June 4, 2019 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] [Music] good evening everyone welcome to the boulder city council meeting for june 4th 2019. lynette will you call the roll council member brockett president carlisle here jones here marzell here

[1:05] few announcements before we get to the beginning of our program one is this i feel like i say this every meeting but we're still recruiting for a few boards and commissions appointments and um we just want to highlight that this is a great way to get engaged in the community and the three boards that we are currently recruiting for are two that have to do with boulder junction access district both the parking commission and the travel demand management commission and then the university hill commercial area management commission all three of these seats require the applicant to either be a property owner or a resident with permission to represent a property owner's interest inside the district so if that fits you and you want to get involved you just need to be 18 years of age and have lived within the city limits of boulder

[2:00] for a year unless you are the one representing a property owner's interests and have permission to do that okay and with that um we need to amend the agenda we want to um here's the proposal to counsel one is to remove the whole hogan pancos designation discussion and move that to july 16th the other is to reduce since when we put this on and yeah we're going to try to spend 90 minutes or less on the alpine balsam area plan and then add a little more time to the cu sales process committee update and then we want to add a small item which is whether or not we want to sign on to the letter to bureau of land management about co-leasing so moved any discussion by council all those in favor of amending the agenda it's unanimous

[3:00] excellent and with that we are going to turn to two declarations to start our meeting off and i'm going to turn it over to mayor pro tem sam weaver i will note that oh four of the council members dressed appropriate colors [Applause] and the rest of us forgot sorry [Applause] check can you hear me no i don't think it's on okay so i would like to call up nicole leah broughton who's the boulder chapter lead for mom's demand action so we will do a declaration shortly about gun violence and i have a few remarks i'd like to deliver gun violence is a scourge and a sickness that infects america and harms the psyche of its residents as a gun owner myself i know that firearms can be

[4:00] possessed and handled by responsible adults in a manner that serves society and individual needs however firearms designed solely for killing human beings or tools that serve only to enhance the lethality of legal weapons are abhorrent and serve only to create fear and death in our society to raise awareness of the destruction caused by the misuse of these tools of human devastation the city council of the city of boulder will shortly issue a declaration regarding gun violence before i read that declaration i would like to honor the memory of those who were lost to incidents of mass gun violence and wish peace to those who have survived these incidents some mask on violent incidents in the last 20 years which have caused destruction and death in our national communities include the las vegas shooting of 2017 58 killed and 422 injured by gunfire the orlando nightclub shooting of 2016 49 killed and 53 injured the virginia tech

[5:00] shooting of 2007 32 killed 23 injured the sandy hook elementary school shooting of 2012 27 killed and two injured the sutherland springs church shooting of 2017 26 killed and 20 injured the stoneman douglas high school shooting in 2018 17 killed and 17 injured the san bernardino shooting of 2015 14 killed and 24 injured the fort hood shooting of 2009 14 killed and 32 injured and close to home here in colorado the columbine high school shooting of 1999 13 killed and 24 injured the aurora theater shooting in 2012 12 killed and 70 injured and on april 29th of this year kendrick castillo a student at the stem school in highlands ranch was killed for protecting other students from one of two gunmen firing at that school

[6:02] eight other students were wounded and within this last week the tragic shootings in virginia beach killed 12 people and injured six as a society and within the city of boulder we must work to eliminate the senseless cause of death in our communities and now i'll read the declaration every day 100 americans are killed by gun violence and countless others are injured americans are 25 times more likely to be killed with guns than people in other developed countries support for the second amendment rights of law-abiding residents goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from dangerous people city council and law enforcement officers know their communities best are the most familiar with local criminal activity and how to address it and are best positioned to understand how to keep their residents safe in january 2013 hadiya pendleton a

[7:00] teenager who marched in president obama's second inaugural parade was tragically shot and killed just weeks later to help honor hadiya and the hundred americans whose lives are cut short and the countless survivors who are injured by shootings every day a national coalition of organizations has designated june 7th 2019 as the fifth national gun violence awareness day the idea was inspired by a group of hadiya's friends who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange they chose this color because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters when out in the woods and orange is a color that symbolizes the value of human life we renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledge to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our children safe the city council of the city of boulder colorado declares june 7th national gun violence awareness day and encourage all residents to support their local communities efforts to prevent the

