ Street Side: 15’ Rear: 10’ 32’ +, 3’ for a pitched roof w/ min. pitch of 3:12 2 stories - 3rd story allowed when located ins loped lot averaging 40% Floor Area Ratio Max. District I: 0.30 for the 1st 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 0.10 for the portion of lot area thereafter District II: 0.40 for the 1st 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 0.10 for the portion of lot area thereafter District III: 0.45 for the 1st 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 0.10 for the portion of lot area thereafter FAR shall not include up to 500 sq. ft. of garage area as specified in the definition of the term for dwelling units having a floor area of less than 3,500 sq. ft. Up to 700 sq. ft. of garage area shall not be included for dwelling units having a floor area of 3,500 sq. ft. or more. Subterranean garages do not count toward FAR. Max. Lot Coverage (ROS and R1R only): 40% Min. Landscape Open Space: 40% R1R Restricted Residential 12,000 SF for new lots, 7,500 SF for lots created prior to 1986 Min. Lot Width: 100’ Front: 15’ Side*: 10’ Street Side: 15’ Rear (new buildings)*: 10’ *Additions to buildings constructed before 1991 may be setback closer. R1 Low Density Residential 5,500 SF for new lots, 5,000 SF for lots created prior to 1986 Front: 25’ Side*: 6’ Street Side: 6’ Rear (new buildings)*: 6’ *Additions to buildings constructed before 1991 may be setback closer. 25’ +, 3’ for a pitched roof w/ min. pitch of 3:12 Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 491 of 553 9 Additional Information (City of Glendale) FAR Districts: • Consists of three FAR districts that covers the ROS, R1R and R1 residential zoning districts (ranging from .3 to .45 FAR). Usually established at a block or neighborhood level – typically relate to the lot size and hillside topography, but there are no quantifiable limits or thresholds to the different districts. Design Review Board required: • Intent includes to ensure single-family design which is compatible with the character inherent within the surrounding neighborhood; • And new structure, and specifically new single family homes, and additions over 700 SF, as well as fences over 3’ • A neighborhood survey is required as part of the application process in which the FAR, lot size, number of stories, and house area provided for all homes within a 300 ft. radius. A new project must be somewhat consistent with the neighborhood average, or have valid reasons why the proposal may be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood (ex. located on a flag not and not visible from the street, or the massing is such that the project looks like a 1-1/2 story structure, etc). Historic Overlay Zones • Protect most sensitive single-family neighborhoods that are historic in nature, approx. 350 lots. • More restrictive development standards • Greater protection from demolition and redevelopment. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 492 of 553 10 Madison Wisconsin, Single-Family Zoning Overview The City of Madison Wisconsin does not regulate building Floor Area directly, instead home size is limited by the overall Lot coverage allowance as well as the setbacks. This allows for larger homes throughout most of the city’s neighborhoods. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls SR districts (C1-C3) Suburban Residential Consistent districts established to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of low- to moderate-density residential areas typically located in the outlying parts of the City 6,000 – 8,000 SF Min. Lot width: 50’- 60’ Front: var.25’ or 30’ Side: var. 5’ to 7’ Rear: Lesser of 30% of lot depth or 35’* (if principal structure covers 20% or less of lot, may be reduced to 25% of lot depth). 2 stories and 35’ Max. lot coverage: var. 50% or 60% Usable Open Space: var. 1,300 to 750 SF TR-R district Traditional Residential Rustic district established to stabilize and protect the natural beauty, historic character and park-like setting of certain heavily wooded low-density residential neighborhoods .6 acres (26,136 SF) Min. Lot width: 65’ Front: 50’ Side: var. 30’ Rear: 40’ 3 stories and 40’ Max. lot coverage: 15% Additional Information Front setback averaging: Where at least fifty percent (50%) of the front footage of any block is built up with principal structures, the minimum front yard setback for new structures shall be the average setback of the existing principal structures on the block face or the normal setback requirement in the district whichever is less, but no less than ten (10) feet Sidewall Offset: A maximum of forty (40) feet of a principal building's side wall may be placed at the minimum sidewall setback. In order to avoid the monotonous appearance of long unbroken building facades from streets or abutting properties, any portion of a building side wall located within eighteen (18) feet of the side lot line that exceeds forty (40) feet in depth shall be set back an additional two (2) inches from the side lot line for every foot over forty (40) feet in depth. (Residential building with windows. Doors, and other architectural features that articulate the facade are exempt). Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 493 of 553 11 Additional Information (City of Madison, WI) Single-family detached building width: Buildings facing a public street shall not exceed a width of fifty (50) feet along a single plane on the axis facing the street. Additional building wings facing the street shall be set back at least five (5) feet behind the front plane of the building. City of Malibu, CA, Single-Family Zoning Overview The City of Malibu’s Single Family (SF) regulates the majority of the city’s single-family residential parcels. The intent of the district is to enhance the rural characteristics of the community by maintaining low density residential development in a manner which respects surrounding property owners and the natural environment. Single-Family Development Regulations Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls SF-L Single Family - Low 2 acres Min. Lot Width: 80’ Min. Loth Depth: 120’ Front: 20% of the lot depth or 65’, whichever is less Side: 10% of the lot width or 5’, whichever is greater Combined Side: 25% min. of the lot width Rear: 15% of the lot depth or 15’, whichever is greater 18’ except for appurtenances 2 stories max. above grade Structure Size (total development square footage max): Lots 5k SF or less: 1,885 SF Lots up to .5 acre: 17.7% of lot area + 1k SF Btw .5 and 1 acres: same as above + 10% of lot area exceeding .5 acre Btw 1 acres and 1.5 acres: + 5% of lot area exceeding 1 acre Btw 1.5 acre and 5 acres: + 2% of lot area exceeding 1.5 acres 5 acres or greater: 11,172 SF Impermeable Coverage (includes building) Lots up to .25 acres 45% Btw. .25 - .5 acres 35% Over .5 acres 30% Max. of 25k SF SF-M Single Family - Medium .25 acre Min. Lot Width: 80’ Min. Loth Depth: 120’ Beachfront .25 acre Min. Lot Width: 45’ Min. Loth Depth: 120’ Front: 20’ max. or avg. of two immediate neighbors, whichever is less Side: 10% of the lot width, w/ 3’ min. and 5’ max. Rear: determine by stringline rule (contextual with nearest up and down coast existing setbacks) 24’ for a flat roof, 28’ for a pitched roof 2 stories max. above grade Structure Size (total development square footage max.): Lots 5k SF or less: 1,885 SF Lots up to .5 acre: 17.7% of lot area + 1k SF Btw .5 and 1 acres: same as above + 10% of lot area exceeding .5 acre Btw 1 acres and 1.5 acres: + 5% of lot area exceeding 1 acre Btw 1.5 acre and 5 acres: + 2% of lot area exceeding 1.5 acres 5 acres or greater: 11,172 SF Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 494 of 553 12 Additional Information (City of Malibu, CA) The director may issue a development permit, pursuant to the site plan review process, to allow heights up to twenty-four (24) feet for flat roofs and twenty-eight (28) feet for pitched or sloped roofs. In no event shall the maximum number of stories above grade be greater than two. Neighborhood Standards. Upon application and pursuant to Section 17.62.040, the planning commission may approve or conditionally approve increased height, structure size and/or development area and/or decreased setbacks where such modifications do not exceed the neighborhood standards and where the planning commission affirmatively makes all the findings set forth in Section 17.62.040(D). Neighborhood standards apply where there are at least ten (10) developed lots within a five hundred (500)-foot radius of the subject site located in the same neighborhood. A neighborhood is defined by the presence of such features as common access, beachfront or landside orientation or by being a part of the same subdivision or development, or by being within the same proximate area of the city with no intervening major natural or manmade physical features such as major roads or flood control channels, canyons, watercourses, hills, ridges or mountains, and sharing similar zoning and other development characteristics such as lot and house size. “Neighborhood standards” means the average structure size and/or development, setback, or height, of at least eighty (80) percent of all the legal lots developed with a single-family residence within a five hundred (500)-foot radius of the subject site located in the same neighborhood. In such cases the eighty (80) percent shall be determined by excluding the smallest ten (10) percent and the largest ten (10) percent of lots in terms of structure size and/or development area and height, and the smallest twenty (20) percent of lots in terms of yard setbacks. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 495 of 553 13 Marin County, CA, Single-Family Zoning Overview Marin County’s Single-Family residential development standards are intended to preserve sensitive coastal environments and to keep new home construction in scale with the existing neighborhoods. Floor Area is limited to .3 for Lots of 7,500 SF in size (minimum lot size) or greater. Multi-family residential and planned residential districts do not have FAR limitations. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls RA, RR, RE, R1, and R2 7,500 SF Front: 25’ Side: 6’ (10’ on street side) Rear: 20% of lot depth to max. 25’ 30’ Max. FAR: .3 C-RA, C-R1, and C-R2 (coastal residential districts) 7,500 SF Average Lot Width: 60’ Front: 25’ Side: 6’ Rear: 20% of lot depth to max. 25’ 25’ Max. FAR: .3 Additional Information Exceptions to height limits: Dwellings in an A, A2, RA, RR, RE, R1, and R2 zoning district may be increased in height without Variance approval by a maximum of 10 feet when side setbacks of 15 feet or greater are provided, subject to the regulations of Chapter 22.42 (Design Review). Setback averaging. The front building setback, garage entrance setback, and the setback of decks, balconies, and porches may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on the abutting lots. See Chapter 33.930, Measurements, for more information. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 496 of 553 14 Mercer Island, Washington Single-Family Zoning Overview The town of Mercer Island, Washington has recently experience the construction of large homes on existing lots that were not in alignment with their Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policy for residential development. To bring single-family development into alignment with their policies and goals, the city passed more restrictive single family residential development regulations aimed at smaller and more compatible homes in September 2017. The new regulations reduce the permitted FAR to the lesser of 40% of the lot area or a capped square footage, across all residential zones. Mercer Island’s regulation on Gross floor Area is very restrictive, as smaller lots are still limited to an effective .4 FAR. Single-Family Development Regulations Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls R-15 15,000 SF 90’ min. lot width, 80’ min. lot depth Front: 20’ Rear: 20’ Side: 5’-10’ Combined Side: 15’, or for lots greater than 90’ wide -17% of the lot width, 30’ from the average building elevation to the highest point of the roof Gross Floor Area 12,000 SF or 40%, whichever is less. Lot Coverage (includes building) Lot Slope < 15% – 40% Lot Cov. 15% to <30% – 35% Lot Cov. 30% to 50% SF – 30% Lot Cov. > 50% – 20% Lot Cov. R-12 Single Family - Medium 12,000 SF 75’ min. lot width, 80’ min. lot depth Gross Floor Area 10,000 SF or 40%, whichever is less. Lot Coverage (includes building) Lot Slope < 15% – 40% Lot Cov. 15% to <30% – 35% Lot Cov. 30% to 50% SF – 30% Lot Cov. > 50% – 20% Lot Cov. R-9.6 9,600 SF 75’ min. lot width, 80’ min. lot depth Gross Floor Area 8,000 SF or 40%, whichever is less. Lot Coverage (includes building) Lot Slope < 15% – 40% Lot Cov. 15% to <30% – 35% Lot Cov. 30% to 50% SF – 30% Lot Cov. > 50% – 20% Lot Cov. R-8.4 8,400 SF 60’ min. lot width, 80’ min. lot depth Gross Floor Area 5,000 SF or 40%, whichever is less. Lot Coverage (includes building) Lot Slope < 15% – 40% Lot Cov. 15% to <30% – 35% Lot Cov. 30% to 50% SF – 30% Lot Cov. > 50% – 20% Lot Cov. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 497 of 553 15 Additional Information (Mercer Island, WA) Gross Floor Area adjustments for tall ceilings – • 150% of the floor area for portions of rooms with a ceiling height of 12 – 16 feet. • 200% of the floor area for portions of rooms with a ceiling height more than 16 feet. Large Lots – required to provide a subdivision plan to ensure that the construction of a s single-family home on a large lot does not preclude compliance standards related to the potential subdivisions as prescribed by code, of the large lot, as applicable. Lot Coverage - Landscaping Area – Required as the remainder percentage of the Lot coverage. A min. of 9% of the landscaping area may consist of hardscape such as walkways and decks. City of Portland, OR – Residential Infill Project Overview Portland Oregon is in the process of updating their development regulations to better regulate the size of new infill single family homes (reducing the base size in some districts), while also providing greater flexibility for housing variety in their residential zones. The Residential Infill project started in fall of 2015, and implementation measures have not yet been adopted. The project is occurring in two phases, the first phase was completed in December of 2017 and resulted in the Concept Report (link), where the Portland City Council approved the following concepts: Reflecting community input, the Council approved and amended the concepts as follows: • Reduce the maximum size of new houses and remodels in single-dwelling zones. • Establish an overlay zone in single-dwelling zones that will allow more housing types (i.e. houses with two ADUs, duplexes, duplexes with a detached ADU, and triplexes on corner lots). • Explore overlay zone boundary options near designated neighborhood centers and corridors with good transit service; consider property lines, physical barriers, natural features, topography and infrastructure constraints. • Provide added flexibility for internal conversions of existing houses citywide. • Increase flexibility for cottage clusters on large lots citywide. • Explore incentives for age-friendliness, affordability and tree preservation. • Restrict historically narrow lots from being developed in the R5 zone. • Revise the development standards for houses on R2.5-zoned narrow lots. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 498 of 553 16 City of Portland Continued Phase II includes the implementation of the above goals and will create new FAR regulations that will lower the floor area for single-family homes to within the .4 to .5 FAR range for the R7, R5, and R2.5 districts. It will also revise height to be measured based on the lowest average grade (rather than the highest average grade that is now in effect). Proposed changes also include the recommendation for a new overlay zone for the R7, R5, and R2.5 zones that grants FAR bonuses for duplexes, triplexes and possibly fourplexes in order to incentivize more affordability, density and a diversity of housing units within neighborhoods. The R10, R20, and RF zones (largest lot size residential districts) would be allow 1 ADU for each detached primary unit. The proposed overlay would allow a floor area bonus if creating additional units on a given lot. For example, a 5,000 SF lot would permit 2,500 SF for a single-family home, 3,000 SF for a duplex, and 3,500 SF for a triplex (fourplexes are still being considered). The Planning and Sustainability Commission voted to recommend the proposed changes to Portland City Council on September 18, 2018. Single-Family Development Regulations (City of Portland) – Subject to change with the Residential Infill project Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size min. (typ.) Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls RF, R20, R10 RF: 52,000 SF R20: 12,000 SF R10: 6,000 SF Min. Lot width: 36’ Front: 20’ Side: 10’ Rear: 10’ 30’ Max. Building Coverage: Lots less than 3k SF: 50% of lot area Lots 3k-5k Sf: 1,500 SF + 37.5% area over 3k SF Lots 5k-20k Sf: 2,250 SF + 15% area over 5k SF Lots 20k+ Sf: 4,500 SF + 7.5% area over 20k SF Required Outdoor Area: 250 SF R7 R7: 7,000 SF Min. Lot width: 36’ typ. Front: 15’ Side: 5’ Rear: 5’ R5 5,000 SF Min. Lot width: 36’ typ. Front: 10’ Side: 5’ Rear: 5’ R2.5 2,500 SF Min. Lot width: 36’ typ. 35’ Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 499 of 553 17 City of Portland, OR – Proposed Overlay FAR regulations and Bonuses (underlined are proposed changes): Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 500 of 553 18 City of San Rafael, CA, Single-Family Zoning Overview The city if San Rafael’s, California single-family residential districts provide opportunities for low-density, detached single-family residential development. Development densities are based on existing development patterns in the area and environmental site constraints. Most comparable districts are R1a, R20 and R10. The city does not regulate building Floor Area directly, instead home size is limited by the overall Lot Coverage as well as the setbacks. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls R1a 1 acre Min. Lot width: 150’ Front: 20’ Side: 15’ Rear: 25’ 30’ Max. Lot Coverage: 25% Max. Upper Story Floor Size: Lots greater than 5,000 SF: 75% of max. lot coverage. 5,000 SF or less: 50% of max. lot coverage R20 20,000 SF Min. Lot width: 100’ Front: 20’ Side: 12.5’ (where two or more lots in a block have been improved with buildings, the minimum required shall be the average of improved lots within the same district on both sides of the street for the length of the block.) Rear: 10’ Max. Lot Coverage: 30% Max. Upper Story Floor Size: Lots greater than 5,000 SF: 75% of max. lot coverage. 5,000 SF or less: 50% of max. lot coverage R10 10,000 SF Min. Lot width: 75’ Front: 20’ Side: 10’ (where two or more lots in a block have been improved with buildings, the minimum required shall be the average of improved lots within the same district on both sides of the street for the length of the block.) Rear: 10’ Max. Lot Coverage: 40% Max. Upper Story Floor Size: Lots greater than 5,000 SF: 75% of max. lot coverage. 5,000 SF or less: 50% of max. lot coverage Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 501 of 553 19 Additional Information (City of San Rafael, CA) a. Upper Story Additions: Upper-Story Additions and Modifications Which Result in More Than One Floor. Design review of new two-story homes, upper-story additions and lift-and-fill construction is not intended to preclude such development, but rather required to assure better design of such additions and to limit impacts on adjacent properties. Modifications to structures on lots in the hillside development overlay district or on lots with an average slope of twenty-five percent (25%) or more are subject to the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Manual. Additional window orientation and design consistency standards as well (Section 14.25.050(F)(6)). City of Santa Clara CA, Single-Family Zoning Overview The City of Santa Clara adopted robust design guidelines for Single-Family and Duplex residential in 2014. Grappling with perceived incompatible infill development taking place, the city adopted the guidelines which requires compliance for all single family and duplex development, in addition to the requirements of the zoning regulations. As part of the review process an Architectural Committee (comprised of a city council member and two planning commissioners) are authorized to approve projects for compliance, in some instances planning staff may have approval authority. The guidelines include some prescriptive requirements although others are subjective in nature. The premise is that the infill development should context-based and compatible with the neighborhood in which it’s being constructed. Projects must be harmoniously designed based on the cues of the existing neighborhood’s architecture, bulk, and scale. Single-Family Development Regulations Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls R1-8L Single Family Larger Lot Zoning District 8,000 SF Min. Lot Width: 70’ Min. Loth Depth: 120’ Front: 20’min. min. 35% of front yard shall be landscaped area Side: 6’ min. on one side, 9’ min. on the other side Rear: 20’ min. 2 stories & 25’ Building Coverage: 40% max. R1-6L Single Family Zoning District 6,000 SF Min. Lot Width: 60’ Min. Loth Depth: 120’ Front: 20’min. min. 35% of front yard shall be landscaped area Side: 5’ min. Rear: 20’ min. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 502 of 553 20 Additional Information (City of Santa Clara) from Single Family and Duplex Design Guidelines 2nd Floor Massing: • Max. 66% of the 1st floor area. • Setback at least 5’ from the front and side walls of the 1st floor. 2nd floors greater than 35% of the ground floor area, should increase the setbacks further. Architectural Standards: • Building height and bulk should be appropriate relative to one and two-story homes within the neighborhood. • Offset the front and side walls of the second-story to avoid a massive, boxy, or bulky design. • Second-floor areas should be set back at least five feet from the front wall of the first floor, and three to five feet from the side and rear walls of the first floor. • Simple second-story pop-ups are discouraged. • Windows to align and be proportional throughout the facade. Offset windows from neighboring homes to avoid direct visual into them. Architectural Style • While specific architectural styles are not regulated, the architectural features of the proposed design should be true to the architectural form and appropriate for the neighborhood. • Roof forms to blend with neighborhood • Visually pleasing homes Form & Bulk (City of Santa Clara, CA) • Minimize privacy invasion • Front setback should be consistent with adjacent existing homes. • Provide horizontal offsets for long walls of two feet deep by six feet wide minimum along any second-floor walls of twenty-five feet in length or greater. These insets or offsets should fall within Zoning setback requirements. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 503 of 553 21 City of Sausalito, CA, Single-Family Zoning Overview The City of Sausalito’s single-family residential zoning district (R-1) provides for low density, detached single-family residential land use. Densities are based on existing development and are meant to be protected and preserved. Development standards reflect the scale, character, and intensity of existing neighborhoods, and are fairly restrictive with FAR. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls R1-8 8,000 SF Min. Lot width: 50’ Front: 0’ (certain streets may require a 10’ front setback) Side: 5’ Rear: 15’ 32’ Max. FAR: .4 Max. Building Coverage: 30% Max. Impervious Surface: 65% R1-20 20,000 SF Min. Lot width: 50’ Front: 0’ (certain streets may require a 10’ front setback) Side: 10’ Rear: 20’ Max. FAR: .35 Max. Building Coverage: 30% Max. Impervious Surface: 65% Additional Information Length of Building and Side Setback. The length of a structure shall be measured along a line parallel to the adjoining side lot line. Where the length of a structure, building wall, or series of attached building walls exceeds 40 feet measured parallel to the adjoining side lot line, the minimum setback shall be increased at the rate of one foot for each five feet such length exceeds 40 feet. The full length of the building shall be subject to the increased setback. If the addition will increase the building length to exceed 40 feet, only the addition shall require the additional side yard setback. The full length of the addition shall be subject to the increased setback. See Diagram 10.40-8. Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 504 of 553 22 City of Seattle Single-Family Zoning Overview Seattle’s single-family residential zoning district (R-1) provides for low density, detached single-family residential land use. Densities are based on existing development patterns that are meant to be protected and preserved. Development standards reflect the scale, character, and intensity of existing neighborhoods. The city does not regulate building Floor Area directly, instead home size is limited by the overall Lot Coverage as well as setbacks. Single-Family Development Regulations Comparative Zoning Districts Lot Size Min. Setbacks Height Max. Intensity Controls SF 9600 Single-Family Residential 9.600 SF Min. Lot width: 36’ Front: 20’ Side: 5’ Rear: 20% of lot depth (min. of 10’) 30’ lots greater than 30 feet in width 25’ on lots less than 30 feet in width pitched roofs sloped min. 4:12 up to 5’ extra height Max. lot Coverage: 35% Lots less than 5,000 SF: 1,000 SF + 15% of the lot area. Required Outdoor Area: 250 SF No FAR standards SF 7200 Single-Family Residential 7,200 SF Min. Lot width: 36’ Max. lot Coverage: 35% Required Outdoor Area: 250 SF No FAR standards SF 5000 Single-Family Residential 5,000 SF Min. Lot width: 36’ Max. lot Coverage: 35% Required Outdoor Area: 250 SF No FAR standards RSL Residential Small Lot Single Family Tandem (duplex) and cottage housing developments also permitted with additional regulations 2,500 SF Front and rear combined: 30’ 10’ min. each Side: 5’, and 10’ min. between principal structures 25’, pitched roofs sloped min. 4:12 up to 30’ Structure depth cannot exceed 60’ (decks, balconies, bay windows excluded) Attachment C - Case Studies Review Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 505 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Large Homes and Lots Project Plan & Community Engagement – Working Draft Background The Large Homes and Lots issue was identified by City Council at their retreat in January of 2018 for further study by staff. A Study Session was held on September 25, 2018 where Council provided guidance on the project scope, the draft Why and Purpose statements, and the preliminary goals for the project, where council directed staff to: •Revise the project scope and draft Why and Purpose statements to reflect the housing affordability and energy conservation aspects of the project. •Study options for creating a hard cap on single-family residential floor area, and other changes to limit single family home size though the Form and Bulk Standards of the Land Use Code; and through accelerating updates to the Energy Conservation Code. •Study options to allow multiple smaller units on a large lot that result in creative infill and enhance affordability. •Study the creation of incentives and disincentives to encourage the preservation of existing housing stock. •Investigate trends in the demolition of existing homes and the construction of new homes in the residential zones. A more detailed summary can be found at this link. Community, Council, and Planning Board Feedback This plan will be updated to reflect City Council and Planning Board input from discussions this Fall and throughout the duration of the project. The public’s input and participation will continuously inform the project including the goals, options, and recommendations. This plan lays out the framework for the project and the community’s engagement. Project Scope The project will consider potential land use and energy conservation regulatory tools to address large homes being constructed within the residential zoning districts of the city, including but not limited to the Residential – Estate (RE) and Residential – Rural (RR) zoning districts, that may be incompatible with the existing neighborhood character, and the city’s energy-efficiency and affordability goals. The existing form, bulk, and intensity standards of the Land Use Code comprise a suite of regulations including building coverage, floor area ratio, side yard bulk-plane, side wall length, setbacks, and building height – many of which were adopted through the Compatible Infill Development project by City Council on Oct. 6, 2009 (see this link). These regulations could be amended, or new development tools could be created, such as incentives or disincentives, to encourage the construction of smaller energy-efficient homes, that are compatible with their neighborhoods and align with the city’s long term energy-efficiency and affordability goals. Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 506 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Draft Why Statement The city’s residential neighborhoods are experiencing a dramatic demographic and economic shift with the replacement of modest more-affordable homes with larger more-expensive homes. These large homes are often inconsistent with the existing character of the neighborhoods, and are an inefficient use of land that has exacerbated the city’s housing / jobs imbalance and the high-cost of housing. In addition, large homes do not align with the city’s energy-conservation goals and policies as they consume greater amounts of energy, both in operation and construction, than do modest-sized homes. To address these shortcomings, smaller homes should be encouraged to foster a more efficient use of land, energy and resources, and to support a broader housing and economic diversity in the city’s residential neighborhoods.. Draft Purpose Statement Consistent with newly updated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies (see below), staff will amend the Land Use Code to encourage or require smaller homes in residential zones that are consistent with the character of the existing neighborhoods, and that advance the city’s energy- efficiency, climate sustainability, and housing affordability goals and policies. This includes creative solutions for both the preservation of existing homes and the development of more small houses (rather than fewer large houses) in residential zones. Guiding BVCP Policies Section 2 Built Environment Neighborhoods 2.10 Preservation & Support for Residential Neighborhoods The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability and preserve the relative affordability of existing housing stock. The city will also work with neighborhoods to identify areas for additional housing, libraries, recreation centers, parks, open space or small retail uses that could be integrated into and supportive of neighborhoods. The city will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character in new development or redevelopment, appropriately sized and sensitively designed streets and desired public facilities and mixed commercial uses. The city will also encourage neighborhood schools and safe routes to school. 