Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] [Music] [Music]

[1:04] [Music] [Music]

[2:26] [Music]

[3:39] a special meeting of the Boulder City Council on July 20th 2017 Lynette do in a color rule councilmember Applebaum Burton here Jones here more so your shoe maker yeah Weaver here Yates young here we have a great so we have

[4:04] for all the people the audience we're just gonna convene and then move into executive session so don't worry the meeting you're here for will begin shortly we only have one item and that is to go into executive session but first we need to amend our agenda to give a fuller description of the executive session so here is the motion before us and that is to add the following language to go into executive session regarding legal advice and negotiations regarding pending Public Utilities Commission and court proceedings pursuant to CRS section 24-6 - 402 for be any discussion all those in favor amending the agenda great okay so now we need a motion to go into

[5:01] executive session moves all those in favor of going into executive session okay it's unanimous we will adjourn to another room to be an executive session we expected it to take two and a half hours two and a half hours and then we'll come back in this room to adjourn thank you [Music]

[6:10] [Music] [Applause] [Music]

[8:36] [Music] [Music]

[9:12] [Music] like to call to order the planning board meeting for July 20th 2017 we have two

[10:06] main items on our agenda tonight and a couple of pieces before we get to our public hearings the first is approval of the minutes which we don't have any so we'll move on to number three on our agenda is public participation for items that are not on our public hearing agenda and those include public hearing regarding recommendations to City Council regarding revisions to the zoning map and then public hearing regarding the 2018 to 2023 capital improvement program but if anyone would like to address us on any other issues I'm looking at Cindy and she's shaking her head is would anyone like to address the board on issues other than those two hearing items actually if you could use

[11:00] the microphone my name is Anne fenerty 2805 stand for the Avenue and I believed talking to staff and looking at your agenda item that the rezoning of 3485 Stanford Court was on your agenda item and therefore a public hearing item that's correct so it's one of the three rezoning --zz that's part of the rezoning matter which will be our first public hearing thank you for the clarification absolutely so with that the next piece that we have to formally cover is discussion of any dispositions call ups and continuations but we don't have any of those either which brings us to our public hearing items the first of which is a public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council to adopt a general revision of the city's zoning map consistent with the land use designation changes adopted in the 2015 major update to the Boulder Valley

[12:01] comprehensive plan and just as a preview of coming attractions will have a short presentation by staff that will be followed by questions from the board we won't be making any decisions or making any comments but just trying to understand any questions that we might have then it will be your turn and if you're not signed up but interested in speaking on that issue see Cindy and she could get you signed up and then after everyone's had a chance to speak it'll come back to the board for us to make a decision before we go there this is a legislative matter so it's not a quasi-judicial ones but if anyone has any disclosures or things that they'd like to cover now would be the time anyone right actually you do recuse myself from this one so I will see you guys after this item sounds good we'll let you know that's all you excellent

[13:00] welcome thank you so J segment with the city of Boulder mining and housing and sustainability Department before I get started I just wanted to be make sure that everyone understands the all the documents that the city has received will be entered into the official record so tonight's I'm just going to give a very brief overview John just read the motion so I won't repeat it and I will go straight to why we're doing this so this is a follow-on from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update the there were four tracks as you may recall from the update and this was the first tract the public land use request process where property owners or citizens could request changes to land use designations as part of that process so that's where this all started and typically the city will follow a

[14:00] comprehensive plan update with a comprehensive rezoning of those properties so the zoning map is consistent with the comprehensive plan so although there was a long process involved with that fall of 2015 winter of 2016 the initial screening Planning Board and City Council went through that and determined which ones they wanted to move forward August 8th in the 26th I was staff held open houses to review the draft staff recommendation october 13th is one planning board and city council held their public hearing and they deliberated amid their decisions on November 17th and December 15th respectively and as I recall from the Planning Board decision it was unanimous to change those land use designations so the recommendation hearing it there are three properties that are being carried forward as part of the rezoning I'm to are innumerable

[15:02] and campuses one excuse me I'm on the Arapahoe campus and the other on the Nalanda campus and the other is mell Calvary Church on Stanford Court so the Naropa campus I think everyone's familiar with it there was a portion of the property that has had a land use designation of high density residential this was initiated by the University for that 3.6 acres to change it to public and the ration now for that decision last fall consistent with the current intended uses of the university it acknowledges Naropa as a university named community asset and it clarifies the policy intent for future zoning implementation so in terms of the zoning so them as John mentioned it's not quasi-judicial this is the legislative the comprehensive plan states that the

[16:00] primary is the rationale for changing zoning is consistency with the land use designation so it's consistent with the land use designation it's consistent with the current and future uses as a university and it's consistent with the rest of the campus as well as the Cu campus to the south and also to the east the other parcel is the Naropa's Nalanda campus also initiated by Naropa and this was changing up from community just Realty community business and part of the discussion was this is word Naropa plans to expand or expand their campus that they're fairly constrained Arapahoe campus and community industrial was not appropriate so the rationale again was consistency with the current and intended uses and for a lot of the same reasons and community business is not really an appropriate in a

[17:01] predominantly industrial area so the change so again the primary test is it consistent with the land use designation it is consistent with the future current and future uses of that as a university and it's compatible with the industrial and residential zoning in the area that is quite a mix out there the third one is 3485 Stanford Court Mount Calvary Church there was quite a bit of discussion about this site just some pictures I think everyone is familiar with the site it was initiated by the church for the entire site 4.8 acres as it previously had low-density residential land use designation and the request was for medium density residential so far to be rationed now there was an intent on the church's part to provide housing on the site I'm so

[18:00] part of the rationale was that there is a scarcity of housing sites in the city it helped achieve many of the housing goals and furthers the comp plan core values related to housing and diversity and a lot of the discussion was around the site location the characteristics proximity to transit services that it was suitable for residential development additionally the range of units was consistent with the land use designation to the south and through good site design it could be compatible with the sites to the north and to the west and because it is such a large slide there was a lot of design flexibility some of the constraints on the site so the recommendation to change the zoning time again is consistent with the land use designation of medium density residential it's consistent with the zoning to the south and could be compatible with the single-family

[19:00] neighborhoods through good site design and it helps achieve city housing goals so the next steps assuming planning board approves the recommendation council will have their first reading on September 5th public hearing on September 19th and it would be effective 30 days later I say any questions great Thank You Jay questions from Planning Board please the because there's that steep slope that's sort of not buildable we had talked about maybe setting up a separate zones one for the buildable portion and another one for the not buildable portion it would be I don't know maybe open space other or something I don't know what the other zoning designation would be but did you all it explore that at all after we talked about it no

[20:03] because you approved the medium density residential for the site but as a land use correct yeah and I was talking about the zoning for you know after the land use if the zoning might look at the possibility of that unbuildable portion has oh applying a different zone to the steep slope mm-hmm no I think we basically relying on our regulations the steep slope ordinance to address it doesn't preclude development on steep slopes but it basically strongly encourages it you mean discourages it yes all of the density that theoretically could be put there gets transferred to the buildable part of the site as right correct and we tried to be very clear about that as in the staff report

[21:00] and the presentation okay thanks crystal I have a question on the Stanford Court so what is the difference in the units per acre between our m1 and our m2 and our m1 it's six to fourteen I mean our m2 it's 6 to 14 units per acre correct yes there is a range in the land use designation and the zoning is more specific yeah and do you I just can't get it little I can easily if you don't mind it has the hard copy there any other questions well look at that go ahead crystal the why you're looking that up if you look

[22:02] um on the zoning map which was in our packet you you see it's this map here and it shows it's the Sony map that was in the packet and I forget what page it was it was a link but you'll see right in the middle of the whole complex whole low-density complex around Table Mesa that you have an are empty do you have a that attachment a I think it must be yes zoning map yeah yeah the zoning map we also have a handout oh yeah we have a copy here on the dice you're talking about the other side of Table Mesa at the shopping center okay do you really have to look at the map do you have the handout yes I mean I have coffee

[23:00] so if you look at that pinkish color right in the middle of the whole Table Mesa area on the very bottom there's an R M 1 R M - one of that pinkish area so it's a transition from the RM - to the r l1 and so I was just wondering why did you choose RM - for the zoning and not have a transition into the low-density well I guess I would consider the RM to a transition as well I mean it currently transitions into single-family and a loud number of units is comparable and tala is still looking up the number so r1 and r2 are regulated quite differently RM 1 doesn't

[24:00] actually have a number of dwelling units per acre limitation it's regulated by minimum open space per dwelling unit and it requires 3,000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit while RM 2 is limited to 12 point for rolling units per acre and it requires a certain lot area per dwelling unit but doesn't have the same open space requirements so it's it's a different way of regulating the density on a side yeah thank you and so if so what the RM 2 allows is 6 to 14 acres and then I'm assuming through the site review process one would determine where in that range would be an appropriate number for this the site right right so the medium

[25:00] density land use designation is the 6 to 14 right and the zoning gets more specific and it's because like I was saying it's difficult to compare the two zones based on how it's calculated oh I'm sorry would you is there a range in the phoneme I thought you read range for the so named six to fourteen for this zone I think that's for the land use map designation okay what is the what's the units / rm2 in the Sony on the phoning twelve point four her okay twelve point four I'm sorry I didn't hear that hella when you mentioned it before okay and then insight review it's I think you were starting to talk about that insight review has a lot of different standards that are being considered compatibility of of the mass of a building the height and so forth but also a cotton fill into a hillside open space preservation of you know a

[26:00] certain area so it will be reviewed in a lot of different ways great well compatibility how big is the whole site how many square feet do you know I know it had it in here four point eight I want to say that right yes four point eight how many it would work out to about two hundred thousand ish I'm top of my head cuz it's around five acres and forty three thousand okay just yeah you break her thank you other questions from the board sure the five houses to the south the zoning is staying the same but I noticed in the land use designation that they are currently zoned LR and so there'll be there's on the new land use map there's

[27:01] a little Peninsula of LR into there but I don't know if that since it's not on the site you know if that was ever looked at since it seems to be inconsistent but it was already done so let me clarify because we confuse land use and zoning a little bit right so the zoning has always been RM to or from those sites for at least two decades I believe so what we did as part of the land-use change for the Mount Calvary Church as we change the land use designation from low density residential to medium zoning hasn't changed so oh you did change it on there okay here are the minutes from the October 13th meeting and all these addresses represent those buildings those Lots that we changed okay yeah then I was relying on the existing map to make that conclusion okay thank you the in the write-up it talks about 29 to

[28:04] 67 units total but because of the because our m2 maximum is 12 point 4 units per acre then that changes that number of what can we can do is that right right okay I can't do 14 anymore the maximum is 12 point 4 okay that's all any other questions so I just had a one or two procedural questions the first was if the Planning Board doesn't recommend the zoning change tonight is that something that would would or could come back up at some point there's no restriction in the same way that there is for site review is there no because it's legislative if there is no critical timeline and then I think in the packet discussed that some of the rezoning czar

[29:02] being held for us to consider after the enhanced community benefit provisions are kind of put in place and just curious to just you know hear why this is in that bucket rather than is in the current bucket rather than in that bucket yeah great question so the other properties that are not included one and specifically there are outside of the city so we're not proposing to change the zoning there because we can I know that the primary ones were we would be changing the land use designation or right was changed to something more to a higher level and those around 33rd and Broadway at this time I don't think the property owners over the city or right quite ready to change the zoning on those sites fireman layer because we want to get them get that work underway to implement the community benefit that was adopted as part of the conference

[30:00] and Plan Update Stanford Court is a little bit different the fact that we have our Housing Authority and Frazier meadows and a partnership to purchase the property we will get more affordable housing as a result of that transaction then we would through any sort of enhanced community benefit for the site does that make sense it does thank you any other j-just just to clarify because I saw at 33rd and Broadway in the staff packet it to us as well do you mean 3303 Broadway and iris so it's not just 3303 Broadway it's two or three other properties that are around me as well yes okay thank you great any other questions just one other on the Naropa properties mm-hmm the public has a range of uses that are allowed the public zone like all our

[31:01] sounds do but is retail restaurant or retail restaurant type of uses allowed in public looks like hell is breaking out the code so my recollection from this whole discussion was yes it is limited but keep in mind they're also limited by their annexation agreement particularly for the Nalanda campus mhm so they're city granted specific exemptions for more commercial and also auditorium space and all that was documented as part of the land-use change so they would be allowed under public they have a coffee shop a restaurant that would be open to the public right if it's in their annexation agreement and you said was well and the public does allow more flexibility than the industrial so that

[32:00] was another rationale for changing it okay could I ask one more question go ahead Liz just to follow on something on your last question if is there any risk of if we rezone upzone the Stanford core property that it gets sold to a regular for-profit developer and they put in medium density housing and we don't get the community benefits that we are hoping to get what's the risk of that so I would say there is a risk and I want to tell you that there isn't there's a risk rezoning it and there's a risk not rezoning the property I think all the housing partners in Frazier can tell you more specifically what those risks are and it'll be up to you to wade that okay thanks great with that why

[33:02] don't we go to the public Cindy do we have folks signed up terrific so we have looks like seven or eight folks signed up just a few ground rules here as we get started when you come up if you'd let us know who you are and where you live we appreciate that for the record and to know where you're coming from and then we care deeply about what everybody has to say so if you could keep quiet while somebody else is speaking if you like what they're saying and thumbs up or wave your hands if you don't you can make a face or thumbs down but we really do want to be able to hear everybody speak and have a civil discord discourse here some of you are pooling time and what I'll need to