[8:01] tragic effect of gun violence [Applause] so as sam said my name is nicole and i'm part of the boulder mom's demand action chapter leadership team every day more than 90 americans are shot and killed with hundreds more injured by gun violence our hearts go out to those whose loved ones lives were tragically cut short moms demand action is here to stand against gun violence in all of its forms we are part of the gun violence prevention movement we support the second amendment and know it goes hand in hand with common sense gun laws and a culture of gun safety we are not anti-gun we are anti-gun violence and pro-gun safety we are working to create a movement that is inclusive of gun owners and non-owners alike our work is to raise awareness regarding the facts of gun

[9:01] violence and to keep guns out of the hands of felons domestic abusers and people with dangerous mental health conditions i want to thank the entire boulder city council for their support and declaration of national gun violence prevention day this is a step towards recognizing the tragic effects of gun violence in our communities and raising awareness for the victims colorado knows all too well what happens when a gun gets in the hands of someone who is not able to be responsible with the weapon too many promising lives are lost to gun violence and while mass shootings make up the headlines tragically two-thirds of gun deaths are by suicide those who die by suicide and their families are victims too colorado ranks ninth in the country with regard to the suicide rate and for colorado's coloradans aged 10 to 24

[10:02] suicide is the leading cause of death and what we know from research is that a suicide attempt with a gun is much more likely to be a suicide death gun violence is a nonpartisan issue death by a gun affects all demographics all races and ages are suffering guns kill whether you are rich or poor it enters rural and urban communities and its effects are tragic and long-lasting we must do more to address this issue so that we can unravel the tangled mess that leads to violent acts by gun we all deserve to live free from the threat of gun violence if you're interested in learning more about mom's demand action our legislative agenda how we support victims or our be smart gun safety program visit our website momsdemandaction.com or you can email our chapter at bouldermomsdemandaction

[11:01] gmail.com and i want to thank city council for wearing orange today you may notice the bandstand will be lit orange on june 7th and we will be at the boulders farmer farmers market handing out orange awareness paraphernalia so come by and see us [Applause] next up we have another declaration by council member nagel jose so council is going to recognize immigration or immigrant heritage month and the boulder latino festival so generations of immigrants from every

[12:00] corner of the globe have built our country's economy and created the unique character of our nation immigrants have provided the united states with unique social and cultural influences fundamentally enriching enriching the extraordinary character of our nation immigrants have been tireless leaders not only in securing their own rights and access to equal equal opportunity but also having campaigned to create a fairer and more just society for all americans immigrants have enriched boulder beyond measure bringing many contributions to our community along with the unique customs and traditions of their ancestral homeland boulder recognizes the importance of shared immigrant history diverse cultures and the role the these play in shaping and enriching the life of the city the city of boulder is committed to the inclusion of immigrant communities in civic participation and public life and wishes to honor the experience and contributions of the many immigrants who

[13:00] have shaped the city over many generations or that facilitate the successful integration of immigrants into the civic economic and cultural life of the boulder community the city council of the city of boulder colorado declares june 2019 as immigrant heritage month and commends the efforts and contributions from all immigrant communities residing in the city of boulder city council further encourages boulder residents to join in the celebration of immigrant heritage month at an event on june 17 2019 at 11 am in front of the historic county courthouse on pearl street in which all are welcome to celebrate the contributions of immigrants thank you hello thank you um my name is jose bethita and i'm here representing barrio and our partners for the u.s who helped us put this

[14:00] event for monday june 17 together along with the colorado latino festival and would you mind holding this this is uh this is the poster that came out fresh off the press today announcing the festival which used to be one day but now we have expanded it from june 17th to the 23rd where we will be having different events in which we are celebrating immigrants we're celebrating latino and caribbean history and heritage but this is not just for us this is for all of you and i'm going to explain why before i go there i just wanted to thank the mayor city council everybody who worked on this proclamation because this couldn't have come at a better time earlier today u.s congress passed legislation given a path to u.s