2.11 Accessory Units Consistent with existing neighborhood character, accessory units (e.g., granny flats, alley houses, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and owner’s accessory units (OAUs)) will be encouraged by the city to increase workforce and long-term rental housing options in single-family residential neighborhoods. Regulations developed to implement this policy will address potential cumulative negative impacts on the neighborhood. Accessory units will be reviewed based on the characteristics of the lot, including size, configuration, parking availability, privacy and alley access. 2.14 Mix of Complementary Land Uses The city and county will strongly encourage, consistent with other land use policies, a variety of land uses in new developments. In existing neighborhoods, a mix of land use types, housing sizes and lot sizes may be possible if properly mitigated and respectful of neighborhood character. Wherever land uses are mixed, careful design will be required to ensure compatibility, accessibility and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity and scale. Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 507 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Design Quality 2.33 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment With little vacant land remaining in the city, most new development will occur through redevelopment in mixed-use centers that tend to be the areas of greatest change. The city will gear subcommunity and area planning and other efforts toward defining the acceptable amount of infill and redevelopment and standards and performance measures for design quality to avoid or adequately mitigate negative impacts and enhance the benefits of infill and redevelopment to the community and individual neighborhoods. The city will also develop tools, such as neighborhood design guidelines, to promote sensitive infill and redevelopment. Section 3 Natural Environment Protecting Native Ecosystems & Biodiversity 3.04 Ecosystem Connections & Buffers The city and county recognize the importance of preserving large habitat areas, especially of unfragmented habitat, in support of the biodiversity of their natural lands and viable habitat for native species. The city and county will work together to preserve, enhance, restore and maintain land identified as critical and having significant ecological value for providing ecosystem connections (e.g., wildlife corridors) and buffers to support the natural movement of native organisms between ecosystems. Connected corridors of habitat may extend through or along the edges of the urban environment and often serve as vital links between natural areas for both wildlife and humans. Connected corridors are often at the greatest risk of degradation and development, and those deemed to have high ecological value should be identified for planning and, where appropriate, for acquisition, preservation, restoration and/or management while balancing existing land uses and other needs of the community. Section 4 Energy, Climate & Waste Energy-Efficient Land Use & Building Design 4.07 Energy-Efficient Land Use The city and county will encourage energy efficiency and conservation through land use policies and regulations governing placement and orientation of land uses to minimize energy use, including an increase in mixed-use development and compact, contiguous development surrounded by open space. 4.08 Energy-Efficient Building Design The city and county will pursue efforts to improve the energy- and resource-efficiency of new and existing buildings. The city and county will consider the energy consumption associated with the building process (i.e., from the raw materials through construction), improve regulations ensuring energy and resource efficiency in new construction, remodels and renovation projects and will establish energy efficiency requirements for existing buildings. Energy conservation programs will be sensitive to the unique situations that involve historic preservation and low- income homeowners and renters and will ensure that programs assisting these groups continue. Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 508 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Section 7 Housing Preserve & Enhance Housing Choices 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types The city and county, through their land use regulations and housing policies, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and densities to meet the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income households of the Boulder Valley population. The city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of housing types, as appropriate. This may include support for ADUs/OAUs, alley houses, cottage courts and building multiple small units rather than one large house on a lot. 7.07 Preserve Existing Housing Stock The city and county, recognizing the value of their existing housing stock, will encourage its preservation and rehabilitation through land use policies and regulations. Special efforts will be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income households. Special efforts will also be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income households and to promote a net gain in affordable and middle-income housing. 7.09 Housing for a Full Range of Households The city and county will encourage preservation and development of housing attractive to current and future households, persons at all stages of life and abilities, and to a variety of household incomes and configurations. This includes singles, couples, families with children and other dependents, extended families, non-traditional households and seniors. 7.11 Permanently Affordable Housing for Additional Intensity The city will develop regulations and policies to ensure that when additional intensity is provided through changes to zoning, a larger proportion of the additional development potential for the residential use will be permanently affordable housing for low-, moderate- and middle-income households. Integrate Growth & Affordable Housing Goals 7.16 Market Affordability The city will encourage and support efforts to provide market rate housing priced to be more affordable to middle-income households by identifying opportunities to incentivize moderately sized and priced homes Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 509 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Boulder’s Six Strategies for Community Engagement Success Consistency is a key element of several of the city’s community engagement strategies below. Recognizing this, the city is piloting the following decision-making process, first envisioned by the Public Participation Working Group. Your local government will strive to follow these steps for all major policy decisions in 2018 and 2019. Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 510 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Level of Engagement and the City’s Promise. Boulder has committed to considering four possible levels of engagement when designing future public participation opportunities (see below chart). The public will be Involved in this project, with the community’s feedback influencing the formation of potential options and recommendations, consistent with the scope and purpose of the project. This may include creative solutions for potentially allowing additional units on large lots, limitations on new home size, and increased energy code requirements. City of Boulder Engagement Strategic Framework The Community Engagement Process and Principles The project will follow Boulder’s Decision-Making Process as outlined in the City’s Strategic Engagement Framework. This will include meaningful public engagement and participation at community events, as well as online resources, and tools for feedback. The project is currently in the initial Planning Stage, where the project is scoped, issues and affected users are identified, and a Public Engagement Plan is drafted. The Planning Stage is anticipated to run through Winter 2018. Phase One is anticipated to be complete by May 2019, with Phase Two anticipated to conclude by the Winter of 2019. Recommendations to update the Use Table and Standards will require City Council approval and public hearings. It is important to note that recommendations will be informed by public input throughout the process. Any proposed changes will not be made without the community’s input, or without City Council approval. Feedback from the community is imperative for the project’s success, and public feedback will influence the development of potential options and recommendations throughout the process. Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 511 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Any changes to the Land Use Code will require a recommendation from the Planning Board and approval by City Council, and will include public hearings. Guiding Principles The following principles will guide the community engagement for this project: •Model the engagement framework by using the city’s decision-making wheel, levels of engagement and inclusive participation. •Involve people who are affected by or interested in the outcomes of this project. •Be clear about how the public’s input influences outcomes to inform decision-makers. •Provide engagement options. Remain open to new and innovated approaches to engaging the community. •Provide necessary background information in advance to facilitate meaningful participation. •Be efficient with the public’s time. •Show why ideas were or were not included in the staff recommendation. •All input will be considered, recognizing that feedback not pertinent to the scope of the project, is useful information that may inform future projects. Boulder’s Decision Making Process See Boulder’s Engagement Strategic Framework Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 512 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Decision-makers • City Council: Decision-making body, will make a decision informed by the Planning Board’s recommendation (for changes to the Land Use Code) and the community’s feedback. • Planning Board: Will provide input and make a recommendation to Council on Land Use Code Changes that will be informed by community’s feedback, and other boards and commissions. • City Boards and Commissions: May provide input throughout process and recommendations as may be appropriate to Council around their area of expertise. Who will be affected • Residents and neighborhoods who may be impacted from potential regulatory changes to residential development standards. • Development Community, who may be impacted from potential decisions and regulatory changes to residential development standards. • Under-Represented Groups that may have an interest in changes but may be unaware of the methods by which they can offer input. • City Staff, City Boards, and City Council who will administer any amended regulations including changes to the Land Use Code and residential development standards, and who will render development approval decisions. Project & Community Engagement Timeline Planning Stage Project Scoping and Public Engagement Plan September – December 2018: Define the project scope, identify public participation objectives, and inform the community about the project and opportunities to engage. September - October 2018 – Define the project, including the purpose statement and initial project goals with City Council. October - December 2018 – Prepare draft community engagement plan / create list of stakeholders, interested and affected parties. November 15, 2018 – Check-in with Planning Board on the project, including the proposed purpose statement and goals for the project. Discuss the community engagement strategy to obtain feedback. December 4, 2018 – Check-in with council on project and finalize the project and community engagement plan. Deliverables: • Draft Project Scope and Goals • Preliminary Options and Potential Strategies o Phased approaches to potential regulatory changes • Public Engagement Plan December 2018 / January 2019 – Establish a project website and include in the Boulder digital planning newsletter. Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 513 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Phase One & Phase Two Shared Learning Stage Engage the community and stakeholders, and solicit feedback January 2019 –Large Homes and Lots, and Use Table/Standards 101 Introductory public meeting (consolidated community engagement event) – • Introduce the Large Homes and Lots project scope and goals as defined by City Council. o Receive initial input from community on the degree to which on-going single- family infill development is a problem - Level of dislike / like or “How important to you is…?” regarding: new residential home sizes, affordability, context sensitive-design, energy conservation /sustainability, and Phase Two longer term creative solutions that may potentially allow multiple smaller-units on a large lot. o Receptiveness to a phased approach and preliminary strategies. o Other concerns and suggestions. January / February 2019 – Stakeholder meetings (2) with the development and design community. • Receive input on preliminary near-term options and strategies. Ability to adapt to reduced home bulk and size regulations and possible energy code updates - ramifications and concerns. • Level of changes needed to have a meaningful impact on home affordability, etc. • Receive input on Phase Two longer-term creative solutions to potentially allow multiple smaller-units on a large lot. • Other concerns and suggestions. Phase One Code amendments focused on near-term, more readily attainable changes. Examples: floor area ratios, form and bulk standards, and energy conservation code changes. Options Stage Consider code amendment options and engage the community March 2019 – Large Homes and Lots Community Engagement Meeting - general public, stakeholders, interested / affected parties and owners. • Present results of 1st community meeting and stakeholder meetings - what we heard, common themes. • Present Phase One near-term options for home size, bulk and form changes, and Energy Conservation Code updates. o Receive feedback on the options and proposals. o To what extent to you agree / disagree with the following options? Why? • Present preliminary outline of Phase Two longer-term creative infill potential options and timeline, potential for multiple smaller-units on a larger lot. o Receive preliminary feedback on potential options and timing. April 2019 – Develop preferred Phase One near-term code amendment recommendation(s). Decision Stage Final drafting of Phase One proposed code amendments, public hearings, and adoption. April – May 2019 April 2019 — Planning Board public hearing and recommendation on proposed Phase One near- term amendments. Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 514 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 April/May 2019 – Final public hearings at City Council and adoption of proposed Phase One ordinance. Deliverables: •Public Engagement Summary •Proposed ordinance amending the Land Use Code, and Energy Conservation Code. •Public hearing materials. Phase Two Code amendments focused on strategies requiring more in-depth consideration and community discussion. Examples: creative infill allowing multiple smaller units on larger lots, affordability measures such as deed-restricting, and tax off sets and fees. Options Stage Consider code amendment options and engage the community March 2019 – Large Homes and Lots Community Engagement Meeting - general public, stakeholders, interested / affected parties and owners. •Present results of 1st round of community meeting and stakeholder meetings - what we heard, common themes. •Present Phase One near-term options for home size, bulk and form changes. o Receive feedback on the options o To what extent to you agree / disagree with the following options? Why? •Present preliminary outline of Phase Two longer-term creative infill options and timing, potential for multiple smaller-units on a larger lot. o Receive preliminary feedback on potential options and timing. May/June 2019 — Internal stakeholder and Board meetings - Housing, Legal, other impacted Departments etc. •Feedback from relevant boards and departments (Example: Housing Advisory Board regarding deed restrictions and affordability) •Check-in with Sustainability on their Energy Conservation Code updates. June/July 2019 — Council Study Session on Phase Two options June to August 2019 — Develop and draft proposed land use code changes. Cross-check with subcommunity planning and other planning efforts. If additional density is directed as an option, rezoning and BVCP land use map amendments may be necessary. Consult with Comprehensive Planning staff on these possibilities. August 2019 — Hold public open house to present recommended draft Phase Two Code Amendment changes and •Receive feedback on the proposed draft changes. Decision Stage Final drafting of Phase One proposed code amendments, public hearings, and adoption. September– November 2019 Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 515 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 September 2019 — Planning Board Public Hearing on recommendation on proposed Phase Two changes. October / November 2019 – Council Study Session as needed, and council public hearings and adoption of proposed Phase Two ordinance. Deliverables: • Public Engagement Summary • Proposed ordinance amending the Land Use Code. May necessitate simultaneous BVCP land use map changes or rezonings if density changes are requested by council. • Public hearing materials. Process Assessment Stage Reflect and evaluate the success of the engagement process and overall project. December 2019 – Ongoing Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 516 of 553 V2 10.23.2018 Attachment D - Draft Community Engagement Plan Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 517 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Robertson, Jim Sent:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 4:38 PM To:Guiler, Karl; Collins, Andrew Subject:Fwd: Demolition, Demolition, Demolition Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged FYI. Jim Robertson From: Morzel, Lisa  Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 3:40:45 PM  To: Leora Frankel  Cc: Council; Housing Advisory Board  Subject: Re: Demolition, Demolition, Demolition   Leora   Thanks for contacting us on this important issue. One of the council’s goals set in January was/is to have a new  examination of lot size and house size. In recent discussions with planning staff, I know they are working on approaches  to this issue that is rapidly changing the face and character of our community; council will be discussing possible options  with staff at a study session in late September. In fact, yesterday I went with staff to look at the situation on the ground.  So we are working on this and hoping to come to a better outcome more representative of the broader community. In  my neighborhood, a home was sold for ~$650,000, then scraped and replaced by a home about 5‐6 times larger than the  original house. It was recently on the market for $3.45M.  In my backyard, 2 separate homes were bought for ~$1.4M,  scraped and replaced by “modern farmhouses” now worth many times more than the $1.4M for which they were  bought.   I hope you will attend our study session later in September. I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Thank  you for writing us; this is a critical issue and one the city needs to resolve.   Best wishes   Lisa   Lisa Morzel   Member, Boulder City Council  303‐815‐6723 c  303‐938‐8520 h  On Aug 22, 2018, at 3:03 PM, Leora Frankel <leoquill@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear HAB and Council members,  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 518 of 553 2 A significant percentage of our city’s houses are being scraped by developers. There is no sign of this  trend slowing down. Perhaps you have the data to show whether it’s speeding up.  With the thousands of hours of research by city staff, this burning topic never seems to come up. (If  there is analysis, please send it to me.)  What is wrong with this wave of demolitions?    Affordability: Houses valued at $600‐800,000 in my neighborhood are being replaced with houses sold  for 1.8M or more.    Demographics: As only the ultra‐wealthy can afford $2M homes, socio‐economic diversity is rapidly  shrinking. Think of this as the extinction of the true middle class in Boulder. In fact, as people look to  their left and right and understand the trend, they become motivated to leave, selling their houses and  fueling the cycle.    The Environment: You can’t actually believe that tearing down homes and sending the pieces to landfills  and then replacing said houses with new construction, based on new materials, is actually good for the  environment. Add to that the loss of trees and vegetation. This brings us to the point that developers  tend to maximize the footprint.    Taxes / Affordability II: As the land skyrockets, said middle class cannot afford the property taxes. Over  and over I hear statements to the effect of “We’ve lived here forever, how can we now pay such high  property taxes just because the houses are selling for millions?” This too fuels the cycle of selling,  moving, scraping.    Loss of Rentals: You won’t find students or young professionals or similar groups living in the $2M  homes. Nope.    What are you going to do about it?  Each of you?    Time is running out.    My recommendations — and some of you have heard this before — are:    1. Reduce the FAR. Yes, reduce the FAR to reduce the motivation to scrape houses, making such projects  less profitable.     2. Collect major fees to projects that involve total or near‐total (the proverbial wall shouldn’t make a  difference) demolition. Set aside the money collected to reduce the property taxes of struggling families  and individuals.      Sincerely,    Leora Frankel      Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 519 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Guiler, Karl Sent:Monday, October 8, 2018 2:20 PM To:Collins, Andrew; Sugnet, Jay Subject:FW: preserve existing affordable rental units FYI    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Jan Morzel <janmorzel@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 1:15 PM  To: Eckinger, Karl <Eckingerk@bouldercolorado.gov>; Guiler, Karl <GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov>  Cc: Amy Haywood <missamyh@gmail.com>  Subject: preserve existing affordable rental units    Hi Karl E. and Karl G.,    We request that you hold our existing accessory structure in our backyard "in abeyance" until further determination by  City Council or Planning Board.    There is a small cottage in our backyard (790 sqft of living  space) that is currently rented to an older couple.  They are  69 and 70 years old.  Their rent is affordable for a 2‐bedroom unit as specified in the new ADU requirement for  affordable units.    The building was constructed with adobe and strawbale walls, with building permits from Boulder County and City of  Boulder.    There are six solar hot water collectors on the roof.   The cottage is about 85% solar heated.  We would like to install a small array of PV panels, which would make the  structure net‐zero.    City Council held a study session on September 25th, to define goals for “Large Homes and Large Lots”.  Karl G. led the discussion on this issue.    City Council determined several priorities, as summarized by staff in the October 2, 2018 memo:    ‐ “Move forward quickly”    ‐ “Provide powerful incentivizes to encourage more smaller‐homes    and creative solutions"    ‐ “Preserve existing homes in RR, RE, and RL”    ‐ “Consider exceptions of the 3‐unrelated individuals limit”     ‐ “Incentivize more affordability”    ‐ “Speed up Net‐Zero Energy requirements”    Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 520 of 553 2 ‐ “Encourage broader economic diversity”    ‐ “Allowing multiple ADU’s per lot, in RE and RR zones”    Our little cottage in our backyard addresses all (!) of these goals, and should be grandfathered‐in as we were developing  it before we annexed.      All of our surrounding neighbors have started building a new road behind our property line.  They hope to subdivide this  year, and, most likely, will sell up to twenty‐sixe new RL building lots.  At current market rates, they hope to get $500‐ 700k per lot.  The most likely outcome, we fear, is that many new $1 Million and $2 Million homes will be built all  around us.  The exact house type that council would like to avoid, it appears.    We would rather maintain affordable rentals, than having to subdivide.  There is great momentum for this coming  avalanche of new “super‐sized mansions” in our neighborhood.    Some of the same people who expect to make a huge profit from selling lend, have called zoning inspectors to our  property and our neighbor’s, who has been renting tiny homes.  Four families are in immediate danger of losing their  homes this month or next: a student couple, a single worker, a retired couple, and a single senior.    And our neighbor and us we are in danger of losing rental income that allows us to stay in the neighborhood.  We rely on  the rentals to pay a major portion of our mortgage and the $45,000 cost of annexing into the City of Boulder in  2009 (water, sewer, stormwater PIF, new pavement and sidewalk for Upland Avenue, etc.).    We would like you to hold in abeyance our rental units, as was done by the City Manger for ADU’s and Co‐ops, until  Council discussed and finished updating the relevant code sections.    Time is of essence.  Your help and assistance would be greatly appreciated.     Thank you,  Jan & Amy    2075 Upland Ave  303 413‐1711      Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 521 of 553 From: N Fiore <nick@flowerarchitecture.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:32 AM To: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Scalpels not Sledges Hello Council - Attached please find a letter written after last night's meeting. In the hope of finding solutions that are carefully weighed and specific, please read it and contact me if you'd like to discuss it in more detail. I think we can find alternatives to drastic measures that can address the problems outlined last night. Cheers Nick _________ Nicholas Fiore Desk 720 515 7749 Mobile 434 531 6837 nick@flowerarchitecture.com FLOWER 777 Pearl St., Ste. 211 Boulder, CO 80302 flowerarchitecture.com Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 522 of 553         October 17, 2018    Boulder City Council Members  Boulder Colorado    MORATORIUM ALTERNATIVES: REDUCE SCRAPES, INCENTIVES FOR SMALL/AFFORDABLE  INRE: POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT MORATORIUM          Dear Council Members and Neighbors,    I am writing to you today as a general citizen of Boulder, a father of two young kids and a husband. Thank you, first,                                                for reconsidering your “emergency” ordinances involving a moratorium on residential construction meeting certain                     parameters. It was the right thing to do. There are livelihoods of Boulderites at stake, planning projects underway,                                   and I think you understand that after the community feedback. I am also relieved that you avoided the alternative                                    ordinance, a heavy-handed impact tax by any other name that would stop all construction required to pay it (Yes,                                    stop. $100/sf is a 25-33% tax on construction in a city where a $1M home permit generates more than $30k in city                                           taxes and fees already. Soak the rich, sure, but yikes!). Second, I want to do my part in the community discussion on                                           these complex issues, and in light of Ms. Young’s request for ideas at the council meeting last night I’m sitting here                                          the day after to brainstorm potential solutions. I’ve been thinking on these issues since I moved here in 2006.     As an aside, I’d like to point out that from your questions to staff it is clear that the intricacies of zoning and permitting are                                                  not yet fully understood by all of Council, let alone the nuances, and therefore it may be difficult to foresee unintended                                          consequences. I get it, who has time for this? You are all incredibly busy and frankly burdened with grave issues. Staff is                                            obviously a great resource for this, and I also urge you all to reach out the design community to more fully understand                                            how the rules and regs are followed, maneuvered, and approached by the players - not just the referees (staff). This will                                        greatly improve your understanding of real-world decision making and responses to city policy. I’m sure you know or are                                     in contact with architects in town - reach out! Hey - I’m here too. (End sports analogies).     What I heard from you all on the dais last night was a desire to achieve two major goals: stop - or more likely slow                                                  and reduce - the scrapes; and incentivize affordable housing and smaller home construction. There are so many                                creative ways we can try to achieve both goals. As a general requirement, I suggest that the city consider incentives                                       rather than punitive measures. Moratoriums - the nuclear option of policy change - should be tabled forevermore.                                Furthermore, my goal here is to illustrate specific actions (scalpels) not wide-nets (sledgehammers).      COUNCIL WANTS TO CHANGE:  ●Council believes and has heard in certain neighborhoods that Developers are scraping homes to build large                              spec homes in RL and RE zones (anecdotal)   ●Developers are not living in them, are not building them custom for local families (anecdotal)  ●Building big homes on scraped sites (Can we not use this word: ’McMansions’ are mass-produced, poorly built                                Toll/Pulte)  ●Large lots will be better utilized if split to accommodate more units (upzoning), smaller units (affordable?)      Next: SOLUTIONS...      FLOWER ARCHITECTURE | FLOWERARCHITECTURE.COM | 720 - 515 - 7749        Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 523 of 553 SOLUTIONS and STEPS:  ●DATA COLLECTION: REAL VIEW OF THE ISSUE (NOT ANECDOTAL) ○Direct staff to determine if anecdotal examples (scrapes by spec builders, specs for out of town? State?                                