[34:00] check to make sure the person that you're pooling with is here with you and we'll double check that and move on and then the standard time to speak will be three minutes if you've pulled what another person which I see there's at least one or two that'll be a five minute period and with that I think we're ready to go and and fenerty will join us again on that one and thank you see that you're here as well so and infinity 2805 Stanford Avenue welcome thank you so I'm asking you to deny the rezoning of the property at 3485 Stanford Court and I will tell you why presently there are two plants there are no definite plans for their two plans one to build 45 units on the site and the other one is to build 57 units on the side the option one is the church and a two large

[35:02] parking lots remain occupying 3.3 acres of the site of the 4.8 acre site that leaves 1.5 acres for 45 units that includes a 16% slope as well for the 1.5 the total required planning the total required parking areas for the remaining church and the five units in that scene is a hundred sixteen parking places that's your regulation option to the church leaves and 57 units are built even though this has not been decided which optioned both the housing partners is going to choose they're asking you to rezone from our l1 - Adam - in order to facilitate the sale of the property between Calvary Lutheran Church and between Frazier Meadows that sale is contingent on the rezoning of

[36:00] the property is accepting a few multiple Apartments on Harvard Lane and five duplexes out of the side I would like to talk about the five duplexes that gentleman here asked about they were built in 1954 and they were non-conforming until their land use designation was changed fifty-seven years later in other words at the time that the land use designation for Stanford Court was changed the land use designation for the duplexes was changed so that it should be a more compatible environment for the multiple housing under Stanford Court I would also like to point out that Planning Department sent me some information about 1966 when this was a very small town and owners of the site planned to build three multiple used high-rise apartments and at that point Planning Board simply said no

[37:01] you're in a single-family area and a slope is 16% you can't build so the access I would simply like to talk about the access to the development it's only through Stanford Court Stanford Court is a very short street that goes out to Stanford Avenue and from Stanford Court before you get to the church this whole thing is about a quarter of a mile or less there is also an access to four huge buildings Boulder Creek Apartments that's their only access and their only way to come out to stand for the Avenue so these are for a large apartment buildings each of them have about six units and then one of them has eight units and their only access is through Stanford Court which will be the only access for these fifty-seven units if that's what's going to be built there and this is the only access to Stanford to Table Mesa and Table Mesa is already a veritable Mesa

[38:01] and Stanford is already a very congested intersection about the neighbors some of us here part of the building charrette they really questions question why Planning Board is told that the 45 units are going to be built at 48 at 45 units are built at 4.8 acres when they're really only built on 1.5 acres this is called density transfer I had not heard about it but it's a way where you consider an entire built-up site as if it was bare land when it's owned by the same owner and you can build on it as if you were building on a plain empty side then we at one of the meetings with the developer Tim Johnson from Frazer matters Manor we asked him why his inclusionary requirement is not building on their own

[39:02] site we were told that the units that they are building are expensive and wouldn't be suitable for affordable rentals okay then the other thing that we found out so one of our neighbors that Colorado Tennessee allows neighbors who live it in 10 feet of the development to petition for relief from a rezoning and you have got those petitions so I would also like to say that on a Planning Department survey September 23 of 25 of the neighbors who replied opposed that additional 87 people sign in our position please support our neighborhood thank you thank you Miss Finnerty next up is Chris moe hi I'm Chris mole two five nine five

[40:01] Stanford Avenue I'm asking you not to rezone the Stanford property and for that matter to kind of stop this development stuff that's going on all over Boulder we have 60,000 in commuters we have many teachers social workers police officers and the like who can't afford to live here we have long term citizens who can't afford to live here yet we are considering rezoning the Stanford property without addressing any one of these issues instead this rezoning will add to our community's problems I had the opportunity to discuss the Stanford development property with bhf bhp staff I was told that the units are going into Stanford won't being built weren't being built for city retirees people from outside the city could live there what yeah so Berger is proposing to have 20% affordable housing but imagine what citizens of Burma would think if they

[41:00] knew that these people in need of affordable housing were not our citizens I was told they were retirees age 55 by the way I'm 55 and I don't like to think of that as a senior but anyway above seniors they are not essential services people not nurses teachers social workers police officers nor are they any of the 60,000 in commuters they are people that will add to our commuting problem we are going to import another person here so then we're gonna have 100,000 and it sounds like 56 people and of that 56 people we're gonna have to have 20% more housing anyway so we are considering building a huge number of homes for retirees who don't live here they won't work in essential services programs nor will they address reducing the 60,000 in commuters who clog our roads they will utilize our services and many of the developments that this board is considering are developments that don't pay property taxes so we're going

[42:01] to be burdened as citizens to pay more share for more people let's take our citizens money to subsidize subsidized housing out of city folks who pay no property tax and utilize our services who benefit does anyone benefit from this why are we doing this because the developers want to make a ton of money I'm against this rezoning I'm against affordable housing for anyone who doesn't perform essential services and I know I speak for many of fellow citizens who are sick and tired of having our communities ruined by poor planning that doesn't address our city's major issues thank you thank you mismo can I guess Chris across gender Chris I mean it might be unfair for me to ask just you this no please do what do people around you want to see there well we've been fine the way it is I recently moved there I came from Gunbarrel 24 years in Gunbarrel we want affordable

[43:00] housing that addresses our affordable housing if we are importing people from other communities and we are asking every for houses to subsidize an affordable house for a fifth person which is what happens we can have 20% affordable housing actually it's more than that and and we're doing this in all the communities I think there's like 18 or something I'm not sure but but everybody's talking about this and everybody's upset by it especially why are we importing people who can't afford the housing but not any of the 60,000 people who are already driving in and clogging our roads that's a huge issue that we need to address it and yet I didn't mean to interrupt but so you'd like the density to affordable house keep it 9 keep it the way no density to be more I don't want affordable housing that's not for essential services ok ok thank for people that have long-term lived here okay I don't want to import a retiree okay that's another driver in

[44:00] our community and that everybody is subsidizing oh thanks miss I it was that clear I don't know thank you ms mo next is its run joke itis and I apologize if I may have missed the name here and you're pooling time is the there's my name's Ron Zook itis and I'm pulling time with my wife Martha fantastic welcome thank you we're at 2955 Stanford we've became there more than 30 years ago raised her family and like I think a lot of people were are seeing now it's it's a different Boulder that we have here and what we had 30 years 30 35 years ago when we first came here and I I think that's really unfortunate our the zoning of our home is low-density

[45:04] residential and even with that zoning the quality of our life is not the same as it was when we first moved here part of that is at large apartment complex which is south and east of us you know every day we get out there on our lawn and you know Stanford Avenue is a very popular walking path you can walk all the way up to the mountains with it and so every morning we get out there we pick up the cigarette butts from our lawn the dog poop from our lawn and the lady who was here just ahead of me I can think of a clear a clear case on why their zoning when this site should not

[46:01] be approved as far as the affordable housing absolutely if there could be a way to really justify it and to me the justification is not affordable housing is to have affordable housing for the people who provide services to the people who live in Boulder to those people the firemen the policemen the nurses even doctors if in total no we we can't limit it to those essential services so if you have affordable housing which is a free-for-all you can bet it's going to be a free-for-all and the people who are going to be coming in or going to be coming in from anywhere I spent several years working up in Alaskan Aleutian chain and one of the communities out

[47:03] there I received a government grant in this case it was for provide housing for the homeless and they essentially turned it down because Ana rationale was because if you build it they will come so if we build this affordable housing and I'm certainly not against affordable housing but I like that and I think it should go to those people who do provide the essential services that we need in Boulder and have the housing for those and business came up all of a sudden at least to us to say that this was going to take place and as far as the Lutheran

[48:00] Church they're still affair I've heard discussions about that there's going to be shared parking there there's no way you can have shared parking whenever there's a big event up at the church and we have cars parked up and down Stanford that you know impact our neighborhood and the low-density residential housing that we had so that's the remainder of my comments I thank you for your attention Thank You mr. jacques itis Sasha Mittleman getting your pronunciation correct 481 Harvard Lane which is directly below the steep slope I'm a school psychologist in the Bordeaux Valley School District and I'm one of the few of my friends and colleagues that can afford to live in Boulder so I'm very acutely attuned to the issue of affordable housing in that community and I am actually completely enthusiastic

[49:01] about the idea of affordable housing for seniors it's not that that I'm opposed to at all it's the density and I think AM expressed in detail some of the concerns about about increasing the density to that level in our neighborhood the church is really special to us as the gathering place in my community whether or not we're members of the church we utilize that space to walk our dogs to come together when there's a fire burning in the neighborhood that's where we come together to like I mean out in the neighborhood that you know nearby when we can see the smoke that's where we come together to meet and during the flood that's where everyone came together to say how's your house so having that space available it's special to us but I do and so I do want it to go to something good and I think that the idea of putting that many units in that space is terribly worrisome because the intersection of Table Mesa and Broadway has already colossal e congested and is very difficult to get out of and morning I'm on my way to work and I'm

[50:02] really worried about the parking whether or not they can support the number of vehicles that they that they intend to but more than anything as you mentioned there's the issue of the steep slope I live directly below it during the flood we worked through the night to hold it back as it was trying to collapse down on our property but soil is soft and I'm really worried about how they're going to build that much on that space and be able to support it safely and I think that our property is greatly at risk in that situation so anyway and also I want to say that I support many of Maine neighbors and many of my neighbors statements but not every single one ok thank you Miss metalman next up is Tim Gourley mr. Corley here normally I appreciate it welcome Tim normally 3398

[51:03] Overdrive I was actually on the part of the design group they worked together with all the stakeholders and some of the neighbors to try to implement a plan that would get affordable housing there and something that the neighbors could live with you guys know it I think they can put 30 units on that site as is without rezoning it's a lot of back and forth in there the Builder housing partners in the architect for good good people to work with so what we kind of finally ended up with is a 46 unit development it's a pretty massive development it's kind of overwhelmed the neighborhood a bit but they tried to keep it pushed back as far as they could the neighbors kind of look at me to kind of know what's going on on this development and most of the neighbors I talked to would prefer that it just stays a church they like having a church they're hearing the kids playing the recess and all that stuff they accept that they have buy rights to develop the

[52:00] 30 units without rezoning they're ok with the 46 units as long as it is truly affordable senior housing for older residents anything greater than 46 units they're very adamantly opposed to that my problem with rezoning proposal at this time is there's no guarantee on the number of units and there's also no guarantee that it'll be affordable housing I kind of suggested at one of these meetings that they split this lot into two sections because most of a lot is not being used for the development and change the zoning on just the development part and leave the rest of it as whatever it is are on or something like that they didn't like that idea which makes me think that they have perhaps plans to develop more on the later part of a lot even though at the time of this design group we were told that there's this only one phase and it's going to be 46 acres at the last meeting they said that they might have to build more units if

[53:00] the cost isn't cost-effective they've also said that they don't have a budget of found that they bought a lot I think for 5.25 million and somewhere I found that they have a 22 million construction budget the average unit size is less than 800 square feet and adding those two together it's about five hundred twenty-nine thousand dollars a unit which to me doesn't seem particularly affordable which also makes me think they're gonna try to get more units on there so either I would say have them split the Lots or I do a conservation easement on it where you get your 46 but then the rest of it can't get built on in the future so at this time I'd say don't rezone it until a better plan comes up Thanks thank you mister Gormley next up is Jeremy Durham welcome yeah thank you good evening members of Planning Board jeremy dam here on behalf of boulder housing partners 4800 North

[54:01] Broadway Boulder Colorado I'm mostly here just to let you know that we're here to answer questions and we've obviously heard some questions already some good ones from from the Planning Board that we're hearing able to answer if you call on us and and some good comments and questions from the from the neighborhood as well that we're here to answer we sent you an email earlier today I hope that you had a chance to review it and it provides an update on where we're at with this project and and what were requesting now I can summarize that briefly here now we in 2005 Mount Calvary Lutheran Church applied to have the property land use changed from Road density to medium density residential we took note of that because it's part of our mission to look for sites that would be suitable for affordable housing development and in general medium density sites our sites that would be in most instances as suitable for affordable housing development so we formed a partnership with frazier meadows to pursue the site and then last

[55:02] year the church who voted to agree to sell it to us for the purpose of building an affordable senior housing development as I'm sure you're aware we were originally scheduled to be before you last week on a concept plan based in large part on feedback that we've heard from the neighbors that two primary uses might be difficult for the site as well as a sort of an opposition to concentrated development on the western portion of the site we've temporarily paused that and pulled that from planning boards that we could evaluate whether that there's some merit to that and what makes the most sense and so I want to reiterate that that's a no decision has been made on that but we're evaluating that and considering that now very carefully we think that there might be some tremendous benefits to being able to pause and wait until the church vacates the property allowing us to take a more holistic approach to planning the site allowing us to perhaps reduce the

[56:01] amount of parking that's required which helps with the project financials as well as providing I think a softer footprint for the neighborhood in terms of overall square footage that might be built because perhaps some of the existing church and community space could be repurposed in the really soft and elegant way that would perhaps worked really well for the neighborhood as well as for our residents and m4b HP is of course stewards of our assets we got a question from Commissioner Peyton about whether or not there would be guarantees about affordability so one of you really clear out a technical point here which is that the church still owns the land we're under contract and partnership with Frazer to require that contingent upon this zoning however I did speak with the church as well as with Frazer and all three of those parties are willing to commit that any additional density that's created as a result of this rezoning would be permanently affordable provided a couple of conditions can be met through the negotiation with the City Attorney's Office and I can talk in