[15:02] citizenship to over 2 million immigrants and that includes dreamer and it's applause worthy yes so this looks really good hand-in-hand with what's going on so i i want to thank you for taking this time because it's a big deal and i wanted to have you participate with me in one thing please raise your hand and and i'm including counsel in this as well if you come from immigrants so i'm going to go a little further than than this and say we're not just celebrating immigrant heritage we're celebrating american history this is part of you this is part of all of us unless you're a native american you know we're we're all immigrants we came from immigrant backgrounds

[16:01] one two three many generations ago but this is a big deal and i'm very thankful for this stand barrio forward the u.s and all of our partners including the city who is a big sponsor for the colorado latino festival i am very thankful to them for taking this stand hrc who has always stood for the dream act for passing legislation giving a path to citizenship to many undocumented immigrants who are here to work to look for a better life to settle to place roots and to make this home as well so thank you so much thank you for giving me the space to talk i am honored to stand here and receive this on behalf of my partners and all of you and um and and thank you great day

[17:13] alrighty thank you to both of the the groups and the interests that we were just um acknowledging we are now going to turn to the part of the evening good night goodbye all of you uh to the part of the the part of the meeting where we're not going to clap or boo or make noises and we're going to create a safe space to hear lots of different opinions okay just a reminder to folks we're going to go to open comment just a reminder that those who are speaking tonight can speak to any matter except for the issue that's going to be subject to open sorry to a public hearing a little bit later and that's the four landmark designations so if you want to speak to those sign up separately over there

[18:01] and with that we're going to go straight we're going to start with kim bixel if you can start with your name and address that would be great each of you gets two minutes starting with kim hi there i'm kim those were really awesome important declarations so that was that was really great to hear so and also thank you for hearing my comments on alpine balsam they seem less measurable than uh gun violence but thank you and thank you for serving as our city council um i said my name is kim bixl i live on 11th street as a neighbor i'm here to speak on alpine balsam and as a neighbor of alpine balsam and speaking for many of my boulder and friends and neighbors i want alpine balsam to include housing that permanently maintains the middle that preserves neighborhood character that is a vibrant

[19:00] neighborhood community it seems that this is what everyone wants right david kevin yes um so i think at issue it seems is the scale and how we reach a conclusion as to what is truly feasible on the site itself if we use the holiday neighborhood as a density model for the full like if you just used it for the full 8.8 acres alpine balsam site we would be have between about 80 and 120 total housing units so this is a livable sustainable quality community and one that that people love right when the city starts talking about 55-foot high high-rise apartment buildings and 300 units on alpine boston and 340 400 more units in the area it seems that they begin to lose credibility by ignoring at least half of their own stated goals of respecting an existing thriving community and a development that complements the

[20:00] character of a neighborhood and they turn a deaf ear to the massive majority feedback they've themselves have gathered that do not desire this kind of development at the alpine balsam location for many reasons and various reasons and all valid um and so to me it seems this is poor project management at best and it falls into the realm of ideology over reality and reasonableness um so the marginal difference between a holiday type a moderate livable workable development and high density just feels not worth it thank you yeah is that my time yep thank you no you're fine no more noise guys don cody come on good evening to all of you i stand before you as the only boulder resident who's not a water engineering specialist

[21:00] i know it's a rarity but you know because of that i really can't criticize anything that you've done but i am concerned that you're getting a lot of criticism you have flood mitigation actions we're criticized by the camera cu says you're going in the wrong direction and even ben binder has criticized you for not condemning the property you can't win you are the leaders of the community and you're being criticized a lot at frasier and the ceo and the board of trustees don't believe he can make progress either therefore they have built 2.8 miles of flood walls they're already in and we're trying to put in the flood gates at this time so when the next flood happens not if when we will be safe even though surrounded by a high-hazard flood area