buyers) are real or statistical aberrations. Adjust city reaction accordingly. ○Determine - city wide, and per zone, the following realities: ■# of residential Lots per Zones RL/RE/RR at Sizes 0-12k/12k-17k/17k plus ■Median/Avg Size (sf) of houses per zone per lot size ■ACTUAL lot size average per zone (compare to min. required lot size per zone) ■Total number of homes in each zone per segment: 0-2000sf /2k-5ksf/5k+ sf ■NOTE that 12,000sf lot parameter designed to weed out RL-1 south boulder lots above 10k - there                                are many (my own included) and they are least at risk of speculation due to neighborhood, market                              forces ○The data should be used to understand truly what is being built (size-wise) and where (per zone). It will                                   aid in understanding where to set size parameters in any/all specific measure (below). ●STOP THE LARGE SPECULATIVE HOMES - AFFIDAVIT OF OWNER OCCUPANCY FOR HOMES ABV 5K ○A signed and notarized statement certifying owner occupancy: The applicant who is requesting a home                           size above 5,000sf by city FAR definition would be REQUIRED to file this with permit application to                              collect a building permit. (assumes 4500sf house 500sf garage for example to set 5000sf parameteR;                            alt example 4k house 5oosf garage 500sf ADU). ■The city uses this technique already by requiring citizens who build studios or outbuildings which                           are NOT licensed as ADUs to certify that they will not be ‘occupied’ as living spaces (no sleeping). ○Benefit of this technique is that it avoids punitive requirements or bans on Boulderites creating the                            spaces they need for their homes, families, work at home offices, multi-gen, etc. ○Additionally, a requirement that the home not be put up for sale for a determined amount of time may                                  aid in preventing any games being played to work around this requirement. Two years would do it, IMHO. ■Tom Carr, lawyer staff consultation required, obviously. ●CHANGE F.A.R. CALCULATION ○Most efficient way to control large house sizes. ○Lots above 15k: Constrict FAR most severely to limit monster homes. Limit to 5k or 55OOsf. ■Note, again, that 10k is a FAR TOO SMALL lot size to employ as a controlling paramete r - too                                    common in middle income/worker housing areas of South Boulder to to constrict. RE and RR lots                             are generally much larger. (Here is where looking at data for ACTUAL lot sizes instead of                              MINIMUM lot sizes required by zoning is KEY!) ■RE and RR lots - the big ones where the 6k, 7k houses are allowed will be MOST affected by this                                        FAR change - and hence a scenario you should pursue. ○15k is a lot size common in Lisa’s area (RR, RE) and - if selected as the parameter - will be met with the                                              LEAST resistance by the wider community in changing. There are just less lots that big for owners to                                 push back as hard, and few will argue (myself included) that houses above 5k are really ideal in any way. ○FAR at lot sizes BELOW 15k: Make no change. ■Why? Flexibility for owners: ADUs, OAUs, multi-gen living, work from home, etc etc ■Why? Not the stated target (monster homes in RE and RR) ■Why? Smaller fight, quicker win politically. Limits monsters in RR RE in 2019. ○Phase this in. Give the community an overlap old to new rules. Be wise on timing. FLOWER ARCHITECTURE | FLOWERARCHITECTURE.COM | 720 - 515 - 7749  2  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 524 of 553           ●DENSITY (UPZONE): CAREFULLY    ○Easily the most surprising (and welcome) alternative floated by Ms. Morzel and Council. Yay!  ○Don’t actually believe this on the table. Skeptical:  ■Are your constituencies aware of this implied change? Sort of a 180 here on recent policy.  ■Subdividing within neighborhoods, randomly (spot zoning) has been pretty widely panned in the                         general population, last I checked in the DC or heard on the street. No?  ■Denver. Highlands has townhomes, triplexes on former single lots. I think it’s great, a nice solution                               - infill for affordability and density. Again… public discussion required as this has been a                             non-starter by the forces in control in our fair city for the 12 years I’ve lived here. What’s                                    changed?  ○BY FAR the most difficult policy change.   ○IF YOU DO IT:  ■Along transit corridors (Broadway, Canyon, Arapahoe)  ■Pick the right zones, but pick all zones too (spread pain, spread the transit demand)  ■Don’t spot zone. Random triplexes in single hoods will create backlash - quick  ■Edges: Upzone up against major roads, shopping centers, offices as ‘buffer’ between commercial                         uses and low single residential uses  ■Affordable: Use Boulder Affordable money on some projects to spark upzone areas  ●Private Development: Allow a mix affordable/market rate to encourage the densification  ●Mixed Use: Use Affordable housing funds to create mixed use housing/retail/service                    buildings - put city money where ‘15min neighborhood’ mouths are  ■Be ready for a fight. PLAN, many neighborhoods will organize against this.  ■It will take more than one year…. Which again, is why a moratorium is a poor solution.  ■Do it concurrently: Allow the rules you have in place (affordability, Compat Dev) to rule the day                                while we make these changes.    Thank you all for taking the time to read this, I hope it is helpful. I would LOVE to speak with any of you in more detail                                                      on anything I’ve written, or even in general on these issues. Good luck, godspeed.      Sincerely,    Nicholas Fiore, AIA  nick @ flowerarchitecture.com  cell: 434-531-6837    FLOWER ARCHITECTURE | FLOWERARCHITECTURE.COM | 720 - 515 - 7749    3    Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 525 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Morzel, Lisa Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 8:12 PM To:Collins, Andrew; Guiler, Karl Subject:Fwd: Floor to Area Ratio discussion Hi Andrew and Karl    I don't know if you've seen this email but thought he presents an interesting approach for the city of Glendale CA.  Thoughts?    Thanks much    Lisa    Lisa Morzel  Boulder City Council Member    303‐815‐6723 c  303‐938‐8520 h    Begin forwarded message:  From: Chris Cragnotti <chriscragnotti@mac.com>  Date: October 17, 2018 at 1:35:21 PM MDT  To: joness@bouldercolorado.gov, brocketta@bouldercolorado.gov, yatesb@bouldercolorado.gov,  carlislec@bouldercolorado.gov, granoj@bouldercolorado.gov, morzell@bouldercolorado.gov,  youngm@bouldercolorado.gov, naglem@bouldercolorado.gov, WeaverS@bouldercolorado.gov  Cc: <brautigamj@bouldercolorado.gov>, <cityclerkstaff@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Floor to Area Ratio discussion  Madame Mayor and Esteemed Council Members,    My name is Chris Cragnotti and I am not a resident of Boulder, CO, but rather a native and current  resident of Glendale, CA.  I also serve as a commissioner on our city’s Historic Preservation  Commission.  Glendale, CA is bordered by the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank and Pasadena and some of  Southern California’s loveliest mountains.  The population of Glendale is slightly larger than that of  Boulder at approximately 200,000 and our median home values and rental values are just slightly higher  than those of Boulder.  The vast majority of our SFR housing stock dates back to 1920’s‐1940’s.  I was  visiting Colorado this past weekend and spent that snowy Sunday hiking up to the Flat Irons outside your  fair city.  Taken by your charming town, I scrolled through the local news and saw that the issue of  mansionization was going to be discussed at last night’s meeting.  Mansionization and Floor to Area  Ratio are topics that Glendale wrestled with a couple of decades ago.  Our council at the time created a  robust set of regulations that were not one size fits all but slightly nuanced for each neighborhood.  I am  a big fan of our FAR regulations.    Here is a link to a chart that breaks down our 3 FAR Districts but here they are in summary:    District I: 30% of the first 10,000 sf of lot and 10% thereafter  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 526 of 553 2 District II: 40% of the first 10,000 sf of lot and 10% thereafter  District III: 45% of the first 10,000 sf of lot and 10% thereafter    Note:  Glendale does not include garage space (attached or detached) or any outdoor patios/porches  (covered or otherwise) in the living space calculation.  Living space is contained within the walls of the  habitable structures only including any Guest Houses or ADUs.  Also, once the total living space area  passes the 3,500 sf mark, the city requires a 3‐car garage.  Almost no homes in Glendale were originally  built with 3‐car garages so that is an additional restriction/requirement when expanding a house.  The  vast majority of our single‐family home neighborhoods are either District I or II.  Our lot sizes range from  6,000‐15,000 on average with most in the 7,000‐10,000 range (these ranges are not researched, but  rather what I am approximating from experience).  Only recently has Glendale allowed the conversion of  garages to ADUs to comply with state regulations on the subject.  As mentioned, those ADUs count  toward the overall square footage area.    Here is a link to our Zoning Map.  The Olive and Yellow colored areas on the map are our main SFR  neighborhoods.    As a licensed REALTOR®, I am a big fan of private property rights but as a property owner, I also  acknowledge that individual property owners don’t live in a vacuum.  Modifications I make to my house  affect the overall character of the neighborhood.  Glendale has the most restrictive FAR regulations in  the region and because of that we have the most conforming streets around.      Also as a REALTOR® I see first hand the repercussions of mansionization.  The home buyers who shop in  Glendale are doing so not only because we have such charming neighborhoods, but also because it is so  much more affordable than the other cities in our region.  For instance, the same 3+2 1,800 sf house on  a modest 8,000 sf lot in Glendale sells for 20%‐30% less than it would in Studio City (a nearby area of the  City of Los Angeles) mainly because in Studio City that 1,800 sf house can be scraped and doubled in  size.  In Glendale’s District I neighborhood, a homeowner would be restricted to 2,400 on that same  8,000 sf lot.  The cities of Los Angeles and Burbank have only just recently started down the road you all  are headed and are exploring tighter FAR regulations.  Sadly, the horse is very much out of the barn in  most areas of those cities.    Watching your impassioned meeting last night, I see that you will be tackling the issue in the coming  weeks and months.  If you are looking for anecdotal information, I encourage you to have your staff look  to Glendale as one of the cities they study.  As I mentioned, Glendale is similar in size and our FAR  regulations are now a couple of decades old and very seasoned.  Because we live in a vibrant region it  should be somewhat easy to see how those regulations have affected us as compared to our neighbors  who do not have them.    Why am I a fan of our tight FAR rules?  I appreciate the conforming nature of our streets.  We have  blocks and blocks that look much like they did when they were built.  We don’t have huge new mansions  towering over our charming single story Spanish and Traditional houses.  Our homes are respectfully  positioned with space between neighbors and surrounded by tall mature trees and grassy yards.  I also  appreciate that we are, relatively speaking, still affordable.  We have many first time home buyers  moving to our city and folks who don’t move far when they do.    Thank you for taking the time to read this message and I wish you all the best as you tackle this issue.  I  can’t impress upon you enough how important it is.    Regards,  Chris Cragnotti  G&C Properties  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 527 of 553 3 Broker Associate  Voted Glendale’s Best Real Estate Agent   by Glendale Newspress Readers, 2017 & 2018    Commissioner, City of Glendale Historic Preservation Commission    At The Historic Kenneth Village  1409 1/2 W Kenneth Rd.  Glendale, CA 91201  818.389.0761 cell/text  www.ChrisCragnotti.com  www.Character‐Homes.com  DRE #: 01401809    Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 528 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Robertson, Jim Sent:Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:33 PM To:Guiler, Karl; Collins, Andrew Subject:FW: Reflecting on the 10/16 Meeting FYI.    Jim Robertson, AIA Director O: 303-441-4277 robertsonj@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning, Housing + Sustainability 1739 Broadway | PO Box 791 | Boulder, CO 80301 Bouldercolorado.gov    From: Nicole Rajpal <nrrajpal@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:29 PM  To: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Reflecting on the 10/16 Meeting    Dear Council Members,  First, thank you for your commitment to the Boulder community, I can only imagine yours is a thankless job. Second, I wanted to commend you for your decision to delay any type of emergency moratorium on building until December, it feels like a step in the right direction and a well-intentioned attempt to include more community voices. However, continuing this conversation on whether to temporarily suspend building permits will only delay the more meaningful work of making permanent changes to zoning which appears to be your ultimate goal. My suggestion for you is to move away from the conversation on a temporary moratorium altogether. As was pointed out on your October 16th meeting, this will only impact a small (15-18) number of homes over the next 365 days anyhow, and will create a serious problem of negatively impacting those currently in the planning process.   Listening to your comments from the meeting I felt as though certain members of the City Council have feelings of resentment/hostility toward the wealthy subsect of Boulder. I was struck by a very mixed message being presented by council and I would like to address each of those individually:  1. Affordable Housing: Attempting to address affordable housing by imposing severe restrictions on members of our community is misguided. It is not the size of the house that causes prices to rise, it is the lack of available land and the proximity to public goods (Pearl St., open space, trails, etc) that have resulted in higher housing prices. My neighbor lives in a 2,000 sq foot house last updated in the 1970’s that now has an estimated value of over $1M. If someone renovated her home, which is likely needed, the construction cost alone will result in a house price of at least $1.5M - not necessarily affordable to the working class. If you subdivide a large lot and put 2-4 lots in its place you will not end up with more $750,000 homes, you will likely end up with more $2M homes if the neighborhood is coveted for aforementioned reasons. In no way is a $2M smaller home considered affordable housing. What you will accomplish in this scenario is more dense housing, that is sure to have a negative impact on traffic patterns and infrastructure in general. I think we can look to places like Seattle, Marin County, Austin, New York, etc. to quickly learn that density does not result in affordability.  