[57:00] more detail about what that would be so I'll just start with a question how how would that happen if we or City Council were to vote on this before that commitment how do we ensure that that's going to get there as opposed to some other use yeah sure so I think that deferred to hella on this in terms of how that the city would want to paper this so to speak but we would agree that as a condition of the rezoning and the church would agree to this as well there any additional density that's created would it be restricted for affordable so the church is concerned here of course is they don't want to devalue their property right now but certainly it'll be transferred to two older housing partners in Frayser after the zoning goes through and we would then move forward with affordable housing project and I guess another question would be what's the was driving the timing tonight on this as opposed to kind of considering it when we have some

[58:00] of that information and can I have a kind of better sense of exactly what guarantees are on the table and what they look like yeah sure so we have a contract with the church that requires us to close on this by November or else let it go the church is I think been very patient so far with the process of course could not predict what they would do if we didn't meet that deadline but land in Boulder is very valuable or they have I think simpler options for disposing of it than being patient with us to do an affordable housing project in this manner so our goal is to have zoning wrapped up by then okay thank you any other questions I mean so would you be using the base zoning that is applied to the property now at one 7,000 square feet per unit about 30 units that are available as the current number of market rate houses that are margaery units that are available in Shorewood subtract that from whatever number 67 for example or 46 and come up

[59:05] with in that case 16 affordable units that you'd be required to build in 30 that could be market rate is that the yeah I think that's right so I think under the existing zoning 29 units what would be available so anything above 29 it's my understanding that I know 67 has been thrown around a lot that's I think what would be allowable under the land-use change but not the zoning change that has been administratively initiated by the city which I believe would only go to 59 is you had a question so I'm just follow up on some of the questions that the community has had the would that is it anticipated that you might have a gathering area or a community facility or something that the neighborhood could still use for yes

[60:00] absolutely so I think that I was actually particularly moved by that public testimony as well and I think we feel as bhp that in most of our properties we provide that and so we think that that's should be an exciting thing for the neighborhood to have bhp development coming in because an alternative might not have that and it might just be a bunch of single-family homes spread all throughout the law including down the slope and instead we've proposed something that we think would be overall less intense use of the site as well as provide that community gathering space both for our residents in the neighborhood okay and then the there was a questions about whether these people are going to be baller residents or not and how do you select your resident yeah so we're currently in the process of actually working with HUD on this and I think that it's our intention HUD housing Urban Development the federal agency it's our intention to push the

[61:00] preferences for you know Boulder families both their seniors seniors of grandkids and Boulder family members the kind of thing to the maximum extent allowable by law but there are limitations to what we can do on that under the Fair Housing Act mm-hmm okay and then this there going to be any coordination then between Fraser Meadows and Boulder housing partners on who gets to live there because I know as a meadows project they wanted to meet their affordable housing rural here and since it's for seniors is there some I mean people know them did you or them to you and then they might get a spot or how does yes I think that would in general be coordination because Fraser like any other member of the community and particularly here of course we're gonna want to look at people that they refer to us but that one in particular allowing I think a particular funder or a particular agency in the community to

[62:02] have reserved spots or a particular preference like that we know we can't do under the Fair Housing Act and Fraser is okay with that they haven't asked for this or anything mm-hmm okay the other thing is about congregate care which you know is that I don't know what your vision is exactly for this senior housing but we have a congregate care density sort of bonus and where you can get three units for every one regular unit or whatever is that something you anticipate pursuing at all I would say no I mean I think that already I mean we already approached once and went through a process with a design advisory group and while the site could have yielded potentially 59 units we landed that 45 for that concept in part because of the coexisting uses but we felt that with the coexisting uses that was about the appropriate number so I really can't

[63:01] imagine the scenario where the church leaves and suddenly would jump to 180 I mean that's that's not gonna happen so I would say now so will there be the type of senior housing it's not going to be not gonna provide any sort of supportive like assisted living or yeah so we're not proposing the assisted living or congregate care and the in the sense that I think it's traditionally thought of but we always want to provide the highest level of resident services as we can to our residents and so we have a whole resident services team both our housing partners Frazier is also really interested in exploring this realm as part of their commitment to be a good community member in Boulder and they're interested in piloting suite of services at this site as well as perhaps some others that are BHP sites and so the more services we can provide the better that allows seniors to age in place which ultimately has a positive impact on our residents that has a positive impact on this city saves the city and

[64:01] the county money through the various medical and other funds that are set up for that and so it overall the more services we can provide the better okay that's those are all my questions Thank You crystal Jeff question yeah so I think I understand now the church wanting to retain nearby right uses that's right in case you all went away and they still have that youth so I understand that and I think you got off on the right foot by we're starting the conversation with the neighborhood and mr. Graham Lee apparently was on a committee I your report was was really interesting and thanks for sharing that with us and then this letter I thought it was great can you distribute this to neighborhoods so they kind of her up-to-date on what's going on yeah absolutely so that was

[65:01] actually based on some talking points that we've already distributed to the neighborhood group and the design advisory group but we and of course in the spirit of full transparency we'll distribute that letter too to anybody that's here tonight as well as anybody else that wants to see it and then city has a public participation working group that came out with the report and all you have to do is google it for city of Boulder and I would encourage everybody here to read it because we keep having these contentious hearings and it's all about the density and a few other issues but I don't know if you could take a little bit of time if we actually had a place saver for a rezoning for you to see if you could get closer to you know having more of a consensus with the neighborhood consensus on on what you know what might

[66:01] be a concept plan that would be accept acceptable and what might be even if it's medium density for what might be some of the conditions you'd be willing to put on the site as part of the site review application yes if we do pause the project here which I'll say it's probably likely then we're probably talking about at least five years into the future so before we picked that back up again that would depend on when the church elected to vacate and so I do think it would probably be pretty mature to be sketching out specifics of a project that bind that bind other bhp or Frazier but of course we'll engage in the most thorough community process at that time as we as we possibly can you know and well I last kill him hello the question when we get done is how can we

[67:00] condition of Zoning besides come up with a new zoning or medium medium density affordable housing zone something like that and I don't know how we can condition a zone let's try to keep it to questions for mr. Durham because we've got other members of the public and we'll come back to the discussion okay one thing that's helpful on that topic is you have three community oriented agencies that are willing to voluntarily agree to it so I think that removes some of the legal legwork burden from hella and her team but I could be wrong about that and then finally I was on the board that did the Affordable Housing Alliance work and our first project was the poplar community west of Broadway on poplar they're series of little cottages so to speak and I was on the interview group interviewing prospective tenants and well our requirement was we didn't

[68:02] have a requirement that you had to live here because yet you were going to be living here and obviously people did live in Boulder but we did have a requirement to work here now that would go away probably with seniors unless they had a job and we were able to do that so everybody was working in Boulder yeah I think similarly with our family sites we're exploring the maximum extent to which we can push preferences for people to work here because I think that we sit in traffic on the way to work just like everybody else and we feel that part of the service that bhp can and should provide the city is housing our workforce and housing our seniors here so our grandparents our workforce our firefighters our teachers that has a tremendous benefit for all of us and the environment when we do reduce those 60,000 and the commuters a day so we're looking at how we can do that to the maximum extent possible as a service to the city great Thank You mr. Drumm next

[69:00] up I think is Joyce price who's pooling with Bob prices Bob here or Bob are you going and pooling with Joyce I left my hearing aids at home and the rush to get here and as Joyce here pardon is that you okay welcome that's my wife yes welcome yeah this I'm Bob price 2905 Stanford Avenue we moved from Dover Drive in Auburn 30 years ago to Stanford Avenue to avoid people moving in and a lot of traffic through there and I'm fine and I have been sitting outside on my porch reading usually for the past 10 years I've retired from the University and former commanding officer the Navy

[70:01] had CU and i've do a lot of reading outside lately in the last year or so in particular we have an excess of traffic but it isn't just traffic it's speeding in the speeding bumps don't seem to alleviate any of the speeding us going on and there's a lot more noise also the neighborhood across the street has seven people the house next to that is over 10 or 12 the one next door has several and the place is getting crowded already I don't understand how rezoning is going to help the current problems of traffic and noise that are going on I have written a letter to the City Council three years ago few weeks ago or whenever wiser so I won't cover anything

[71:00] more that's it great Thank You mr. price Cindy do we have anybody else signed up okay so we've got a document from ms fenerty that's we're all getting right now and then next and I think last speaker signed up is David Madrid welcome thank you evening my name is David Madrid and I'm here on behalf of my wife Marla my brother mark we own the house at 3155 Stanford we recently inherited it from my parents my father and mother both passed away this last year my father Lieutenant Colonel never married a veteran of three wars asked before he died as we spoke of this

[72:02] matter he said well if I'm gone before a decision is made to let them know my opinion and as well as my mother she by the way you might be familiar with her Mary Agnes I am medrood the Bolar City Council named I think it was July 18th last year was her day so he had an official day named after I always have a hard time saying that with some humility 55 Stanford and I'd like you to know that the medrood family's philosophical orientation is one that supports low income housing and is certainly understandable to the kind of densities that come along with that situation however the rezoning of course I think it brings it out from a understandable and something one can support to something that is as you've heard from others intolerable there's also a quality to my experience this family's

[73:02] experience with this change I believe this is an honorable thing to stay full transparency and I hear a lot of that from others but here lies in the entire time of this process the Medford family has not once been contacted in person through written material or otherwise perhaps we missed it but I can't see how we miss it all through this time we've been continually informed informed of the matter through my neighbors the first actually I've heard from it personally was my son came up to me and said there's somebody in the backyard dad and they seemed to be drilling and so we both went down there and sure enough there was a company they're doing soil sampling from our yard and we said ask them who they were what was going on you know whether or not they were Kurt or dis disregarding is maybe not a matter that colors this entire issue but it seemed like that was definitive from that from the get-go of

[74:01] our treatment by this process so here's the objection the intensity of rezoning it is not acceptable to us and secondly to encourage those involved in this full transparency to be a little more active in their claim thanks for your time thank you mister metric okay sir anybody else who would like to address the Planning Board on these three rezoning matters seeing none I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board and maybe Jay and hello you could follow up on one of the last points which is what notice was provided to neighbors or what notice is required on a rezoning your mic on thank you so for rezoning it's a legislative

[75:00] process so there isn't are not specific requirements for notice but during the Comprehensive Plan Update there was a significant amount of notice so it's not required but the city did send out a notice to all neighbors within 600 feet at the property I'm announcing the open house that was up on the screen earlier as well as a newspaper had the the main requirement is for a citywide and convert us communicate land-use change requests okay Thank You Jay any other questions of staff before we get started please yeah you tell me how how many units would be allowed if it were a high-density zone instead of a medium density zone 18 units times 5 acres is it 18 units per per acre in the RH wage well I can tell

[76:12] you I think the RH - sounds like 14 between it's twice as many as our l1 I mean I just remember that number from 1440 pine you could have two units for per 7,000 square feet so 90 units 90 okay that was my question good so why don't we start our deliberation and what I would suggest is let's start we haven't had as much discussion about the - no rope properties and ask if anybody disagrees with the recommendation from staff to rezone those two naropa

[77:02] properties and then we'll turn to Stanford once we resolve those so anyone like to speak to the Naropa properties okay so seeing that why don't we turn then to the Stanford where I suspect will have more discussion because we've we've had more input and I think my recommendation is why don't we go down the line and just at least provide an initial sense quickly in a couple minutes where people are we'll take that temperature and then we'll figure out what makes sense in terms of further discussion motions or how to move ahead crystal want we start with you okay let me just look at my notes here but maybe you want to start with what is with David yeah or someone else I can I can start you know I came into this this meeting of you know thinking about you

[78:01] know the the concepts that I've seen for this property and and you know pretty much thinking that this would be a good direction to go but now I'm more concerned when I realized that there's uncertainty and I and when you I don't know if we can razón with conditions it doesn't sound like that's really done so given that I do have concerns that we rezone and then something doesn't go the way we really intended when we the whole purpose of this whole exercise seemed to be to get us to the point where we can have a really good affordable housing solution for folks that hopefully would not impact the neighborhood too heavily but their uncertainty that in fact it could change dramatically would does make me just give me pause so that's where I'm at right now and I'd like to hear what the let other folks who have been here for more history on this might have to say since I've not seen this

[79:02] property before Harmon so we discussed a lot of the issues that we're hearing tonight when we talked about the land use designation change that Planning Board voted for back in October at that time Brian was recused as he is today and the Planning Board voted six to nothing to approve the land use re-designation to medium density residential and we were concerned about guaranteeing affordable housing and senior housing at the time we probably talked a little more on that evening about traffic impacts then we have at this meeting and I think the there wasn't a consensus but one of the points that was brought up was that the traffic impacts of forty or sixty senior affordable units are probably less than the traffic impacts of thirty single-family houses and

[80:02] so I wanted to I just wanted to focus the the discussion from my perspective on the criteria for rezoning and I think that staff is correct and that the applicant application meets the criteria for rezoning there's clear and convincing evidence the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley comp plan there are other criteria for rezoning like the existing zoning was of a clerical error that don't apply there is if I may interrupt this zoning is actually not based on an application this is something where the staff is asking the Planning Board to initiate the rezoning and would it would be a general rezoning of the city and the adoption of the entire zoning map so the standards are slightly different okay so