[22:00] a danger for anyone caught in it which could be other boulder residents why are we safe and other residents not we both have intelligent competent staffs knowledgeable consultants now we experienced the last fun flood and it was devastating to our residents and we're never going to have let it happen again was everybody happy with the flood walls we put in of course not you know it took up some grass it's too high it blocks my view all of those things are real but you know what we moved expeditiously to solve the problem we listened to our experts we did what we had to safety is a moral responsibility thank you

[23:00] thank you don we have a question excuse me i have a question have you addressed the cu regents regarding these same issues just just curious it might be helpful to have them here as well okay you can invite them or not be glad to come before them they come here occasionally to boulder i'll do that yes they do i'll let you know yeah thank you james feeney followed by lynn siegel hello again i'm james feeney from north boulder two weeks ago in response to my question about enforcement of the city's dark sky ordinance city manager expressed that the ordinance would not be enforced because mobile homes are located in parks owned by private property owners however city manager declined to answer my question explaining the legal structure for this policy of non-enforcement other than to say that she had checked with staff in fact city managers prohibited from seeking legal advice from city staff

[24:01] both because city staff are in violation of colorado revised statute 1393-101 which requires a counselor at law to be duly licensed to the practice of law in colorado where city staff are not so licensed and because the city of boulder charter section 85 requires that only city attorney shall be legal advisor to city manager and to city council so i now ask after seven weeks to review since first raising this question at city council meeting is it city attorneys advice that city of boulder ordinances and in particular section 9916 the dark sky ordinance are unenforceable against either party to a mobile home park land lease or against the city of boulder itself and if so what is city attorney's legal basis and reasoning for this opinion i request city council to direct city attorney to answer the questions thank you thank you

[25:02] lynn siegel and then kathleen hancock lynn siegel mountain heights boulder i co-opted the shirt sam because it was the brightest green i could find the the hospital building as i said in the letter to you went up from 17 million to 29 million bucks in value the land went from 7 million to 7 million i'm curious why we would consider deconstructing well i should say demoing the hospital because there is no deconstruction to these older buildings and ones like this the pavilion on the other hand seemed to to be okay to keep the hospital i agree with many in town could use some

[26:03] creative architects and some and some ingenuity to build it into something that could work and that might not be the density that some folks in town want but i find that the density going on in town as i've also written to you and after talking to the deconstruction guy russ i'm sure you've heard of him zan is made of glue everything is glue and the present building status of new build now is disposable in and and it's disposable because it's short-lived and it's entirely disposable because you can't it's not reused it's not rebuild it's not anything gone forever and then we have a huge carbon cost of all of these buildings that are going to fall down within 100 years they're

[27:00] not built like 500 years in europe and we we need to preserve the buildings that we have and i'm going to have to insist on that and find creative ways to reuse repurpose the building thank you lynn kathleen and then carla gets around good evening my name is kathleen hancock i moved to boulder in 2009 i live in the newlands area on 5th street i want to talk about the importance of neighborhoods tonight the comprehensive plan for boulder includes many statements about neighborhoods for example the city is charged with quote preserving established neighborhood character end quote as council members your job is to represent our collective views this means sometimes balancing contradictory goals like more housing and preserving neighborhoods the alpine balsam project is embedded in a neighborhood as you know traffic from new residents and office visitors will affect neighbors up and down broadway

[28:00] and especially ninth and fourth streets and along balsam and alpine on both sides of broadway what concerns me about alpine balsam is the council seems to have forgotten about the neighborhoods i keep hearing about housing and office buildings what happened to balancing the needs of the city with the needs and desires of the neighborhoods the grassroots group think boulder created a survey to find out what the neighbors want the neighbors near the site will be most affected by a project gone wrong or right they also have personal knowledge of how things work on the ground such as traffic over 530 people responded five times more than the city's own survey they resoundingly chose low density about 50 new units they're worried about views parking traffic overcrowded shops etc i want to know how are you balancing their views with those from people outside the area who want high density development i understand the need for trade-offs maybe you need to go higher than 50 units maybe a hundred i can live with