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 529 of 553 2 If the city truly cares about affordable housing, they could convert the property they purchased at the old BCH campus and convert that into affordable housing in a prime location. I suspect that isn’t a palatable solution as the income generated will not cover the costs and the city may ultimately lose money. Upzoning and offering incentives for the construction of long term affordable housing are additional ways to potentially increase affordability without negatively impacting current property owners (who would like a home larger than 3500 sf and do not want to subdivide).  2. Community: It was mentioned more than once by Councilmembers Morzel and Young that individuals who live in, or own, large houses are contributing to a decreased sense of community in the city. I find this statement to be offensive and false. I live in a neighborhood that has seen drastic turnover since we first purchased our home in 2012 - smaller, extremely dated, houses were remodeled and/or replaced with modern family homes. The resulting effect was an influx of younger families, like ours, who have formed a surrogate family network. We call on each other for emergency childcare and carpools, kids run freely between homes, we hold neighborhood parades, movie nights and parties. This is what a strong community looks like. When you speak of a lack of community, I hear you saying lack of a certain/more desirable income bracket, or too many higher wage earners. As I mentioned last night, you cannot celebrate and encourage innovative business in the Boulder community on one hand and then prevent those same business owners and executives from building homes to fit their lifestyle on their personal property.    3. Trees: I found it odd that a few council members mentioned that large homes are (negatively) contributing to a lack of trees in Boulder. Besides being a blanket statement that isn’t true of all large lots and homes, I find it sort of silly. When looking at historic pictures of Boulder, one thing I always notice is how few trees existed prior to development. City code requires new and/or remodeled homes to plant trees, and removing dead and decaying trees can improve safety and beautification of a city. In our prior home on large lot, we removed 3 mostly dead trees and planted 9 trees in their place, therefore adding trees. Also, cramming more structures into a lot will only limit the amount of space needed for large, healthy, aging trees.  4. Environmental Sustainability: Like most everyone who lives in Boulder, I place a high value on minimizing my environmental impact, and am planning a home with those goals in mind. While I am not an expert on the impact of more small vs fewer large homes on the environment it seems rational to assume that one larger net-neutral home will have a smaller impact than many homes. Each additional home will bring more vehicles, more appliances, more residents and more total usage. Maybe I am wrong, but the city should take the time to explore this fully before enforcing any drastic changes. Or maybe environmental impact is taking a lower priority to housing at this time?  5. Developers Flipping Houses: I agree that predatory practices displayed by some developers and realtors is terrible, however, punishing an entire community for the behavior of a select few is misguided. If this is truly who you are angry with, place sanctions against companies like AGR, not the rest of the community. Imposing blanket restrictions, and taking a sledgehammer to a process that requires a scalpel will result in far too many unintended consequences. It is also important to remember that people that live in our community purchase homes from these developers because they don’t have the desire to deal with all of the city codes and requirements to remodel homes on their own.  We have compatible development and it works very well as evidenced by the fact that the number of homes over 6,000 feet, and the average square footage of homes on large lots hasn’t changed much in the past decade. Should the City Council decide to adjust the current building codes, you must take your time in sorting out the goals for Boulders future. This process must include regular public input with the city planning division, not just another City Council Meeting. A tactful, staged implementation of thoughtful changes that include more incentives (and fewer punishments) to achieve desired goals will result in more public trust and support. A moratorium on building will only serve to threaten jobs, business and the economy as a whole, and will result in a greater deal of distrust of our elected officials and public servants.   Along the lines of distrusting public officials, I put together the fact that Jan Morzel is the ex-husband of Lisa Morzel, the same councilmember who attempted to force this ridiculous emergency moratorium through in the first place. The fact that the city council was asking th e city to not enforce city ordinances against his illegal Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 530 of 553 3 ADUs while simultaneously asking the city to limit legal building permits is unacceptable and wreaks of an elected official abusing power to further a personal agenda. I think you would do best to look out for the entire community, not the self-serving interests of one City Council member.   Regards,  Nicole Rajpal  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 531 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Robertson, Jim Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 4:26 PM To:Collins, Andrew; Guiler, Karl; Firnhaber, Kurt Subject:FW: Keep eyes on the prize Interesting idea.    Jim Robertson, AIA  Director    O: 303‐441‐4277  robertsonj@bouldercolorado.gov    Department of Planning, Housing + Sustainability  1739 Broadway | PO Box 791 | Boulder, CO 80301 Bouldercolorado.gov    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Susan McVicker <susanmcmc@yahoo.com>  Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:14 AM  To: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Keep eyes on the prize    Dear Council Members,  Thank you for delaying the vote on limiting house sizes. In light of the goal to provide 12,000 affordable housing units,  focusing on the average of 12 built per year exceeding 3500 feet on large lots doesn’t make sense. A 3499 sq ft house on  a 10,000 sq ft lot is still over a million dollars, not affordable.    Among other sites, I think the Council should consider partnering with Louisville to redevelop the old Sam’s Club site on  McCaslin into a mixed use property providing affordable housing for Boulder County.     Thank you for your service.     Sincerely,  Susan McVicker        Sent from my iPhone    Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 532 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Morzel, Lisa Sent:Friday, October 19, 2018 11:44 AM To:Morzel, Lisa; Guiler, Karl; Collins, Andrew Subject:Fwd: Floor to Area Ratio discussion Andrew and Karl    Here’s more info from Glendale.     Thanks so much for your work on this  Lisa    Lisa Morzel  Member, Boulder City Council  303‐815‐6723 c  303‐938‐8520 h      Begin forwarded message:  From: Chris Cragnotti <chriscragnotti@mac.com>  Date: October 19, 2018 at 9:19:49 AM MDT  To: "Morzel, Lisa" <MorzelL@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Re: Floor to Area Ratio discussion  Hi Lisa,    Nice to hear from you.  We rarely see full demolitions in our city.  I suspect the main reason being that  because we have such tight FARs it just doesn’t make sense for a property owner to tear down a house  and replace it with something that is only marginally bigger.  The average size of an original house on a  10,000 SF lot for instance is probably 2,400 SF.  In our District I zone a property owner is capped at 3,000  SF on that 10,000 SF lot.  It doesn’t really make financial sense to tear down that 2,400 SF house just to  build something that is only 600 SF larger.  We do have a lot of additions to our older home stock,  however, additions that usually take a house to its maximum allowable size.    The other big component that we have in Glendale, that I did not go into in my initial email, is our  Design Review Board (DRB).  Our DRB is a 5‐member panel of “qualified” Glendale citizens who review  the plans for larger scale modifications or rebuilds if a house is indeed being torn down and  replaced.  Any addition of 700 sf or larger automatically triggers review by the DRB.  They are tasked  with ensuring the overall design is not hideous.  That doesn’t mean that the original style of the house  can’t change, but if it does it needs to comply with some basic tenets of good design.  Most  developers/homeowners don’t really want to deal with the DRB so they keep their modifications under  700 SF.    The final, and most recent thing our city has done to help maintain the conformity of our  neighborhoods, is the implementation about a decade ago of Historic Overlay Zones.  Our city is known  for its large “population” of revival architecture, in particular Spanish revival.  We have other styles, too,  but Spanish is our main one.  We have I think 8 Historic Districts ranging in size from 5 homes to 500  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 533 of 553 2 homes.  In those districts, homes are not allowed to drastically change their style.  A Spanish has to stay  a Spanish, it can’t be made into a modern or something like that, plus the city has more control of the  materials a property owner may choose from when when making modifications, the most important of  those being the types and style of allowable windows and doors.  More than anything, cheap windows  and doors can really make a pretty house ugly.    There is also one unintended restricter to expansion that works well in one of our 40% FAR  neighborhoods and that is our indigenous tree ordinance.  The neighborhood that has the 40%  allowable structure size also happens to be an area of town that has larger lots that are populated with  California Live Oaks which are one of three protected trees in Glendale.  These trees can’t be cut down  and they require a certain amount of space around them which inhibits the expansion of structures in  many cases.    I will say, one of the biggest complaints I hear is how restrictive Glendale is in terms of development.  All  I can say to that is, thank goodness because I drive through neighboring cities and cringe at some of the  stuff I see.  Beyond just large homes towering over smaller ones, there is so much bad design out  there.  Parts of Burbank are an abomination.  Whole blocks are just littered with apartment sized single  family homes that are just ugly, never mind big.    If you’re curious about our architecture, here is a link to my company’s real estate website,  www.Character‐Homes.com.  We represent a wide variety of housing stock in town but you will see that  the majority is Spanish.  You will also see that there is almost no newer construction.  Some homes are  cosmetically updated inside, of course, but you will see most homes still retain their original classic style  on the outside.    Watching your meeting the other night is really the first one I have ever seen.  Like I said, I just happen  to read in the paper that you were going to be discussing FARs and that is such a hot button issue in my  world here in Glendale that I thought I would see what you guys are dealing with.  I am sure your staff is  very capable of providing you thorough guidance on the subject and in fact you may have already gone  down this road partially in the past.  All I wanted to get across is that this is old news here in  Glendale.  Our residents saw the writing on the wall 25 years ago and pressured a then receptive city  council to nip the things in the bud.  I will say that there is no way these restrictions would pass muster  with our current council and in fact some of us are worried that the council we have today will try to  ease them up a bit.    Hopefully you’re traveling for fun!!  Feel free to ask me anything.  I will do my best to provide you will  whatever information you need.      P.S. so far you are the only council person to reply to my email.  I was not expecting to hear from anyone  actually but I thought you might like to know that.    Regards,  Chris  G&C Properties  Broker Associate  Voted Glendale’s Best Real Estate Agent   by Glendale Newspress Readers, 2017 & 2018    At The Historic Kenneth Village  1409 1/2 W Kenneth Rd.  Glendale, CA 91201  818.389.0761 cell/text  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 534 of 553 3 www.ChrisCragnotti.com  www.Character‐Homes.com  DRE #: 01401809              On Oct 18, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Morzel, Lisa <MorzelL@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:    Hi Chris    Thank you very much for writing and sending your email and links   Interesting  approach.     How are demolitions handled in Glendale?    Thanks much. I have more questions but am traveling now. I will write next week.     Lisa     Lisa Morzel  Boulder City Council Member    303‐815‐6723 c  303‐938‐8520 h    On Oct 17, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Chris Cragnotti <chriscragnotti@mac.com> wrote:  Madame Mayor and Esteemed Council Members,    My name is Chris Cragnotti and I am not a resident of Boulder, CO, but  rather a native and current resident of Glendale, CA.  I also serve as a  commissioner on our city’s Historic Preservation Commission.  Glendale,  CA is bordered by the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank and Pasadena and  some of Southern California’s loveliest mountains.  The population of  Glendale is slightly larger than that of Boulder at approximately 200,000  and our median home values and rental values are just slightly higher  than those of Boulder.  The vast majority of our SFR housing stock dates  back to 1920’s‐1940’s.  I was visiting Colorado this past weekend and  spent that snowy Sunday hiking up to the Flat Irons outside your fair  city.  Taken by your charming town, I scrolled through the local news  and saw that the issue of mansionization was going to be discussed at  last night’s meeting.  Mansionization and Floor to Area Ratio are topics  that Glendale wrestled with a couple of decades ago.  Our council at the  time created a robust set of regulations that were not one size fits all  but slightly nuanced for each neighborhood.  I am a big fan of our FAR  regulations.    Here is a link to a chart that breaks down our 3 FAR Districts but here  they are in summary:  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 535 of 553 4   District I: 30% of the first 10,000 sf of lot and 10% thereafter  District II: 40% of the first 10,000 sf of lot and 10% thereafter  District III: 45% of the first 10,000 sf of lot and 10% thereafter    Note:  Glendale does not include garage space (attached or detached)  or any outdoor patios/porches (covered or otherwise) in the living space  calculation.  Living space is contained within the walls of the habitable  structures only including any Guest Houses or ADUs.  