[81:01] if you read through the rezoning section it states that the rezoning has to be consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and if not incidental to a general rezoning then you go to that list of six different standards that would have one of them would have to be met and you started to talk about those - those don't apply here because it's a legislative act so hello where's the where's the general rezoning in the code it's actually in the same section I think 9 to 19 but I mean double check I think when you read through it there are some things that are addressed differently depending on whether it's a comprehensive rezoning or otherwise okay so I see it's an E yes no it's also summarized in your staff report right okay thank you any other comments no I think I'll just

[82:00] hold off for now Liz yeah so how could you um address the issue of whether we can condition the rezoning - no or recommend to Council right I think we can't yeah yeah so we don't have that concept in our code right now when the zoning zoning has changed off a parcel it's designated on the zoning map as a zone and there's there are no conditions associated with that and then that zone determines a whole host of standards that apply based on that zoning district so we don't be here as far as I know we've never done a conditional rezoning I haven't had time to to think about it very much other than just now for five minutes in this hearing it seems to me it sounds a little bit like creating a new zoning district yes yes crystal I was suggesting it's kind of what's being

[83:01] proposed or adding it almost seems a little bit like a special ordinance I don't know that I would recommend going down that route because it just seems inconsistent with how our zoning code works do you have any sense of what the schedule is for getting the the community benefits portion of the of a rezoning implemented I mean we have to I can imagine it was many months probably yes many months so the staff has been discussing what to bring forward to City Council and Planning Board that would likely happen in August but the work plan that we would propose likely would not be adopted until July of 2018 which is when the height ordinance expires okay all right

[84:03] as far as comments go well that is a kind of a scary prospect and I'm sure that the neighbors wouldn't wouldn't want that because that would mean I mean wouldn't want it to just go to strictly market medium density market because that would be definitely more traffic and higher impacts senior housing would be so I have that issue but otherwise I actually think it's a good place for senior housing it doesn't have any flood issues these nightmare stories we've been hearing them for months about Frasier Meadows and the flooding and here we have this site that is probably pretty safe first for a vulnerable population and I as far as senior housing goes I think that

[85:01] that's one of the demographics that actually where it makes sense to have a clustered development concentrated development instead of some of the other like family housing or whatever we read it might work better to be dispersed through the neighborhoods so I am actually thinking that that you know I support the rezoning but I am nervous about the prospect that it might end up just being sold as a medium density parcel and developed with you know high end housing so that's those are my oh and another thing is that I know a lot of people who live at Frasier Meadows and they're people who have lived in Boulder for a long time and contributed to Boulder and you know a lot of former plan older members and people edge' slater's lots of people and and they you

[86:02] know they need they want to stay in Boulder when they age and I think providing senior housing for folks like that is a really good idea and I so I'm not too concerned about having a high percentage of non Boulder rights at this facility if it goes in so that's it so I'll I'll go next and I agree with you Liz I do think there's a critical need for this I'm a south boulder resident and I've seen many of my senior neighbors moved to Lafayette and Longmont and other places because there's no available senior housing and certainly almost no affordable senior housing in Boulder and it is a need and I think this is a good use in addition of the flood issues it has close proximity to public transportation to the library and

[87:02] to King Soopers and so I think it's it's an ideal use on that the trick for us of course is once again we're in an awkward place where we have circumstances outside of our room here that are driving timing and are very awkward and so I think we do have to make a risk call here tonight balancing between the uncertainty because we can't control at least based on this exactly who will go in there versus I think the real risk that if this plays out too long and the condition isn't met by November the sale could fall through and it could be sold to a market rate developer who whether we rezone it or not I agree with Harmon the worst thing that could go in here I think are just regular low-density homes

[88:00] right now which will drive the most traffic will waste the opportunity of this as a senior housing spot and will be I think exactly what would be worse for the neighborhood in the long run this is a place close to one of the regional centers that deserves a little bit of density it doesn't deserve a lot of density but I think the range is appropriate so I think based on the balance of risks we are much better off putting it in the hands of bhp which has a relationship with the city and I think we have more sway over than a purely private transaction for somebody that maybe will have the tools of site review but we have criteria and we can't say no to any develop that meant that meets those criteria so I will be in favor of the rezoning tonight for those reasons I

[89:01] think it's the best way to meet our comprehensive plan goals and if we really do mean it about affordable housing and housing in Boulder you know this is how we get it if we don't mean it we have to turn it down but I think we do so crystal yeah I think a number of planning board members have spoken to the quandary here and that's why of making sure that we have some kind of guarantee to the community that it will be affordable housing for for seniors for starters and I think that there's good partnerships and I like how things have progressed since since the first couple of concerns at the beginning that I had but but I think it I would prefer to just take another month so Boulder

[90:01] housing partners and our attorneys in the neighborhood might be able to have some conversations and come up with that with that solution even if it is another zone and it it ties some of these goals here to the site I want to just say one thing about Harmon started off by reminding us of the process that we went through and I was one of the six votes that voted for this and at that hearing I said the the units are going to be between twenty nine and sixty seven or six to 14 per acre and I literally said these words I don't expect it to be on the high side and then later on the some members of the neighborhood emailed us and said did you know that the church is

[91:00] going to stay so the units are gonna be clustered on one side of the property which made it kind of really out of character with that neighborhood and I brought it back to the board and said this is some new information would you be willing to reconsider the vote and the Planning Board said no the vote on the lam juice designation so here we are and I think Boulder housing partners has moved on some of their issues wanting to pause the project for five years to kind of to come up with something good and maybe some different financing but I still don't feel there's enough of a guarantee to rezone it medium at this time and I'd like to have some some of the some good thinking go into it and I totally appreciated your letter Jeremy I think that that was was really helpful but I'm

[92:02] not ready to rezone it to medium right now without I'm not talking about a five-year pause where you lose the contract I'm just talking about a month or so to see what what might be able to be developed that would give the neighborhood some confidence of going ahead working with you and and some guarantee that if somehow you default on the contract or you decide not to go ahead with the contract that there's some guarantee that the medium would still have a community benefit for the public and might not be at that higher end so that's where I am great Thank You crystal Harmon so you know this this is not the first and won't be the last time that I disagree with staff statutory interpretation but looking at the

[93:02] criteria for rezoning it's written there for City Council shall grant a rezoning application only if the proposed is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley comp plan and for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning that meets one of the following criteria and that it lists six criteria so you know that can be read in a number of different ways you could read it as to say that City Council would grant rezoning if the application meets the comp plan and one of those six criterias it would be pretty easy criteria it would be pretty easy to read it that way I think if you wanted to make it clear that this is the way staffs gonna interpret this paragraph you should say that for general revisions of the zoning map the rezoning has to only meet the goals and policies of the comp plan for all other applicant initiated rezoning x' they have to meet only those six criteria but that's not how it's written but that does bring us to I think an

[94:02] important point which is that in order to have an applicant revive an applicant requested rezoning approved all it has to do is meet one of those six criteria and so if we at Planning Board decide not to go forward with this rezoning that meets the land use designation change that we made back in October then we can just put the onus back on the applicant and say pay all the fees for rezoning come back in with an application for rezoning and make the first criterion the entirety of your application that by clear and convincing evidence this rezoning meets the underlying land use map designation and then I would find it very hard as a Planning Board member to deny that application when the code is so clear that you only need to meet one of those six criteria and that first criterion is certainly met so I don't see any benefit when we're trying to promote affordable housing to force an applicant that's ready to provide us affordable housing

[95:00] to go through an applicant driven rezoning application process pay all those fees and waste all that time to get the exact same result that I'm prepared to give them tonight any other follow-up discussion or motion Liz David well when when is council supposed to see this September 5th and September 19th 1590 so it's like first reading second reading kind of thing right the first reading is a fifth and the second reading public hearings in 19th so maybe we could make a recommendation to Council if we recommend the rezoning that or maybe the recommendation goes to actually to Boulder housing partners and the major meadows to you know bring some kind of agreement to Council that sort of covers

[96:00] this riskiest issue that we're concerned about so you're correct just to be clear you would recommend acting tonight but with some further language on to a motion here that would say something like City Council and the applicant would explore you know ways of ensuring affordability for any increased density something like that thing like that right and then council will have all of that information to deal with mm-hmm thoughts about that what would that look like what kind of well I'm seeing Jeremy's got like gestures so do you want to come up and talk do you have ideas about how that might you can please come join us Lincoln jeremy Durham Boulder housing part yeah I think that we would certainly work hard with with the staff between now and the City Council hearing

[97:02] on this topic to try to figure out a way to provide assurances contractually within the limits of the the bull the Revised Code and we have a lot of creative people some I'm confident we could come up with something you know perhaps perhaps at the minimum we asked the church even now while holding the property to provide some kind of a cabinet or perhaps an agreement from bhp and Frazier to the city of Boulder that if and when we take titles of the property we'll build it as affordable within these ways we're open to all those things because for us like it's so hard to get our hands on a piece of property that we can really do this with and so we run into these difficult situations where process doesn't always line up with our goals in our policy and that's where we have bright committed people like the City Attorney's Office and the housing division working with our team to make it happen and we would do that between now and then David such a covenant would would give us a lot of reassurance if

[98:01] things went forward but if if the sales for some reason just didn't happen we'd still be kind of vulnerable so the church is the property owner now is also on board with this approach because I anticipated this question tonight I spoke with them and and they don't want to see their their use-by right now decreased but they're willing to sign agreements and to agree that anything above that and be affordable so if we could possibly set this up that your issue is addressed I would expect that we could and also for just a point of clarity we we have a contract that not only it has a contingency for for a zoning approval but we were required a Fraser really is the contract holder and we're in partnership with them but they're required to close if the zoning is approved so this will come into our hands for for development of affordable housing great thank you mr. Drumm no crystal do that question for him excuse

[99:02] me somewhere between 30 units and 46 units so how how does the community I mean I guess the site review we can regulate the number of units we can approve we don't have to approve the high end hello I think the review doesn't go so much into the actual number of unit right units but is that and you know you look at compatibility of the building design the massing is there can the side hold the number of parking place spots then it's going to be needed and the traffic Randall Pantera yeah so so that's it's a good point in a good reminder that they're still after is owning another layer here which is site review which is where like a lot the meat really gets handled so so there so there's that and the other thing I can say is that this is certainly the reason that we've looked at pausing here is is for the goal of

[100:02] trying to find an overall intend less intense use of the site and I think that oftentimes when we talk about intensity that gets sort of narrowed to just one more density but it's a lot more than that right I mean so it's it's it is number of cars and so we are proposing senior affordable here it is also total building square footage so right now there's a really large church structure that if we're move forward in a way that we cohabitate with them I think would ultimately result in a more intense use of the size so we're being very sensitive to those concerns in trying to meet our goals and the goals of our residents in the city and the least intense impact of the site possible you mean cohabitate with them in the long run so the church will not be there in the long run so it's it's potentially it's a game where we'll work with the city to fit with the church to figure out what that timeline looks like and if that's the direction we move forward we would we would look hard at that and during this pause you'd continue to work

[101:02] with the neighborhood yes we actually met with design advisor group yesterday to go over some of these new thoughts no actually we need to keep the conversations and I asked you're in the front there but sure so I'm wondering if we are if there's any possibility or risk that we're gonna get into one of situations like we've seen recently where the low-income tax credit you know we've the boulder housing partners or whoever the developer it'll locks in the certain number of units and the financing and then we see it and it's not flexible anymore so that's obviously a really hot topic here lately and we are interested in continuing our conversations which we've already started with city staff and other developers to try to smooth out that issue because there is I think a natural juxtaposition there between those two programs here I will say that we don't

[102:01] think this is a good site for a 9% tax credit allocation which is primarily where you see that which would allow us a lot of flexibility to move forward with neighborhood processing concept plan in advance of a tax credit award and in fact here you'll see we've already done that once right so we already put together a package worked with the neighborhood's been spent our funds exploring this well in advance of the tax credit application period and what we would have applied for here if we were to move forward would be February so we've already engaged in a lot of that I would have brought the concept plan last week well in advance of that tax credit process okay thank you thank you mr. Durham David I'll just add a comment on the traffic impacts I understand how neighbors are always very concerned about traffic impacts I do having walked the site and looked and I do have to say if Stanford Avenue is is this stunning you know that view into in is just amazing I had never really taken

[103:02] notice of that but I do feel that there is a pretty direct line to the Table Mesa Drive I you know I think that there is ways to kind of try to make sure that there isn't too much traffic spillover along the Avenue going the other direction so and I do feel that the this what we are hoping for to work out will actually be something that would not have traffic impacts at the times where it's really demanding on that intersection so so I think that you know if my from I'm very favorable to this the future of that property from that standpoint compared to many of the other alternatives honestly without even changing zoning so to me you know there's a couple of ways to look at that so I wanted to point that out yeah one other question is so the contracts between Frazier and the church is there

[104:01] any opportunity to get the contract date pushed a little farther I can't guarantee that the church would do that and like I said I think that the church has been pretty patient to this point as my feeling because we originally approached them about this I spent a while now I think over a year and a half and so and this is just the process takes a while but I do think that I mean with the land value where it is they could probably sell this for low-density residential in excess of what they're selling to us for so I think there would be a risk of that and I just I can't speak for the church I can't promise thank you mr. Drumm so why don't we bring it back to the board and I think just to keep us moving because we also have another matter with a lot of people waiting on this I'm gonna make a motion that the Planning