[29:02] that and i welcome a mixed-use concept with permanently affordable housing and community gathering areas but 200 or 300 new units maybe 400 to 600 new cars goes completely against a balance between housing and offices and preserving the neighborhood to my fellow residents i ask you to consider whether you want a city council that gives due respect to neighborhood engagement and preservation or city council that prioritizes development your neighborhood may be next thank you thank you carla and then john curl hello carla rickens roode sixth and stream side last sunday at 4 30 pm the frayser retirement community had our annual memorial service it honors all fraser members who passed away during the preceding 12 months it's a somber time for our residents their families neighbors and surviving partners

[30:00] there were 25 names on the list exactly 25 fewer than last year some residents think of frasier as living on a cruise ship because of the carefree and active life that they live others have dubbed it the last resort nevertheless most people know they've made their final move and are here through the end regardless of their timing we take our jobs at frayser very seriously to ensure our residents are safe and secure in their homes i want to clarify some facts that have been missing in the flood mitigation conversation during the mid-1990s the owners of the gravel pit gave the city of boulder several opportunities to purchase the south boulder property boulder's director of open space declined to buy the land the fourth time the seller told the city he had another buyer lined up the city passed on purchasing it for the fourth time and then the property sold to cu in nineteen ninety seven we are now encouraged that c dot cu and

[31:01] council have met and appear to be committed to progress i hope all parties are committed to fast tracking the plan because each report of an historic snowpack and possible flooding reactivates ptsd at frayser and in our neighbors the six-year anniversary of the flood is three and a half months away it must be noted however that a majority of council acted in bad faith when you directed city staff to pursue a flood mitigation design that had already been rejected by cu that variant one red herring was in direct opposition to the guiding principles of the boulder valley comp plan that you signed that diversion costs 10 months time that will never be reclaimed thank you john and then john charles hello council my name is john carroll i live on koala drive in the fraser meadows neighborhood

[32:01] thank you for your past and continued support of south boulder creek flood mitigation um you know we wouldn't be here today having this conversation uh without your support i'm here today to remind you that an estimated 3 500 residents who are directly in harm's way the next time it floods this won't be a few feet of water in our basement a wall of water will over top us-36 at foothills and come flowing through our neighborhood several feet of water will be in our streets and there'll be no way for us to escape and get to higher ground other than climb to our roofs and hopefully the water doesn't get that high flood mitigation is not a political issue for those of us in harm's way it is an urgent life or death public safety issue every day that goes by that flood mitigation isn't in place is another day that i have to go to sleep worrying about the safety of myself and my husband my friends and neighbors when we hear talk of imminent domain land swaps osmp land disposal all we hear is that this life-saving project will be further delayed

[33:01] you have three parties that are willing to work together in the city cdot and cu each party has their own goals and objectives but there's likely a compromise that everyone can agree to that will benefit the safety of the community i encourage you to work with cu and cdot understand their needs and help them understand our needs as a community find that compromise that all parties can agree to and lead the coalition to a workable solution without delay those of us in harm's way don't care what variant you choose call it variant 7 8 12 23 we'll be happy with it as long as it's a flood mitigation variant that gets built as quickly as possible and gets us out of harm's way thank you john john charles and then patrick murphy you enjoying your food mater yes you seem to be enjoying your meal very much

[34:00] i have my service animal with me because i'm required to take him with me everywhere i go in accordance with the americans with disabilities act of 1990 businesses may ask is this a service animal businesses may ask what tasks does the service animal perform businesses may not require special identification for the animal that means don't ask me for id don't ask me for a certificate don't ask me for anything to die d's my service animal as a service animal the law doesn't require it businesses may not ask about my disability businesses may not charge additional fees because of the service animal businesses may not refuse admittance isolate

[35:01] or treat this person less favorably than other patrons and so as such i am homeless and i try to access emergency shelter at path to home and the north broadway homeless shelter as well they said the same thing in both cases that the city because of the city it's not us it's not us doing this to you mister it's the city who enforces a no animal policy a no pet policy even in homeless shelters i doubt that's true but that's what they claim they're using you to refuse admittance to me this council that they claim is enforcing some rule thank you patrick and then clinton