Also, once the  total living space area passes the 3,500 sf mark, the city requires a 3‐car  garage.  Almost no homes in Glendale were originally built with 3‐car  garages so that is an additional restriction/requirement when expanding  a house.  The vast majority of our single‐family home neighborhoods  are either District I or II.  Our lot sizes range from 6,000‐15,000 on  average with most in the 7,000‐10,000 range (these ranges are not  researched, but rather what I am approximating from experience).  Only  recently has Glendale allowed the conversion of garages to ADUs to  comply with state regulations on the subject.  As mentioned, those  ADUs count toward the overall square footage area.    Here is a link to our Zoning Map.  The Olive and Yellow colored areas on  the map are our main SFR neighborhoods.    As a licensed REALTOR®, I am a big fan of private property rights but as  a property owner, I also acknowledge that individual property owners  don’t live in a vacuum.  Modifications I make to my house affect the  overall character of the neighborhood.  Glendale has the most  restrictive FAR regulations in the region and because of that we have  the most conforming streets around.      Also as a REALTOR® I see first hand the repercussions of  mansionization.  The home buyers who shop in Glendale are doing so  not only because we have such charming neighborhoods, but also  because it is so much more affordable than the other cities in our  region.  For instance, the same 3+2 1,800 sf house on a modest 8,000 sf  lot in Glendale sells for 20%‐30% less than it would in Studio City (a  nearby area of the City of Los Angeles) mainly because in Studio City  that 1,800 sf house can be scraped and doubled in size.  In Glendale’s  District I neighborhood, a homeowner would be restricted to 2,400 on  that same 8,000 sf lot.  The cities of Los Angeles and Burbank have only  just recently started down the road you all are headed and are exploring  tighter FAR regulations.  Sadly, the horse is very much out of the barn in  most areas of those cities.    Watching your impassioned meeting last night, I see that you will be  tackling the issue in the coming weeks and months.  If you are looking  for anecdotal information, I encourage you to have your staff look to  Glendale as one of the cities they study.  As I mentioned, Glendale is  similar in size and our FAR regulations are now a couple of decades old  and very seasoned.  Because we live in a vibrant region it should be  somewhat easy to see how those regulations have affected us as  compared to our neighbors who do not have them.  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 536 of 553 5 Why am I a fan of our tight FAR rules?  I appreciate the conforming  nature of our streets.  We have blocks and blocks that look much like  they did when they were built.  We don’t have huge new mansions  towering over our charming single story Spanish and Traditional  houses.  Our homes are respectfully positioned with space between  neighbors and surrounded by tall mature trees and grassy yards.  I also  appreciate that we are, relatively speaking, still affordable.  We have  many first time home buyers moving to our city and folks who don’t  move far when they do.  Thank you for taking the time to read this message and I wish you all the  best as you tackle this issue.  I can’t impress upon you enough how  important it is.  Regards,  Chris Cragnotti  G&C Properties  Broker Associate  Voted Glendale’s Best Real Estate Agent   by Glendale Newspress Readers, 2017 & 2018  Commissioner, City of Glendale Historic Preservation Commission  At The Historic Kenneth Village  1409 1/2 W Kenneth Rd.  Glendale, CA 91201  818.389.0761 cell/text  www.ChrisCragnotti.com  www.Character‐Homes.com  DRE #: 01401809  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 537 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Guiler, Karl Sent:Wednesday, October 24, 2018 1:17 PM To:Collins, Andrew Subject:FW: Floor to Area Ratio discussion Attachments:ATT00001.txt FYI    From: Carlisle, Cynthia <CarlisleC@bouldercolorado.gov>   Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:39 AM  To: Morzel, Lisa <MorzelL@bouldercolorado.gov>; Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov>; HOTLINE  <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>  Cc: Chris Cragnotti <criscragnotti@mac.com>  Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Floor to Area Ratio discussion    Council,  First, thanks to Chris Cragnotti for emailing and letting us know his experiences in Glendale with some of the land use  issues we are experiencing in Boulder, and second, thanks to Lisa for opening up the conversation to us and the larger  community.    From Mr. Cragnotti’s experience in helping to preserve his city’s economic livability and its “feel” and look—its human  scale‐‐ it seems that what Boulder needs is the political will to carry through on some of the things we talk a lot about— housing affordability, working to make the traffic mess less,   preserving the retail and service base we need.      Political will needs come from us: difficult on the front end, as Mr. Cragnotti notes, but achieves the goal in the long  run.  I look forward to working with you, Council, on this issue and hope it doesn’t get punted into the vast planning  maw.    Cindy    From: Morzel, Lisa   Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 12:24 PM  To: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov>; HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Fwd: Floor to Area Ratio discussion    Council    Last week we received an email from Chris Cragnotti, a commissioner on the Glendale, CA historic preservation  commission, who happened to be visiting Boulder and watched council's discussion on large lots and large houses. I  replied to Chris and that ensued a constructive discussion.     Please read below for an objective approach implemented by Glendale.     Start from the bottom and read upward.     Thanks     Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 538 of 553 2 Lisa    Hi Lisa,     Nice to hear from you.  We rarely see full demolitions in our city.  I  suspect the main reason being that because we have such tight FARs it  just doesn’t make sense for a property owner to tear down a house and  replace it with something that is only marginally bigger.  The average  size of an original house on a 10,000 SF lot for instance is probably 2,400  SF.  In our District I zone a property owner is capped at 3,000 SF on that  10,000 SF lot.  It doesn’t really make financial sense to tear down that  2,400 SF house just to build something that is only 600 SF larger.  We do  have a lot of additions to our older home stock, however, additions that  usually take a house to its maximum allowable size.    The other big component that we have in Glendale, that I did not go  into in my initial email, is our Design Review Board (DRB).  Our DRB is a  5‐member panel of “qualified” Glendale citizens who review the plans  for larger scale modifications or rebuilds if a house is indeed being torn  down and replaced.  Any addition of 700 sf or larger automatically  triggers review by the DRB.  They are tasked with ensuring the overall  design is not hideous.  That doesn’t mean that the original style of the  house can’t change, but if it does it needs to comply with some basic  tenets of good design.  Most developers/homeowners don’t really want  to deal with the DRB so they keep their modifications under 700 SF.    The final, and most recent thing our city has done to help maintain the  conformity of our neighborhoods, is the implementation about a  decade ago of Historic Overlay Zones.  Our city is known for its large  “population” of revival architecture, in particular Spanish revival.  We  have other styles, too, but Spanish is our main one.  We have I think 8  Historic Districts ranging in size from 5 homes to 500 homes.  In those  districts, homes are not allowed to drastically change their style.  A  Spanish has to stay a Spanish, it can’t be made into a modern or  something like that, plus the city has more control of the materials a  property owner may choose from when when making modifications, the  most important of those being the types and style of allowable windows  and doors.  More than anything, cheap windows and doors can really  make a pretty house ugly.    There is also one unintended restricter to expansion that works well in  one of our 40% FAR neighborhoods and that is our indigenous tree  ordinance.  The neighborhood that has the 40% allowable structure size  also happens to be an area of town that has larger lots that are  populated with California Live Oaks which are one of three protected  trees in Glendale.  These trees can’t be cut down and they require a  certain amount of space around them which inhibits the expansion of  structures in many cases.    I will say, one of the biggest complaints I hear is how restrictive  Glendale is in terms of development.  All I can say to that is, thank  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 539 of 553 3 goodness because I drive through neighboring cities and cringe at some  of the stuff I see.  Beyond just large homes towering over smaller ones,  there is so much bad design out there.  Parts of Burbank are an  abomination.  Whole blocks are just littered with apartment sized single  family homes that are just ugly, never mind big.    If you’re curious about our architecture, here is a link to my company’s  real estate website, www.Character‐Homes.com.  We represent a wide  variety of housing stock in town but you will see that the majority is  Spanish.  You will also see that there is almost no newer  construction.  Some homes are cosmetically updated inside, of course,  but you will see most homes still retain their original classic style on the  outside.    Watching your meeting the other night is really the first one I have ever  seen.  Like I said, I just happen to read in the paper that you were going  to be discussing FARs and that is such a hot button issue in my world  here in Glendale that I thought I would see what you guys are dealing  with.  I am sure your staff is very capable of providing you thorough  guidance on the subject and in fact you may have already gone down  this road partially in the past.  All I wanted to get across is that this is old  news here in Glendale.  Our residents saw the writing on the wall 25  years ago and pressured a then receptive city council to nip the things in  the bud.  I will say that there is no way these restrictions would pass  muster with our current council and in fact some of us are worried that  the council we have today will try to ease them up a bit.    Hopefully you’re traveling for fun!!  Feel free to ask me anything.  I will  do my best to provide you will whatever information you need.      P.S. so far you are the only council person to reply to my email.  I was  not expecting to hear from anyone actually but I thought you might like  to know that.    Regards,  Chris  G&C Properties  Broker Associate  Voted Glendale’s Best Real Estate Agent   by Glendale Newspress Readers, 2017 & 2018    At The Historic Kenneth Village  1409 1/2 W Kenneth Rd.  Glendale, CA 91201  818.389.0761 cell/text  www.ChrisCragnotti.com  www.Character‐Homes.com  DRE #: 01401809          Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 540 of 553 4   On Oct 18, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Morzel, Lisa  <MorzelL@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:    Hi Chris    Thank you very much for writing and sending your email  and links   Interesting approach.     How are demolitions handled in Glendale?    Thanks much. I have more questions but am traveling  now. I will write next week.     Lisa     Lisa Morzel  Boulder City Council Member    303‐815‐6723 c  303‐938‐8520 h    On Oct 17, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Chris Cragnotti  <chriscragnotti@mac.com> wrote:  Madame Mayor and Esteemed Council  Members,    My name is Chris Cragnotti and I am not  a resident of Boulder, CO, but rather a  native and current resident of Glendale,  CA.  I also serve as a commissioner on  our city’s Historic Preservation  Commission.  Glendale, CA is bordered  by the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank  and Pasadena and some of Southern  California’s loveliest mountains.  The  population of Glendale is slightly larger  than that of Boulder at approximately  200,000 and our median home values  and rental values are just slightly higher  than those of Boulder.  The vast  majority of our SFR housing stock dates  back to 1920’s‐1940’s.  I was visiting  Colorado this past weekend and spent  that snowy Sunday hiking up to the Flat  Irons outside your fair city.  Taken by  your charming town, I scrolled through  the local news and saw that the issue of  mansionization was going to be  discussed at last night’s  meeting.  Mansionization and Floor to  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 541 of 553 5 Area Ratio are topics that Glendale  wrestled with a couple of decades  ago.  Our council at the time created a  robust set of regulations that were not  one size fits all but slightly nuanced for  each neighborhood.  I am a big fan of  our FAR regulations.    Here is a link to a chart that breaks  down our 3 FAR Districts but here they  are in summary:    District I: 30% of the first 10,000 sf of  lot and 10% thereafter  District II: 40% of the first 10,000 sf of  lot and 10% thereafter  District III: 45% of the first 10,000 sf of  lot and 10% thereafter    Note:  Glendale does not include garage  space (attached or detached) or any  outdoor patios/porches (covered or  otherwise) in the living space  calculation.  Living space is contained  within the walls of the habitable  structures only including any Guest  Houses or ADUs.  Also, once the total  living space area passes the 3,500 sf  mark, the city requires a 3‐car  garage.  Almost no homes in Glendale  were originally built with 3‐car garages  so that is an additional  restriction/requirement when  expanding a house.  The vast majority  of our single‐family home  neighborhoods are either District I or  II.  Our lot sizes range from 6,000‐ 15,000 on average with most in the  7,000‐10,000 range (these ranges are  not researched, but rather what I am  approximating from experience).  Only  recently has Glendale allowed the  conversion of garages to ADUs to  comply with state regulations on the  subject.  As mentioned, those ADUs  count toward the overall square  footage area.    Here is a link to our Zoning Map.  The  Olive and Yellow colored areas on the  map are our main SFR neighborhoods.    Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 542 of 553 6 As a licensed REALTOR®, I am a big fan  of private property rights but as a  property owner, I also acknowledge  that individual property owners don’t  live in a vacuum.  Modifications I make  to my house affect the overall character  of the neighborhood.  Glendale has the  most restrictive FAR regulations in the  region and because of that we have the  most conforming streets around.      Also as a REALTOR® I see first hand the  repercussions of mansionization.  The  home buyers who shop in Glendale are  doing so not only because we have such  charming neighborhoods, but also  because it is so much more affordable  than the other cities in our region.  For  instance, the same 3+2 1,800 sf house  on a modest 8,000 sf lot in Glendale  sells for 20%‐30% less than it would in  Studio City (a nearby area of the City of  Los Angeles) mainly because in Studio  City that 1,800 sf house can be scraped  and doubled in size.  