[105:02] Board initiate a general revision of the city zoning map and recommend to City Council adoption of a general revision of the city zoning map consistent with the land use designation changes adopted in the 2015 major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as shown in attachment a however considering the availability of measures to ensure affordability of any increased density available at 3485 Stanford Court well second okay I've made a motion yeah could you just tell me could you just read that last sentence regarding Stanford Court and I made that up on the fly so that was you have that okay so the the notion of that was the

[106:01] recommended motion and then conditioned on city council considering the availability of measures to ensure that any increment of additional density at 3585 Stanford Court would be affordable I think the original motion probably the wording will count but that was the intent David yeah I mean I'm in favor of that kind of additional language and um is there a way we could even kind of say through the covenant process or something like that or is that appropriate or would it just be enough - personally I'd rather leave it open for their creativity of staff the applicant neighborhood comm the church to look for those I do think a covenant or easement or others probably the leading candidate but I think let's leave it as broad as possible if maybe there's a better way maybe hello will come up a way to think about some conditional uses or a different zone or something else like

[107:01] that but it'll give at least six to eight weeks for people to think creatively about it and another discussion of course I I was just gonna say the other issue is the number of uses and you know as Jeremy said their issue I mean you could address the intensity by the size it's even in our code if you had something in the code that could address the size of the units but that is troubling for me because on all of these we go right to the high side immediately without considering the some of our site review criteria well I we do when we get to a site when we get to the site review but without considering the compatibility with the neighborhood and the different

[108:00] characters of neighbourhoods so that's where we always seem to get stuck and even though people say I'd like this in my neighborhood it seems like a good fit can you reduce the unit somewhat and that's doesn't do you think that this zone will allow that we're recommending will allow that to happen I mean theoretically yeah because we have that whole list of site review criteria and I'll just say as a mover and just to help explain to the the public any I think development on here that would be over a relatively small number of units but anything bhp is talking about we'll have to go through the site planning process and we'll have to apply those criteria and some of those criteria do get to the size I personally think that the full range is appropriate in this

[109:02] case and that given the proximity to transit given the transportation in the particular use for senior affordable housing that that would be appropriate but we'd have to have to see a proposal and judge it against the site review criteria at that point I do think if you made it not affordable if you made it more like single housing I think it actually have a harder time meeting it because of the traffic generation but others may have different thoughts on that Liz yeah so we still haven't even seen a concept plan I don't think heavily no so there were a couple layers of review still before anything happens there but I hope that when it does come back for concept plan that the development has something for the neighbors so that because so many of the projects it seems like it's it's really kind of a just a loser for the neighbors and they just have to accommodate so I

[110:02] hope this one comes back with something for the neighbors other comments David I'm just on that line I mean I did know that we were given a draft concept plan and I did notice you know things like that a new path die angling down through the slope that would connect to an existing path down there which would provide some neighborhood walkability and a nice you know you pedestrian news path that doesn't exist so I just I noticed that one on the draft so I would expect hopefully to see that you know really in the upcoming concept and it's not an easy sight I know we're getting into a site review concept review does gushin but it's not an easy sight with one one entry in one entry out I mean it's a gorgeous sight and I'd love to have affordable senior housing at that site I think it's I think it's perfect

[111:00] rather than disjointed from the community by putting it on the edges like we've done in some cases but I'm probably not going to vote for this I mean I want to vote for one and two and I could make sure that that shows up in the minutes and I favor the zoning I recommend the zoning change for one and two but I don't think we've explored enough on what a medium zone could look like in this area and address some of the affordability issues and some of the compatibility with the neighborhood for that site because remember we're taking four point eight acres and putting it all in one area so to me there should be some kind of mitigating factors now maybe when we come up with our you know our community benefit it would still

[112:02] apply to a site review we could still have them apply to a site review we lose the opportunity to have them apply to a wreath earning zoning but of course in this case one of probably the main community benefits for a rezoning would have to do with the permanently affordable housing any other discussion with that I'll call the question on the motion made by Putnam seconded by Peyton all in favor of that motion raise your hand and say aye aye all opposed no we remember gray could you have the minutes show that board member grace the parted the to Naropa projects and then had concerns about the zoning choices for medium great so that motion passes for one with

[113:02] member gray and with that I think that closes up agenda item 5a and I'm going to suggest we take a few minute break before 5b just to get everybody set up Jay thank you very much and thank you very much to the public for joining us and this process is not done because we will see proposals specifically on a project and I do hope that the public will remain engaged on that so thank you

[114:13] [Music]

[119:30] [Music]

[121:41] through the annual review of the CIP before but will spelt will spell out a few things for Peters benefit on the planning Bart's role so first on I want to do a big shout out to all the staff that have helped with this Phil would have been here tonight doing the presentation but unfortunately he had a

[122:01] family emergency so let's keep his family in our thoughts but I know he wanted to be here because we've all worked so hard and this it's I mean we've got a really great capital budget a proposed capital budget this year to achieve a lot of really great things for this community so with that and I also want to recognize Chris Wranglers our intern who's this is his second CIP with us and has done just an amazing job of helping to Shepherd this along and heard a lot of cats and a lot of moving pieces and organize helped organize the tour on Monday so wait a we had a really fun time I hope that those of you that were able to go yeah great enjoyed really interesting that's fantastic so with that I'm going to start we did we typically do a video that introduces and describes our capital our proposed capital budget for the next year we'll use this for this board for also for

[123:02] council but again for the community if it tells the story about our town the CIP I can figure out how to start it okay my mom there I am [Music] the city of Boulder has an extensive inventory of assets and facilities including highly used public spaces such as streets libraries recreation centers pools parks and public areas like the Pearl Street Mall or open space and mountain parks our essential assets include fire and police stations water and storm water systems as well as those that most people don't see or use very

[124:02] frequently such as city offices or maintenance buildings each year the city revisits its Capital Improvement Program or CIP to plan for the city's future capital investments over the next six years guided by the community's sustainability framework the CIP lays out a plan for maintaining enhancing and at times expanding the city's capital infrastructure the sustainability framework identifies seven overarching themes which are the basis for city plans like the Ebola Valley comprehensive plan and department master plans the CIP is when a community vision becomes a reality Boulder continues to be committed to the ongoing maintenance and repair of capital assets recognizing the critical value of civic infrastructure to the economic aesthetic and functional viability of the city in fact over three-quarters of our CIP funding over the next year will be for maintenance

[125:01] and enhancements to existing assets this approach of taking care of what we have saves the city money over time as well as ensures that quality services the community expects community members will enjoy the benefits of a number of important projects that will be completed in 2017 these include the construction of significant improvements at Wunderland Creek which will decrease risks to almost 600 homes which are located in the 100-year floodplain three new under passes to provide safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists the completion of the new Civic area park which used voter approved community culture and safety tax funding the now completed baseline underpass the city's 80th underpass which is connecting a busy shopping center nearby neighborhoods and see you in a safe and easy connection as well as the reconstruction of the

[126:00] diagonal highway which replaced the existing roadway and constructed new medians bicycle lanes multi-use paths sidewalks the 2018 CIP with proposed funding at just over 120 million dollars includes a range of capital investments including facility enhancements throughout the city and maintenance and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure several high priority safety recreation and mobility improvements include the scott Carpenter aquatics replacement and enhancements which will replace and expand the aging pool and bath house to provide leisure amenities to serve all ages and abilities as well as general park improvements the four mile flood mitigation and multi-use underpants which will provide flood mitigation in conjunction with multi-use path connections from 19th Street - violet Crossing providing safer access to

[127:00] Crestview Elementary School recreational opportunities and replacement of structurally deficient bridges the Broadway reconstruction will provide reconstruction of Broadway from Island Avenue to us 36 and will include bicycle and pedestrian and transit improvements to new underpasses 30th in Colorado which will join the University of Colorado's Maine and East campuses with the neighborhoods in the area providing a safe new grade-separated crossing and direct access to transit stops and foothills in Colorado which will replace an existing bicycle pedestrian overpass bridge that is deteriorating and does not meet a VA design once completed the new underpass will better connect East Boulder with Cu and the parks businesses academic and residential areas on either side of Foothill Parkway and finally the cutter lake pipeline which will provide reliable and safe water from cutter lake

[128:01] to the 63rd Street treatment facility in 2014 voters supported a point three percent sales tax for community culture and safety capital investment Boulder will be able to fund essential safety projects and enhancements for recreation and mobility projects commission new public arts and also provide funding for several community based nonprofits this has been just a small sampling of the full list of capital investment planned in the city of Boulder full lists and description of the proposed capital projects over the next six years please see the 2018 to 2023 draft capital improvements program as always Boulder will continue to invest in our capital infrastructure in order to ensure our community is a sustainable and resilient City [Music]

[129:55] so this is their stuff yeah yeah don't touch anything take sense plate oldest

[130:34] [Applause] so I just want to ask counsel the purpose for the executive session was to discuss legal advice negotiations with respect to the pending PUC proceedings and other litigation did anybody hear anything in the session that was outside the scope yep No thank you very much okay was that we're gonna adjourn and let the planning board come back in

[131:01] thank you thank you electronics just a minute second Mexican yes because I called twice I got your voicemail [Music]

[132:05] [Music] [Music] the interruption gene you were mid thought there so no that was perfect timing video took care of my most of the introduction needed and spelled out a lot of the key things and and a little bit of the highlights we're gonna just talk a little bit about the planning or all point to a few things in the CIP document talk about the community and environmental assessment process projects and then a little bit about the community culture and safety taxed and potential capital tax renewal and then

[133:02] let you guys ask us some questions so with that as the video said CIP definition it's really about major capital major projects that our infrastructure our facilities the city's investment the capital budget really is I mean just like just as the operating budget it's our it's our statement of community values I mean it's it's where we really put them put our money and needs to be reflective of our plans and to that point way back in the 50s our our city charter gained I don't know Houston there is citizens are exactly who but put a clause in there that the Planning Department has a role and putting forth proposing the capital budget and the reason for that really is around based back to our community

[134:02] values and the physical form of our community tying it back to our comprehensive plan and our and our physical our physical Brown boundaries and back to you know to the comprehensive plan that you just adopted and the service delivery the service standards that are set forth within that so well I guess I should I should move ahead and talk about the planning I'll talk about this with the planning boards are all but it's it's a big wide amount of things to be looking at but it really does tie back to a lot of the key things that this more it's responsible and helping us move along so I'm gonna I'm gonna move ahead on this one because the video explained our relationship to the sustainability framework pretty closely the wide range of capital projects that we see in each CIP like to talk a little bit about the process and timeline and so this speaks a little - I think sometimes with the

[135:03] planning board members it's hard for you guys to say oh my gosh how can I review this whole massive thing and the reality is is that the planning for the CIP starts way back much further to the left of this timeline and you guys see it in the master plan reviews you see it in the comp plan updates you see it in the area plans you see it in the sub community plans so we're gonna have a number of departmental master plan updates that are coming forward in the next couple of years so there's gonna be a lot of really interesting work and you'll be able to see will be forthcoming in many future CIPS through those planning efforts I would like to highlight the we have as the dots that say PRT review that's the peer review team number I think actually all the folks that are in this room either

[136:00] are on the PRT or have served on the PRT that's where our staff members really they take off their Department hat and they put on their citywide hat and we take a look at this whole proposal over quite a few hours going through each department submissions to really look through this and and make sure that we're meeting the values of the community and collaborating where we need to collaborate and talking about process and and making sure that our priorities are what we want them to be and also your your the other advisory boards take a look at those things and they recommend them and they our staff works closely with them so with that your roles kind of that that final stop to make sure we've done all these things we don't expect you to have a critique of all these little thing we expect you to just be that final check to make sure that we're doing all the things that are required to make sure that we're putting forth through putting out money in our capital

[137:01] investment in the places where our community members want us to do that so back to the comprehensive plan yeah the score priorities in scheduling it's a pretty broad thing but I'm hoping I'm assuring you that we do a pretty good job of trying to look at all of that along the way we've got a couple of policy issues that we arise each year and we'll take a look at those and then the projects that require a community environmental assessment process or some other process we talked about process a lot with these this year and the CIP we handled the highlight section a little differently and made it more colorful and tried to tie back to the sustainability framework we're really hoping that this section was kind of geared to the stuff that this board really has purview over and hope that was helpful for you and then in the special highlights section on the central Boulder long term planning some

[138:01] big initiatives that are underway that will be informing that are part of this year's CIP and we'll be informing future CIPS for quite a few years but some really important projects to shape this community and to really provide a lot more the livability aspects of our of those special places so with that the just say a little bit about the community environmental assessment process this ties back to our city plans and projects handbook that is it adopted by code that spells out our whole process for master planning and capital improvement planning and and assessment of projects and process we're gonna be doing an update to that this year and the seep checklist and seat processes one of the things we're going to be taking a look at it's about ten years old so it's time to refresh and take a look at