[36:07] my name is patrick murphy i live in boulder is the muni a paper muni no it's a vapor muni the muni settlement with excel was one more loss for the muni we never fulfilled the charter requirements to create a muni and now that is settled boulder has been and will continue to be a victim of its own bad decisions based on propaganda it's our own fault bad decision making by leadership the slightly smaller half of boulder voters however had it right the muni is a waste of time and money but here we are stuck with the muni albatross stranded cost was only one of two things assumed to be zero that will never be zero here's the second non-zero cost you need

[37:01] to know about going concern is also considered to be zero but will never be zero going concern is applied to situations where the government boulder takes over a private company and not only takes all their equipment and manuals but also takes all their customers boulder lawyers claim this has never happened in colorado they're wrong it has happened in denver colorado and is almost exactly the same as boulder's situation based on that it'll cost bowlers some multiple of 120 million dollars that cost added to stranded cost will put the muni in the hole past 2033 and possibly decades beyond nutty clearly if you really claim to represent all of boulder you need to refer a 2019 ballot to the voters to convert the carbon tax to real carbon reduction not the vapor muni

[38:00] let us vote lead us out of this boondoggle [Music] thank you patrick clinton and then francesca silva clint hypel frazier meadows after extensive reviews by city advisory boards the revision of the boulder valley comprehensive plan reviews by city staff and engineering consultants and endless public input you were presented with several alternative plans all of which would have provided substantial flood protection for south boulder while piously declaring that your goal was to provide maximum protection you cleverly chose the only plan which had been repeatedly and explicitly which you had been repeatedly and explicitly told that the land owner would reject even though they had generously agreed to donate about half their property for flood mitigation and other community

[39:01] purposes while the motivation of council members for this approach cannot be determined with certainty it appears that the actual goal is to prevent cu from building affordable housing for junior faculty and bathrooms for the tennis courts with the lives and property of south boulder residents being merely collateral damage it's somewhat puzzling in light of the city's alleged interest in affordable housing the irony of the endless delays is that cu is unlikely to do any appreciable development for at least 10 years and after june 20th 2030 cu will be free to attempt to obtain water and sewer service from louisville or superior and if they're successful boulder would have no control whatsoever over development on the property regrettably while council members are unlikely to be personally liable for the lives and property likely lost

[40:00] in the next flood the responsibility will be yours the city may not be so fortunate having chosen to do less than nothing in face of a known threat the city will and should face a barrage of lawsuits after the next flood sir we have a question for you i have a question so you assert that uh after 2030 that cu would be able to get water from superior lewisville why can't they do that today because there's an intergovernmental compact which gives the city of boulder first right to annex or provide water and sewer service to cu south it's a 30-year compact which was agreed to 20 years ago about and it expires on june 30th 2020 now perhaps thank you that's good thank you

[41:01] thank you francesca and then susan baca hi uh thank you for letting me speak tonight my name is francesca silva and i live on 10th street near the alpine balsam site i'm very concerned with the push for adding dense housing in boulder one of the things that i believe makes this city special is the simple fact that it's not crowded i realize there is a concern that sixty thousand cars drive into boulder daily but i question the idea that building more housing will do anything but worsen this problem you see if we add more people to our population we will need more services such as schools restaurants and grocery stores to handle the additional people which will lead to more people needed to staff these places who will then be driving into boulder and the cycle continues until we end up like an overcrowded city in the san francisco

[42:00] bay area i understand that cities require a certain amount of growth in order to thrive but i contend that there are better ways to promote growth such as improving public transportation into the city i welcome the addition of housing at the alpine balsam site but i'm asking you all to please consider a low density option that fits with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and does not cause unintended consequences that will negatively and irreparably affect newlands for decades to come thank you thank you susan and then martin boone hi my name is susan baca and i live on upland in north boulder i'm a boulder homeowner and i live in a 1500 square

[43:00] foot house in an estate residential zoning district and there's been a lot of changes in boulder recently regarding additional dwelling units and now the anticipated zoning changes for re zoning to encourage more density and hopefully affordable housing i've recently applied to the city to turn a 350 square foot portion of my garage into a licensed adu and i'm finding the cost of this transition to be prohibitive because the garage is not visible from the street and is behind my home i'm required to install a fire suppression system it was difficult to find qualified contractors and only one of the three would even bid my tiny project they have quoted twelve thousand dollars for a 350 square foot studio so it's a 12 by 15 room with a 12 by 15 loft for