In Glendale’s  District I neighborhood, a homeowner  would be restricted to 2,400 on that  same 8,000 sf lot.  The cities of Los  Angeles and Burbank have only just  recently started down the road you all  are headed and are exploring tighter  FAR regulations.  Sadly, the horse is  very much out of the barn in most areas  of those cities.    Watching your impassioned meeting  last night, I see that you will be tackling  the issue in the coming weeks and  months.  If you are looking for  anecdotal information, I encourage you  to have your staff look to Glendale as  one of the cities they study.  As I  mentioned, Glendale is similar in size  and our FAR regulations are now a  couple of decades old and very  seasoned.  Because we live in a vibrant  region it should be somewhat easy to  see how those regulations have  affected us as compared to our  neighbors who do not have them.    Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 543 of 553 7 Why am I a fan of our tight FAR rules?  I  appreciate the conforming nature of  our streets.  We have blocks and blocks  that look much like they did when they  were built.  We don’t have huge new  mansions towering over our charming  single story Spanish and Traditional  houses.  Our homes are respectfully  positioned with space between  neighbors and surrounded by tall  mature trees and grassy yards.  I also  appreciate that we are, relatively  speaking, still affordable.  We have  many first time home buyers moving to  our city and folks who don’t move far  when they do.    Thank you for taking the time to read  this message and I wish you all the best  as you tackle this issue.  I can’t impress  upon you enough how important it is.    Regards,  Chris Cragnotti  G&C Properties  Broker Associate  Voted Glendale’s Best Real Estate  Agent   by Glendale Newspress Readers, 2017  & 2018    Commissioner, City of Glendale Historic  Preservation Commission    At The Historic Kenneth Village  1409 1/2 W Kenneth Rd.  Glendale, CA 91201  818.389.0761 cell/text  www.ChrisCragnotti.com  www.Character‐Homes.com  DRE #: 01401809      Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 544 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Ferro, Charles Sent:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 9:51 AM To:Guiler, Karl; Collins, Andrew Subject:FW: Mc Mansions FYI    From: ollimaleya@aol.com <ollimaleya@aol.com>   Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 4:05 PM  To: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Mc Mansions    Came to Boulder in 1974, bought my first house in 1977, married, had children, lived on a self employed carpenter's income, retired, still living in our 50's house hoping to capitalize on the value when "the time" comes. The hill we live on is approaching 50% Mc Mansions. That said, a city-wide ban would only serve to increase the value of the existing Mc Mansions and DECREASE the value of our 50's home. As you continue to consider the issue, please take into consideration the composition of various neighborhoods, noting that a city-wide ban may not be appropriate. Thank you. Best, Carolyn Usher 2210 Balsam Dr Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 545 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Robertson, Jim Sent:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 10:01 AM To:Collins, Andrew; Guiler, Karl Subject:FW: "Emergency Moratorium" Feedback FYI.    Jim Robertson, AIA  Comprehensive Planning Manager    City of Boulder  Planning Department    O: 303‐441‐4277             robertsonj@bouldercolorado.gov    Department of Planning, Housing + Sustainability  1739 Broadway | PO Box 791 | Boulder, CO 80301  Bouldercolorado.gov    From: john maggio <johnfmaggio@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 9:46 AM  To: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: "Emergency Moratorium" Feedback    Dear Council Members,  Let me start by thanking you all for your commitment to the Boulder community. I moved to Boulder 25 years ago after stopping to see a friend, and thought I’d give my perspective as you consider any type of emergency moratorium.   First, some background: I founded a company in the natural products industry right after I moved here – of course, it wasn’t an instant success, but it worked out and I’ve been somewhat of a serial entrepreneur in the food and beverage space. I’m so lucky to have landed in Boulder. After my first apartment, I rented an old home in the Newlands from 1997-2001. My new wife and I purchased the home from my then-landlord shortly after 9/11 - It was just over 900sq feet, built in 1955, on a typical 50ft wide Newlands lot, was in disrepair and wasn’t energy efficient. In fact, though it looks like a great deal now, it was a ridiculous price to pay for a house and I may argue that Boulder hasn’t been “truly affordable” since way before my time. Our first child was born in that home and we later razed it and rebuilt a custom, tasteful 3950sq foot home in 2005 where we now raise our 4 children. Our children have attended four of the public schools in Boulder and we are so fortunate that our tax dollars have also allowed us access to a wonderful downtown, parks and open space. After saving for several years we recently purchased a home just 3 blocks away but on a lot size double our current sized lot. The old-time Boulder family, who sold it to us off-market, did so because they wanted to pass it on to the next generation, us. The house currently on the lot has a failing foundation due to being built on cinder blocks with old technology from 60 years ago. We have a full set of plans, an approved demo permit and have spent over $25,000 thus far for early plans, surveying and demo permit to raze the home and, again, build a tasteful Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 546 of 553 2 home suitable for our large family. The proposed moratorium wouldn’t even allow for us to build the same sized home we currently own, even though the lot size is over double that of our current lot. I can’t see how that makes good sense or encourages revitalization and progress in our City.  On to my issues, and beginning with the word “emergency “, which evokes a sense of urgency and panic among other things. It seems the City has a history of more sensible approaches, however, I fail to see anything urgent in limiting house sizes to an arbitrary square footage (3500) in an effort to somehow help with affordable housing and punish those of us who have worked hard, conformed with the rules and will continue to do so.   My suggestion for you is to move away from the conversation on a temporary moratorium altogether. As was pointed out on your October 16th meeting, this will only impact a small number of homes over the next 365 days, and will create a serious problem of negatively impacting those currently in the planning process. A moratorium would instantly de-value numerous properties and, no doubt, invite costly litigation and a black eye on our great City.  I don’t disagree that we need a solution for affordable housing, and I don’t pretend to have that solution. But, I do know that limiting house sizes is not a piece of the puzzle in solving this issue.  Further, to penalize good people and families who don’t conform to a few council members’ misguided views of “community” is both sad and divisive. Speaking for our own family, we’ve been part of the creation of hundreds of jobs, numerous events, and charitable efforts that help define and grow a successful community.  Planning for the future of Boulder should never be an emergency – our City is a beacon for what it has achieved in so many ways and a couple of quick votes out of spite and vindictiveness undermine the history of that planning. I encourage you to take a long-term approach to solving the real issues that will continue to make Boulder thrive. This is not one of them.  I look forward to your response, John Maggio  John F. Maggio  johnfmaggio@gmail.com        Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 547 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Ferro, Charles Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:42 AM To:Guiler, Karl; Collins, Andrew Subject:FW: Use Standards and Large Homes Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Fyi…    From: Kurt Nordback <knordback@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 10:41 AM  To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Use Standards and Large Homes    Dear Planning Board, I have comments on the Use Standards & Table Review Project and the Large Homes On Large Lots Project that you'll be discussing tonight. Use Standards I strongly agree with the goal of simplifying the Use Table and related parts of Title 9. There are many problems with the current complexity, and perhaps the biggest one relates to equity. Nearly our entire planning and development regime is complicated, arcane, and slow, which means successful projects tend to be large (in order to amortize the entitlement cost over more square feet). That selects for experienced, large developers with the capital to hire consultants and lawyers and to wait out the process, and it selects against smaller, less established developers. I see that as a serious equity problem. The Use Standards are one small part of that very large issue. I believe one goal of the project should be to revise the Use Standards to allow for additional housing, given our desperate need. I'd like to see this called out explicitly, as is the goal of aligning the standards with our energy and climate policies. Relatedly, from the subcommittee meeting minutes it appears that there's a desire to separate the subject of allowing more residential uses within industrial zones as a separate work item. I disagree with this approach. I see the issue of residential uses in industrial zones as very much a part of this overall effort, and I want to see it happen sooner rather than later. I think that separating it into a different project would delay it too much. Large Homes On Large Lots I'm pleased to see the draft "why" statement explicitly addressing efficiency of land use. In Boulder we talk regularly (and rightly) about things like energy efficiency and water efficiency, but arguably our most limited resource is land. Historically we've used our land profligately (and we continue to do so, as seen by other topics on your agenda tonight). Understanding that we need to start using our land more efficiently is an important step. Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 548 of 553 2 We tend to change things in our land-use regime in quantum jumps, whether by rezoning or by changing the code itself. That has its place, but when possible I think an ongoing and more incremental approach would be less disruptive and more predictable. In this case, we need an immediate quantum jump to address the pressing issue. But following that, an incremental approach might mean allowing the minimum lot size requirements to decrease at (say) 1% per year indefinitely. This would provide a clear and predictable trajectory, and would align with Boulderites' often-stated preference for gradual change. I'd encourage this general approach to be included as a possible strategy for the project. Thanks for reading. -- Kurt Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 549 of 553 1 Collins, Andrew From:Robertson, Jim Sent:Friday, November 16, 2018 10:30 AM To:Collins, Andrew; Guiler, Karl Subject:FW: House Size (If that’s what you’re after) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged FYI.  You’ve probably already seen the Portland materials, but if not check out the link in his e‐mail.    Jim Robertson, AIA  Comprehensive Planning Manager    City of Boulder  Planning Department    O: 303‐441‐4277             robertsonj@bouldercolorado.gov    Department of Planning, Housing + Sustainability  1739 Broadway | PO Box 791 | Boulder, CO 80301  Bouldercolorado.gov    From: Nicholas Fiore <nicholasfiore@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 8:37 AM  To: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: House Size (If that’s what you’re after)    Hello Council,    It’s still a bit of a mystery as to whether you are interested in a. limiting house sizes or b. creating affordable housing  opportunities or c. both, with b providing a form of political ‘cover’ for a. Either way, I’ve been poking around and found  an interesting proposal from Portland (a very good model and substitute for Boulder as you know):    http://demo.residentialinfill.participate.online/house‐size    Limiting FAR is what they are looking at, and you will be as well if home size is your target. I think Portland’s example is  excellent for two critical reasons: 1. Sliding scale for lot size that ends at a high end number (all lots over 12,500 can only  build to the top number). and 2. Detached structures DO NOT count against floor area (flexibility for storage, ADUs, in‐ law suites, caretaker suites, etc etc etc ‐ do not forget families have needs that change!)    Helpful I hope. Thanks    Nick  ____    Nicholas Fiore  Studio 720 515 7749  Walking 434 531 6837  Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 550 of 553 2 nick@flowerarchitecture.com    FLOWER   777 Pearl St., Ste. 211  Boulder, CO 80302  flowerarchitecture.com     Typos by iPhone X ™      Attachment E - Written Public Feedback Received Item 8D - Large Homes and Lots City Council Meeting Page 551 of 553 C I T Y C O U N C I L AGE N D A I T E M C O VE R SHE E T ME E T I N G D AT E : December 4, 2018 AG E N D A T I T L E Mayor pro tem election P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Lynnette Beck, C ity Clerk RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E T he Boulder C ity Council Procedure, located in the Appendix of Boulder Revised C ode Title 2, "Government Organization," provides that nominations and election for the mayor pro tem shall be held at the second meeting in November. Because there is not a scheduled second meeting in November, the nominations and election will be held December 4, 2018. C ouncil will first hold a public hearing on the matter. After the conclusion of the public testimony, council will consider nominations for mayor pro tem. Any council member can nominate anyone that expressed an interest and made a speech at the November 8, 2018 meeting. Nominations are made orally, and no second is required. A motion to close nominations is made and seconded. Voting proceeds by the raising of hands T he names shall be called in alphabetical order or reverse alphabetical order depending upon a flip of a coin by the city clerk, who shall thereafter alternate the order for all further election ballots during the same meeting. If any of the candidates nominated receives five votes on the first ballot, such person is declared elected. If none of the candidates receives five votes on the first ballot, the candidate (plus ties) receiving the lowest number of votes is dropped as a candidate unless this elimination would leave one candidate or less for the office. If this elimination would leave one candidate or less for the office, another vote is taken, and once again the candidate (plus ties) receiving the lowest number of votes is dropped as a candidate unless this elimination would leave one candidate or less for the office. In the event that one candidate or less is left for the office after the second vote, a flip of a coin shall be used in order to eliminate all but two candidates for the office. AT TAC H ME N T S: City Council Meeting Page 552 of 553 Description No Attachments Available City Council Meeting Page 553 of 553