[139:00] there are other national standards and other things and then be able to work with our our teams that do this work to find the places where we were there efficiencies but also what's really needed adding a lot of the new concepts around resilience and any other emerging topics to make sure that we're really doing the alternatives analysis and mitigation in the best way that we can so thought I'm going to turn it over to Katie we I will say we miss Peggy she's off to Switzerland with her family has moved there and so um I always best wishes to Peggy but we're welcoming Katie darling and the executive Budget Officer members of planning boy thank you very much I'm excited to be here for my first capital improvement plan just as background I worked in the Parks and Recreation Department for the past four years so know a little bit about the city but really excited to learn more holistic approach especially as we go into budget season so with that the next few slides I'm going to take time to paint the picture financially of what

[140:01] we're talking about for 2018 to 2023 capital improvement program as you can see utilities continues to comprise the majority of the funding for your capital improvement program year after year and no surprise you saw this last year this big spike in 2018 related to the utilities projects and won't really comprises that is a Carter Lake pipeline which is about 32 million dollars and a water or wastewater sewer in there scepter which is about 10 million so when you looked at last year CIP you saw about 61 million dollars in investments and this year it's almost double primarily related to that those two projects but we have a few more projects that I love to highlight for 2018 and other departments in green you'll see that transportations included there are several underpass that you saw through the video under passes that are going to be started and completed throughout 18 including the Broadway reconstruction 30th and Colorado underpass and

[141:01] foothills in Colorado underpass in addition Parks and Rec is in the light blue color and one of the major projects that they have coming up in 2018 is the scott Carpenter aquatic facility replace them I do want to mention one of the things that we saw on what gene will highlight when she goes over the capital improvement renewal proposals is that that committee really highlighted something that we've known all along but haven't really addressed and it's the need for a capital program for the departments that don't have dedicated funding sources so a lot of what you see right now in the capital program are all because of dedicated funding and there isn't really a capital program for our major departments like fire and police and this is something that we really started to take a hard look at as we're developing an 18 budget and something that I really anticipate coming back to the Planning Board next year with a more robust plan of how do you also have a capital improvement program for IT systems and our large legacy system

[142:02] replacement so just as a heads up it's something that we've been working on and think that I'll satisfy a lot of the comments that came out of the capital renewal program also in all cases we try to leverage other funding sources and this may include grants federal grants for the airport tip funding for transportation or flood and hazard mitigation for programs like utilities they're open space we have this lovely pictorial that is a little bit different than what we showed last year which was just another line graph but I think this really emphasizes how we're really focused and continue to be focused throughout the years on our capital maintenance and enhancements keeping and maintaining what we own 86% of our funding in 2018 is going to go towards those specific programs with smaller majorities in new capital projects and land and asset acquisition in just a small portion of it going to capital planning comprising that 122

[143:01] million that you see in 2018 finally we wanted to talk a little bit about the public art policy that's new to this year and is continually to be refined the community culture plan adopted in 2015 highlighted the desire to reinvent the public art program over the past year staff has worked to create a policy that includes fun for an integration of public art with our capital improvements in the public spaces we're now in its final stage and the Planning Board will be seeing much more in the upcoming CIP is related to the components which includes a percent for art criteria for eligibility and the framework for implementation we do have current projects such as the Civic area and some transportation projects that integrate it but this really takes a more holistic approach with departments are integrating art into their community or capital improvement programs and with that I'll turn it back over to Jean who's going to go through the capital tax renewal process and the next steps

[144:03] so there was a little highlight section in the CIP about how the funding for the 2014 approved community culture safety tax is progressing we see that every day and you guys do too the new bridge and all of the work going on in the Civic area but a lot of great projects already completed up at Evan fine parks on the University Hill lighting so much underway right now so and the you know gonna be really I guess it's that way the new underpass or the replaced underpass coming up so a lot of value for the twenty nine million dollars that voters approved in 2014 we had a there was a little short memo attached to your materials around the capital improvement tax renewal process that we've been it's been underway for most of this year we had a Advisory a 12 member advisory

[145:01] committee that took a heavy-lift of working with staff and some community based nonprofits to go through and understand a full range of the city's unfunded needs and work to develop some guiding principles and a recommendation to the City Council for a renewal of the community culture safety tax with that so their recommended package includes a number a really wide range a diverse range of projects that our urgent unfunded needs in the city that will serve to fulfill a number of different goals and achieve a number of different outcomes they worked very hard to think about what was that mix how they aligned with the city master plans and the city goals how they what communities they served making sure that

[146:01] they're not too much additional operating I mean they considered a lot of different things it was a great committee and they worked very hard on this and they also we talked with a number of community-based project so it's really trying to round out this package to have a wide range of community support for a renewal of the of the tax there are a lot of different nonprofits that would benefit from this as well so the information that you received and I know we got a comment Monday about well it really a staff recommendation on that because we didn't have a staff recommendation yet we'll be talking to Council next Tuesday about this and our staff recommendation is to support renewal of the tax the committee's recommended package the staff recommendation and analysis and memo should be available tonight or tomorrow should be online so there are a

[147:01] lot more information on there we provide a little more information on various projects with some urgency so the council will be considering input from various advisory boards that have offered support for the renewal and also some suggestions around potential package changes so what we might be looking for from the Planning Board is something around support or your thoughts you know this will definitely this will feed into future if it passes will feed into future CIPS and so you would be seeing them we would all be seeing the benefits of these projects all around the community so next steps council will discuss the the tax renewal will be to City Council in August and then potential October budget hearings for the rest of the CIP and we have our staff recommendation around the CIP and the capital tax

[148:01] renewal for you so you have questions great Thank You Jean questions from the board will put this out for a public hearing although I'm not sure we have any public with us right now before we enter into any discussion about the elements but did folks have questions I have a couple questions I had listen I was wondering if the CU south flood mitigation studies this is probably for Annie whose knows everything about so there's no seep for that what a is that because all the studies that would take place for that sort of overlap with whatever a seep would be or so I think originally we thought that the fed mitigation plan that we completed in 2015 looked at I don't know 15 different

[149:00] alternatives and came up with this Regional Detention Facility so we felt like and looked at environmental impacts of each and cost and essentially did a seat I know that you've probably learned a lot about the flood mitigation for the land use designation and the border valley comp plan approval and I know there's a lot of commitments that we're making - I don't know what the best if it's a soup or something else I think that if we were to do a soup I mean we could certainly and I think we plan on looking at different like different flood scenarios 500 years a long duration or short duration

[150:01] [Music] there's also its bondage we're just starting design because we're waiting

[151:00] for the final so with this thank you do you ever have like a citizen Technical Advisory Board or anything like that or is it it I know it's it's sort of holistic and it pulls in people from all different departments and everything so maybe that's canyon creek in Wunderland many years ago we were trying creak and we were looking at whether we should maintain that flow and four-mile or let it spill a wonderland and you know we involved some technical experts in that icy conversation you know so we

[152:01] have done that flood mitigation plans okay I don't know if it's ever been done as part of a seat I see so great thank you mm-hmm and I just want to say also thank you for responding to the citizen comment we got from is black about the four mile project which was other questions for staff yeah I know City emissions numbers for the city facilities and operations I don't have that right in front of me but anyway I if that's excellent news on the city's emission reduction efforts and I was wondering if in the charts are the city numbers net with the solar that's been implemented you know on some of the city facilities so Joe Castro Public Works facilities and fleet manager so

[153:02] those numbers reflect electrical usage so in the city facilities that have solar PV we have about two megawatts of solar PV throughout our city facilities and so when we measure greenhouse gas emissions we measure the electrical use and by having solar the electrical use is decreased and so in that way it is counted we can't count the actual renewable energy credits off those solar panels hmm okay thank you great other questions crystal eye Joe since you're here and I know how many good things you've done including those electric bikes for four people rather than opting into a car

[154:02] but I have you talked have you thought about a different graphic presentation on our emissions reduction just because I thought it was a little bit confusing and I thought it could be I thought it could be more dynamic I don't know if you'd ever thought about them we haven't because we like to show the trend and if you see it it is getting busy because we we showed the baseline 2008 and then we years 20 and 2010 to two now so it is starting to get busy and we could look at a different graphic presentation yeah and I've brought this up before but Susan Osborne when she was the mayor that was one thing she thought should be right on our first page of our website is our admission you know showing the progress that we've made yeah now I want

[155:00] to clarify these are this is just city operations in our capital projects it's not citywide but then you have that section in that was kind of confusing about the Cu Cu and their diesel and I just I think I got kind of lost though good that was because we had to correct fuel numbers we've been actually providing Cu fuel because they lost their biodiesel fuel source so they were they are now fueling at this city municipal service yard and unfortunately that was captured in our 2015 and 2016 numbers and so we had to make a correction to the graph because it showed a significant rise that we couldn't quite figure out until we really looked at the numbers so crystal if it's helpful we can just make that revision and clear though what's changed

[156:01] and just send you guys a new one but I will also say we there was a link to our new city met other measures indicators website in that information so I encourage everybody to take a look at that it is also on the city's dashboard as well and then I have a question for parks and my question is is with all the infill development that we approve you know every meeting how is parks gonna serve that and and I guess I'd like to say we also talked about the public realm which may be which would benefit people that live in those projects that may not quite fall under a park definition but how does the park this apartment discuss that and I read about all the good parts stuff you're doing yeah so Jeff Hayley planning manager for Parks and Rec

[157:01] there's kind of multiple ways that we approach providing parkland provision to the new residents or new neighbors in the community most importantly right now we have enough parkland scattered throughout the city to meet the levels of service that are required by industry standard so for example and as you've probably seen through the comp plan update we required a park within a half mile of every resident and then we also have playgrounds that's in a quarter mile and different types of levels of service through needs assessment and GIS mapping we're currently meeting that level of service pretty much throughout the community in different ways and so right now there's not a lot of new park land that's being acquired or developed in that way we do have a couple undeveloped park sites that are mentioned in our CIP like violet Park up on violet Avenue and then Eaton Park

[158:02] which is out in Gunbarrel those are yet to be developed and we're working on those and actually programming those are the capital plan and then the last thing I'll mention we do review all the land use applications that come in through planning and development of services within the code there are open space and park requirements within these developments typically during site review they'll have a certain amount of acreage of Park or open space provisions so it's area set aside for the playgrounds or small amenities for those little developments so we've carefully monitored those and work with the applicants and developers to provide nice and minun ease to those neighborhoods but those are kind of the primary ways we're approaching that yeah so what about Boulder junctions and how is the park development going there do you feel as you're seeing that area

[159:00] developed that we're getting enough kind of outdoor space for people within some of those bigger bigger site reviews and then the lamb that was set aside as public lamb do you think we've hit that on a right number I believe so in terms of the original Transit Village area plan and in fact in the CIP document we had last year funding to start the design process for the we call pocket park at Boulder junction we're working on that this year and then as you'll see in the CIP for 2018 an additional 350,000 that allow us to construct those improvements at that small park so as part of that Boulder Junction development as it continues to grow and develop we do have that small park space that'll serve that immediate community with a public gathering area it's basically where the pathway goes

[160:01] down to the creek we've also looked at similar to my last comment what is the service area of that Boulder Junction and what are other parks nearby so for example if you go under 30th you can be right at Mapleton ball fields for example just on the west side of 30th there's a small player there we have plans to redevelop that park into a more community type Park Park instead of just ball fields and then similarly if you go East's eventually you can get to Valmont city park which is also included our CIP so a lot of times it's not about just having a park right next door but what can we do like the small pocket park in Boulder Junction but also close proximity connected by pathways and those kind of things so yeah we're working on that has Boulder Junction continues to develop we should have the park that small Park in the site there completed by next year so does that help

[161:02] yeah I think back in Whittier when we kept track of all the infill that was going on and then we literally nag City Council luckily Don Mach was in our move to our neighborhood he became a city council member but before he did he actually we all got the City Council to buy what was the old bradford's lumber yard at spruce between spruce and pearl off folsome I know some of you remember that and it's great basketball court and people from surrounding higher density projects you know use that fully so I was it's kind of a little bit more than a few benches but not quite as big as a neighborhood park yeah yeah and it's exactly how we really look at all these projects even if there's a small green space like Washington School redevelopment over the

[162:00] past several years we had a small green area that's not public parks based within that on North Broadway moving up there so thank you other questions I have a transportation related question the with the underpass at 30th in Colorado I was happy to see all to see that in there and I'm on the working group that's looking at the you know the 30th in Colorado corridors and I know that there's a lot of really interesting Street design concepts being tossed around that will come out of that working group I guess I saw a reference to the working group but I don't know exactly how that will dovetail with budgetary figures that will come out of recommendations that eventually turn into a real design for that corridor that will be implemented over the years later with the transportation division of Public Works and so to answer your question as you're well aware the through work your

[163:01] involvement in the working group so the study is overlaying and that is out of the gate first in the design is now underway following behind and at some point once we have a better understanding of the recommendations for the study as to what would happen at the node of 30th in Colorado then we'll start working on the preliminary design of that so you're probably asking well how did we define what the budget is for that project without having a study completed first and we did that B by developing a concept design for one possible design option that would work for the intersection and that's where what allowed us to submit for the federal grant to allow the the funding to come through to the city for that project to be funded and so the budget we're working with for the underpass at the intersection is largely based off the concept design that we put in place that doesn't mean that there were necessarily locked into that fixed budget but if that's what we're programming for at this point in time

[164:01] that's good this might be really detailed bit is the underpass at the foothills in Colorado is that going to be at the same location as the existing bridge kind of area or is that still kind of being looked at how this that's also being studied study that's right so there will be a seep for the foothills in Colorado underpass okay thanks I have a question will will there be sleep for these different complete Street Quarter type of projects so the thought process for the quarter studies is that they're going through largely the same process as a seep would require but to a whole much to a much greater degree there's a big broad effort that's looking at variety of disciplines and and aspects and resources of these corridors and so for Canyon as well as Arapaho and xxx in Colorado for all these quarter studies the efforts that are have been

[165:01] undertaken are considering all the factors that a seep would require and then a whole lot more beyond that so the thought process is that a seep would be somewhat redundant and and pale in comparison to the actual study effort itself and then I was reading about the 19th Street corridor is that I can't remember if that was unfunded or you're starting planning on it so it is funded and we are starting design on that we expect to get have a kickoff meeting for that design actually here in the next few weeks and so in terms of what that entails that's a construction project that is funded from Norwood to sumac and then we're going to look at options for for the future between sumac and Yarmouth and there will be a seep on the 19th Street project as well and I bring that up because it's almost in my pet

[166:01] peeve on Broadway they they eliminated across Broadway especially from downtown north a lot of the crossings that people would just have always taken to get across Broadway going east and west and so the reason I asked about the Cephas do you bring that up and a seat because I think we do a good job on cars and bikes and I know you're gonna put in you have a big sidewalk program but less so for pedestrians and I think it's really important if people don't feel safe getting out of their cars and being able to cross streets and etc they're not going to get out of their cars they're gonna take that easy jump in the car and not worry about the kids crossing the street so is that an issue the seat would address within the context of the 19th Street Quarter the both

[167:00] through the to and across will all be addressed for for nineteen streets but to be sure the reason we received the federal funds to actually implement improvements to 19th Street is because of the lack of pedestrian facilities in and around Crestview and so that's the the whole premise and purpose of that project but as we undertake all our projects we look at opportunities to incorporate complete Street principles and so certainly we'll be looking at the crossings along 19th Street so we won't sounds like your question was also oriented towards Broadway as a part of the 19th Street I was just gonna complaining about Broadway but yeah not Broadway north but I mean Broadway from the downtown up to where was I think I risks or something so not affiliated with the 19th Street effort I'll add that one of the items that are that it's in the transportation CIP budget and has been for many years as the missing links

[168:02] pedestrian budget which incorporates missing links the sidewalk as well as crossing treatments across the streets and so that budget is going to be funding the implementation of a crossing at Broadway and poplar and we expect that that will be implemented late this year so that's one small effort towards one of the things you're describing that is any other critical questions before we go to the public may not be here I had just one for Jeanne and it could be a broader question which is has staff given any discussion about how to weave in resilience concepts into the overall CIP planning process and particularly identifying critical risks and stressors for the kind of capital and asset base that the city has and kind of looking over we talked last week for example

[169:01] about the disruptive potentially disruptive force of autonomous cars and what that may mean for our parking infrastructure for example or other sort of things is and I've also seen some other cities and transportation agencies start weaving that into their asset management plans or capital plans or that sort of thing has there been some discussion about how to weave that kind of city's resilience universe in with something like the CIP in fact there has but I think we're starting is at the master planning level so especially with a lot of these plants that are going to be going through updates in the next year or so we're really trying to have a framework around resilience we're asking a lot of very specific questions around that about our service delivery and planning with each of each of these departments or services from a resilience lens so it'll start there and I know that I mean there are a lot

[170:01] of our CIP projects that really are about resilience at their core but and I'm sure joke Joe and others can speak to you know this it's a important concept that is by being adopted with the new comprehensive plan and all of the work going on with the resilience strategy that's it's something that all of the departments are working on as we as we do each of these projects so I think we'll be seeing it very specifically in the master plans and through our asset assessments and you'll be seeing that showing up great where did that any other comments or questions no comments yet seeing none why don't we go to the public Cyndi anyone signed up would anybody like to address the board on the CIP tonight seeing none I'll bring it back to the board we've got some framing questions here for us and I

[171:03] think what I'll suggest is we quickly go through each of these questions and then look for a motion on the CIP overall so let's start with the big enchilada question number one which is just whether the CIP is consistent with the long term big-picture policies in the boulder valley complan and I think staff drop sure well I was gonna do a negative poll to see if anybody thought there were anything about it that didn't address that because I'll throw out my gratuitous thought that I thought it was really an excellent plan than the best I've seen since I've been on the board so great work everybody who kicked in on it and I wanted to make a comment on the art with Boulder Valley comp plan but maybe I should do it under number five Capital

[172:00] Improvement sales and use tax cuz it seems like a lot of the art projects art and culture settled in that tax it could also go under two and scope depending on the nature of comment so if you want to just bring it out now okay I'll bring it up right now I'm glad that we have put in policies about the arts and the Boulder Valley comp plan and a lot of members of the community have really brought this up and that's the reason we have actually some more vibrant statements but I honestly think that this community is ready to take the big leap for the Arts and what the big leap looks like to me I call it a decade for the Arts I'd take a third of I'd increase the capital improvement sales tax to cover a decade and I'd include Arts and Culture and when I say that I mean I'd have like a third of the tax to

[173:02] go to arts and culture and actually there's a respectable number going to arts and culture if you look at the MOCA and studio arts they're getting quite a bit of money but I just think the community is ready to fund the Arts and now with such a good time and when I say fund it I mean capital programs like we're doing you know by mochas the city facility the dairy is so and I know how you've been involved in both of those Joe and I want to thank you as a member of this community for the good work that you've done on that but I'd say capital facilities as well as programs and because we asked a lot of our nonprofit partners to serve diverse cultures and diverse ideas and perspective and people and various ages but unless we have some programs unless

[174:03] we have some funds that are going to fund the programs that these different groups put on it's not it's not going to happen at least happen enough to really put us on the map or catch up with our neighbors I should say in the arts some of our neighbors and then I'd also have a pot of money for the planning you know plant because all of these projects whether they're developing new programs or they're planning for facilities take money to get them going and or to at least get them to it the stage where they know what the whole project is going to look like and I think about goko great outdoors Colorado they have money for their planning grants well you you know this planning grants capacity-building grants grants for programs and then all the capital

[175:02] infrastructure as well and then they have different goals that change every five years or so depending on who's on the goko board some years it might be a preference for open space and agricultural preservation other years it might be sports facilities and more urban type of development but I'd like to see something something like that on that scale within our community of course Koko's statewide but just think of the arts program I think of e-town all the time they did a big capital program to raise money for that facility and then there's a huge opportunity for them to expand their programming and yet but it takes money to do that takes money to figure it out and it takes money to do it to serve a broader range of our community

[176:01] so that's my spiel and I'm all right to the council in the capital capital improvement tax renewal group and let them know this but I'd love to have the Planning Board you know your thoughts either in emails or tonight on how we might really kind of kickstart the arts and give them the respect that a community of our size you know should be funding I'll just throw in I know Denver's having a similar conversation right now and one of the things that they're I think wrestling with is that affordable both living and working space for artists are disappearing and we have that problem to a much greater extent than than Denver does and if we don't address that I'm not sure how much some of the other stuff will matter and so I think if we're gonna have that big

[177:02] picture conversation we also need to follow up on both funding to help write work on affordable spaces and probably you know looking at some of the things we talked about with our community benefit policy on you know finding ways to incentivize affordable space for artists and that sort of thing as part of it but it'll it's a real resource requirement if it's gonna make a real difference so yeah I agree with you but I think that needs to be part of it I love that that you've you know brought that up because that is part of it you guys worked hard on that policy and we got more to come so thank you Armen yeah I want to pick up something that I left off with last year and it's about the the nexus between community resilience and and local businesses

[178:00] and and the capital improvements plan program and you know I think a big part of our resilience is having a diverse community and we talked about this last year in terms of promoting local businesses that can actually perform some of the functions that are in the capital improvements program and I had a motion last year that was approved by a unanimous vote of Planning Board that was around that last June 22 July 28th and I think the motion language was that we recommend that council consider and direct staff to study the potential of creating guidelines for CIP expenditures that encourage procurement from disadvantaged business enterprises and local enterprises to promote social and economic equity and community resilience this year the CIP doesn't include any new language around that and in the comp

[179:04] plan we also added two new policies around local business development and supporting local businesses in the name of that type of resilience so I see there being a pretty strong nexus between supporting our local contractors I think if we want to have affordable housing one way is to produce more affordable housing units and another way is to get people who live in Boulder to make more money so that they can afford to live here so there are a lot of intertwined positive impacts that we have if we support our local businesses and in a in a plan that provides for half a billion dollars worth of spending over five years I think we could make a better effort you know I understand that the city does not give special concessions to local minority vendors on the award of its contracts and I think I

[180:01] am delicately told the Christmas check last month that that hurt me to know that that was the the policy of the city and I think the city ought to look at that and I plan on making that again I know that we um we passed along submit that information to the council last year with with some minute additional analysis of what we may or may not be able to do in that and I don't have I don't recall the ins and outs of that specifically at the moment but I can be happy to forward that information back onto you guys so we had provided last year extra efforts Liz yeah well you covered most of what I wanted to say about it but the our comp plan this recently revised which just won't reflect because we're just now approving it but the resilience aspect of it and I think it would be really interesting to see the CIP next year if

[181:03] it has sort of some indication in some of these budget allocations that this this is going to improve our resiliency in the face of climate change this way or that way I mean it could even apply to like you said holistically apply to IT you know it could have applied to rec centers are they you know equipped to be emergency shelters or whatever things like that I won't go any further because John covered it really well but and then there was one other thing which I brought up I think every year but and that's because I was on Landmarks board and there is we have a preservation plan and I see land acquisition in here under utilities and under open space and we don't have any budgeting for acquisition of historic properties but when a

[182:02] property comes up for landmarking if there's a board that's inclined to landmark it over the owners objection then we end up in this you know major citywide battle with all the strife and brain damage and it just seems like if we somehow and I don't know how this would work exactly but I mean it seems like working with the preservation staff would be the way to start but to figure out if we could have a land acquisition budget for Historic Preservation and I don't know if to have it in the CIP if that means you would have to target particular structures ahead of time or how it would work because it is a very reactive sort of situation where you don't know when something's going to go up for sale you don't know what the proposal for demolition might be things like that but anyway I feel like we're we're always in this really reactive

[183:00] mode when it comes to preservation and maybe the CIP is a place where we could be a little bit more prepared so that's all I have to say about the I mean cuz the comp plan does talk a lot about historic preservation so I had one kind of a overarching comment that went in the number one actually to one was the resilience issue which I think was just raised again that I do think we need to have some more feedback into the CIP and it may be that it'll take a little while to work its way up through the the master plans but if we're investing this much money in a capital program we need to understand both the risks to that investment and then how it addresses the risks that we have that are out there I think it's just sound decision-making and and you know asset management sort

[184:00] of policy you know my guess it'll take a while to think about the best ways to do that but I know folks are beginning to wrestle with that another another context the other one if you're seeing examples of how that's happening we don't take them okay I'll look out for some of those boredom your way and then the second one wanted to pick on Jim reader for a minute because he's been quiet begin again something in the back of the room and we can never let that that occur and that's to focus on some of the policies of projects that have just gotten done and I think how they reflect on the BV CPD policies and so I sent a couple pictures that I snapped not very well off of my cell phone on a project that we approved last year which was the mesa trail flood recovery and the bear Canyon Trail recovery process and I just

[185:03] wanted to flag couple things about this that I think in this little project that's a fraction of the CIP that's important for the big picture of the CIP I thought this was an exemplary project this trail was closed for five or six months we were all missing it wasn't really sure what to expect and when I came back on to that trail I was surprised and delighted at the design excellence at the sustainability at the resilience and you know that's the sort of thing that I think makes people happy in this case for the open space taxes in other cases it could be any of the sort of taxes or funds that that fund these projects and so just a reminder of I think how important it is to tie back to certainly the sustainability and

[186:01] resilience which is the whole nature of this project I mean that Crossing was blown out and my cross-country skis will be vastly more sustainable now that that that crossing is is in place but I really want to focus for a second on the design excellence area we've been pushing our developers private developers pretty hard to pick up their game but when the city itself does this I think everybody is winning on that front and I real want to commend open space for a just a plus job on this project and I know a lot of that is going in the other ways you don't have to do a crossing in a beautiful masonry sort of approach but you did you don't have to do those stormwater recovery projects with masonry and local stone but you did and it made it a much better project and the more we do that with our underpasses and other things and I know we do it and I'm picking on Jim but I could easily pick

[187:00] on transportation or parks or anybody else you know what really I think does improve it so I just wanted to make that tie back to the to the comp plan into general city principles on design excellence and then also think about ways in the future just make sure you know we're capturing and celebrating some of those pieces we talked about the public art element and I think it is good it is important but the basic fundamental design is also something that I think makes people feel better about their investments in the long run harder to do with IT infrastructure I know but there are a lot of places where we can win on this so yeah it's beautiful other thoughts on the first question that we have on the big picture good so why don't we move to number two thank you Jim and the second question was on scope priorities schedule and other sort of

[188:02] things in the CIP any comments questions on that I thought it pretty much nailed it crystal oh yeah I I agree I did want to make a comment on the library well first of all I was really pleased who's ever in charge of library scoping I guess the our librarian arts are but I was pleased to see North Boulder Library we've all talked about in North Boulder kind of move up through this whole process and then also mention of the gun barrel library but I did want to point out we used to have a sales tax I think maybe two of them that were dedicated to the library and then they were when they were expiring they were repurposed into the general fund and when I was reading

[189:01] this packet and saw some funding overview for the boulder Public Library one of the things was an increase and increase in sales and use tax and we have that and when we repurpose that tax as well as one of the open space ones that was going to transportation another open space one in 2019 I can't even remember where that one went but there have been a number of them that have been repurposed and I just think for an accountability accountability to the community it'd be good to kind of follow up on that because when they're always up for a vote to extend and repurpose them we always say for firefighters and police and you know all these good things that the community supports but and that's why it's kind of interesting when you see all of those same projects

[190:01] in this this tax so I'm just wondering what how those monies were spent and where they went and I know a lot of its general fund cuz you know over 10 years 15 years we've grown as an organization and trying to catch up on our backlog of maintenance I know that we haven't always been great about that but it just kind of jumped out at me as kind of ironical that we repurposed the library taxes now creating a new tax to adequately fund them is is was just interesting mm-hmm and I totally support funding the library and the two new libraries potential new libraries any other comment number two let's have a question about when scope is determined if on something

[191:00] like land acquisition per se open space or for the utilities is the is the target of the acquisition already determined or is it just sort of that money is just in there in case something comes up I know the open space has an acquisition plan and I know Jim can probably speak to that more specifically probably Annie and Douglas can talk about the utilities that I think that's a little more opportunistic they've identified areas that are key risks and when those opportunities arise we try to meet them and I'll save Jim my trip up I can say for open space that the funds in there for acquisition if like water rights and mineral rights and land and that sort of thing there is an acquisition plan but it's also opportunistic based on when mm-hmm landowners have those things coming up and sometimes the Department will know

[192:02] because they're in negotiations with them and sometimes they don't know in those kind of oddball opportunities just pop up so it's it's some of both but you've got to have gas in the tank and in order to make it happen right okay thank you I mean they used to have a list of 200 that they'd people that they've been in contact with over the years so I'm sure that's window um somewhat but you're totally right Chum thanks Jim you wanna check some more light on this you know well well Jim's coming up let's make a quick comment which is I don't have any comments on scope or priorities this year but I really really appreciate seeing comments from previous years affecting what's Conant got in his plans though the stuff I said a few years ago is in there I'm like that's great thank you Jim Jim reader trails and facilities service an area manager yeah John you're exactly right and basically we we have a team of about three or four real estate

[193:02] agents that deal with looking for land that's available and it really is opportunistic on the one hand on the other hand we know some properties where we'd really like to to get a hold of if we could we have worked with they have worked with some owners for 20 years or more in order to get a piece of property and in the end we got it and we're very happy to do that so it's it's a little bit of both we try to have enough money available to hit those big properties the expensive properties and we've got a couple coming up so that we can buy them when they are available but basically it's both sides opportunistic when something comes available and those that we've been looking for for 20 years thank you hmm

[194:03] great thank you Jim so why don't we move on to number three which is recommendations regarding policy issues raised by the proposed location and design of CIP projects and I'll just start based on some conversations we've had on the South Boulder Creek flood control project that I think there was we've had vigorous conversations over the last six months or so on some of the kind of money answered questions about design and as it moves into a more refined set of design I think this is one that does require a lot of attention and hopefully given the kind of direction of conversations with Cu you know some creative thought while also keeping the pressure on to get that project done so other thoughts in this category seeing none why don't we move

[195:02] on to number 4 which is recommendations on the CIP projects to undergo seep review process and there was a recommendation in what attachment 3 or something like that on that front a list any disagree thoughts that they were either too many or too few it's hard to weigh in on something like that as the process moves forward we evaluate those I know and Douglas we're having a conversation next week about the sewer interceptor project on what it really benefit from a seep is it going to go through this other thing and we really try to hone in on what would be the benefit of what process and so I think as we go through the revisions for the handbook and the chief see checklist will be around that is because we've got a lot of different projects with a lot of different things that would be most beneficial about process and we want to make sure that they're worthwhile so reading body language I'm getting a sense that we think you're in the ballpark on that one

[196:01] I'm still recovering from the valmont beaut seat anybody with the friend that was there with you on that one and then though I asked question that we had in front of us was recommendations on the capital improvement sales and use tax renewals I think your comments went to that point crystal others David I just want to make sure that um you know from my from what I said this is really important the CCS has been very important source of funding for all these wonderful things that we see pop up around town around our city and so I don't know if if we're being asked for a special recommendation on that or if our recommendation to approve the CIP in general will say that it will include that but it couldn't warrant a special recommendation to put that on November you know up for renewal so I I just wanted to really make sure

[197:01] that we send a strong message on that if people are in agreement with that other comments could we see the list the the recommendation list or whatever that yeah at the committee recommended project list I mean those those all seem reasonable to me and I know there are several we've talked about quite a bit the North Boulder Library reclose relocating the fire station on the community projects those are all I support those I am a little concerned about the this is probably gonna go over like a lead balloon but I mean if there's an organization that's not a city organization that's actually politically active I think we should be careful and just you know just be aware of whether we're you know you know in a

[198:01] position of supporting political action with people's tax dollars I don't know if that's something we want to do or not so otherwise looks okay good to me I agree me over that yeah that kind of jumped out at me but some of these are actually associated with development projects that we have approved I'm assuming and this could be totally wrong that community cycles is funds for their new for their new whatever they their new facility and well detention shop yeah it's Park and meals on wheels would be at Mackenzie Junction as would studio arts folder correct it's for their um their for capital project their count they're not much air not fairgrounds their capital yeah they're part of

[199:00] development the all three of those development reviews that we approved the growing gardens okay is that what they're using that for in holiday this 100 pollinator Pavilion at the where would that be I think it's at the iris gardens monks Gardens yeah so I'll make one observation that I think all these are great projects and I think the tax is a great idea but if you're looking to November there's a real North and Central skew to these projects I think if you're looking for community-wide support I don't see a whole lot in the south and I don't see a lot in the East there and it probably makes sense to look for things that other parts of the city will value on that front and I think a lot of these are kind of citywide benefits and that

[200:02] will appreciate but I think people also if they're gonna increase their taxes want to see something in their back yard as well so I would look for some of those opportunities to help kind of smooth this out I wouldn't necessarily take anything so I think these are good projects but may need to rebalance a little bit the committee did look at that and we did a whole mapping of all the projects under consideration and the thing was is that there there weren't there was there was timing ready readiness urgency different types of things that there weren't projects in other parts of the community that really met that same level of urgency and readiness but I think that's part of why you know that the 2014 renewal was really pretty focused on the downtown core areas this one we're seeing as as you know in a in a few other geographic areas of city but keeping it to that five-year renewal

[201:00] that some of those next needs will be ready as we you know in the next few years to be potentially considered through the next round and I guess my concern would just be its got a win on a citywide vote exactly and the thought that maybe the other part of town will get things five years from now isn't necessarily gonna cause them to angry fill in that piece so it may just need to be proactive down there or look for some of these community projects that you know have some of the special benefits down there or there could be public art that would you know particularly fit in some of the parks or under passes or other sort of things in that area because I think that the geographic equity will be on people's minds well well when they get there other thoughts every store buddy I think the other side of that is you know neighborhoods like North Boulder don't have products that have been completed that we can look at and say oh

[202:00] this has benefited us in the past like it's an underpass or stuff like that so maybe the other side of that is yeah the less people drill into the details of these projects and I couldn't know what's in that tax they may look backwards and say well I things happen in my neighborhood for a long long time so yeah I think it's a tough issue putting together these kind of packages I think that our project based and you know in the same way fast-tracks had that issue and now we didn't see that part and not a part of town you know I think we just people are sensitive to those issues now really good point I think yeah so with that I think we are at the stage for any final motions or recommendations anyone willing to hazard one it's the muck is there motion language for us somewhere I think there was a slide all right I'll make the motion

[203:02] excellent I moved that planning board recommend to the City Council approval of the 2018 2023 proposed capital improvement program including the list of CIP projects to undergo a community and environmental assessment process as outlined in the staff memorandum should I make them both together okay I also move that Planning Board recommend to the City Council renewal of the three tenths of a percent sales and use tax to fund a variety of capital improvement projects one second I'll second it and also wanted to after we vote on this have a second set of or at least one motion in addition to this that I'll make around the additional language sure about resilience the same manner that we

[204:00] did last year sure but we can at least approve this one based on the main motion I don't know where this would fit in maybe it's just an additional motion like Carmen was going to do but I was gonna right I was gonna say Planning Board further recommends that the city analyzes the source of revenue to fund an expanded vision for arts and culture in the community why don't we make that as one of the separate category of emotions that that we can touch any other discussion on the main motion made by member Payton seeing none I'll call the question all in favor of this Payton's motion please say aye and raise your hand hi any opposed that passes unanimously

[205:00] are there other error motions that members would like to make Carmen so Cindy I'll send you this by email so don't worry so my motion is planning board well I'll just read its way around for consistency with amended comp plan policies regarding environmental purchasing and sustainable business practices that call for purchasing of local products and services as well as policies promoting diversity and resilience Planning Board further recommends that council developed guidelines for CIP expenditures that encourage procurement from disadvantaged business enterprises and local businesses to promote social and economic equity and community resilience second any further discussion on that motion made by mr. Zuckerman and seconded by mr. bone wanna fight the

[206:04] Boulder Valley comp plan the new section we put in on local businesses support for local I could put those policies in there but I don't know okay I know numbers they are it's 4 12 + 5 11 / it's okay okay any further discussion seeing that I'll call the question on that motion all in favor of Harmons motion please say aye aye any opposed that passes unanimously crystal I think you may have had a motion yeah I just you know Anna I'll take any suggestions if you can make it better but Planning Board recommends that the city analyzes the source of revenue to fund an expanded vision for arts and culture in the community okay

[207:01] now let me just read you the mission of our arts and culture mission actually before they do that we do have a motion from gray seconded by Peyton okay go ahead okay and the mission of the folder office of arts and culture is to facilitate an alignment in the creative community around our shared vision for culture together we will craft folders social physical and cultural environment to create to include creativity as an essential ingredient for the well-being prosperity and joy of everyone in the community so I think that that's fine so this would just help identify a source or analyze a source of funding maybe they'll say we have enough funds maybe people will say yeah we really we really could do a lot more so crystal would you consider a historic preservation part of

[208:00] the culture I mean I would I mean I do under culture yeah okay and I would consider like some of the Chautauqua projects under culture and and I love it that you brought up work space and who knows what people could come up creatively to help this mission if we had like five million dollars here rather than a couple I know every ten year every eight years whatever the tax goes I'll just know in response to your question that if you look at the pottery lab if you look at other cities often the space that you find for affordable artists space or residents are historic structures and you know they often if you look down Denver a lot of those spaces are old industrial places with a lot of original

[209:01] buildings and that sort of thing so I think there could be a nexus that would make a lot of sense there right it won't work for everything but it might work for many right so and this includes public art oh yeah so that's yeah I just wanted to make sure nope Arts and Culture yep I'll call the question on Crystal's motion all in favor of that please say hi and raise your hand all right any opposed that also passes unanimously I'll send it to you any other motions or thoughts it's a thought just you know the city of Boulder has about a hundred thousand people spending about a hundred million dollars per year on capital improvements and I thought higher this year than not and yeah then fluctuates

[210:00] but we're I'm averaging over the five year period and and I think that's pretty awesome that I'm getting a thousand dollars worth of capital improvements for a person just for living here and and beyond that it's being done really well it's being managed well efficiently and it looks great so thank you yeah thank you guys three really really really sick things so to lead off on that a big thank you to all the staff and all the folks that aren't here as well they contribute to this work a lot and everybody does a really great job and they're really awesome to work with we're very lucky we are David I wanna apologize for calling you Peter I think this is a point of pride for for you guys and for all of us at the city

[211:00] as David you know I was invited to do a presentation at the National planning conference this year on capital improvement planning I was asked to provide the example of how it's done well and we had a pretty healthy number of folks at the session and a lot of folks that ask questions and looked at our stuff afterwards and I've been sending examples of our prioritize or project prioritization document that we put together for this year's CIP so there were you know there are a lot of folks that are struggling with us and DIF they're a bunch of folks who were like you get your planning but your planning board looks at this and and wanted to know kind of how we did that and how that worked so that was kind of it was kind of cool to see that other communities are looking at our stuff and looking at us as an example so I'll just add to that to say not only is it impressive that it's at a high level of quality but it's an improving level I think it's getting better a year while still being excellent and that's really

[212:00] impressive so thank you sorry okay when I first got on planning board there's a lot of conversation about how to integrate art and design into these public works projects and that conversation is pretty much not happening now because it's working out really really well so the great projects thank you you know and I was really impressed with the footprint that Boulder had at that conference it's a huge conference with people from all over the world and also how few cities actually send plan board members to these conferences yeah I didn't really run across that many so you know Boulder really really I think it took it takes advantages of that and really contributes a lot to the public thinking on these things that was pretty great so with that I think we can close out agenda item 5b thank you all for your patience and hard work I give an

[213:00] excellent work and I think we're at matters and do we have any from staff I don't have anything I'm glad that we're gonna go out with my favorite culvert on the open space now any other matters from the board I think seeing none we are adjourned thank you all thank you we can submit a truism in that you could I'll turn off your microphones that would be [Music] [Music]

[214:10] [Music]