[44:00] perspective another option i have would be to turn my three quarter inch water main into a one one-inch water main and that would be about twenty five thousand dollars or i can attach the whole detached garage studio to my house and that's about a hundred thousand and i i noticed that the adu regulations were eased to allow for less parking and larger square footage and encourage the affordable housing to you know more housing to happen and i'm wondering if anybody considered fire regulations and the undue hardship that that puts on boulder homeowners who would like to help ease the housing crisis and also create some added income there are options to fire suppression systems including misters and chemical suppressants i just ask that you would maybe meet with a fire marshal and consider what some affordable options might be so thanks for your service thanks for hearing from me

[45:01] i think we have a question well i have a question well we can ask it at the end if you want i'll ask my question at the end it has to do with the what you were talking about in terms of having to put in a new new lines to afford the sprinkler system thank you martin and then elizabeth prentice my name is martin boone and i've been a boulder resident for almost 20 years i was shocked when i learned some time ago that the city is spending upwards of 100 million dollars to purchase and renovate the boulder community hospital site the result has left the city of boulder and now i'm talking about the core and the central part without a first-rate hospital and that's one of the reasons we moved to boulder was because of that beautiful hospital that was there

[46:00] in classic cart before the horse fashion the decision was made without a clear plan or real consideration of the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and the city in general the goal now in my view should be to avoid compounding the errors so number one the city should not destroy the character of existing neighborhoods in the interest of some theory of density and number two let's not throw good money after bad because of a previous mistake what the city should do in my view is make every effort to improve the quality of life of all citizens by using this as an opportunity to provide more public space and then let's have a concrete plan for subsidized housing and i kind of object to the word affordable because what we're really talking about is taxpayers subsidizing other people to live and

[47:00] let's target that towards our first responders let's try some common sense on this problem thank you thank you elizabeth and then leslie lester hi there city council um i just want to start by saying thank you so much for serving our city my name is elizabeth prentiss i am a neighbor in newlands and a boulder native i'm also a member of the think boulder group that helped put together the survey so i agree that boulder has an affordability issue like lots of places in the united states that are highly desirable to live in i guess i do not think we can build our way out of it and i haven't seen other cities be able to build their way out of it the federal reserve actually published a paper in april of 2018 that said that marginal additions to housing will not impact affordability that prices will

[48:01] march on and nobody actually knows how much inventory is needed to stop that gap so in boulder i have a hard time with high density market rate housing as part of the solution i feel like market rate housing benefits developers in particular and a specific segment of the population i would love to see permanently affordable housing on that site for our boulder residents seniors middle income families vulnerable populations high density housing doesn't feel like a solution it feels like a force fit that compromises the character of our neighborhood it compromises everybody in boulder's view corridors it's going to impact traffic it could trigger massive rezoning that i do not believe is widely supported and i think it it hands over the reins to developers to try to solve an affordability issue that is a nationwide issue and i have little

[49:01] faith in their ability to do it i haven't seen it happen in 2018 boulder county build three-time builder count boulder county excuse me built three times the number of apartments of the previous three years and here we are more and more density is not the solution it's who you build for thank you so much for your time thank you leslie and then david adamson a good evening council leslie gloucester and i live in boulder and um i come down because patrick comes down a lot to talk about things but i wanted to start by saying thanks for our democracy for everything you do for it and of course these first amendment rights patrick's right to come down here and complain about the election he doesn't like i mean these are things we so many lives have been lost i'm absolutely in support

[50:00] of that but i disagree with patrick's facts and i wanted to take a little bit of time to i mean they're not actually facts his claims um and so i wanted to take a little two minutes or something to try to talk a little bit about that patrick spent a previous several times talking about the stranded cost obligation of the city he uses an abbreviation of this formula this is actually the ferc formula stranded cost obligation is the revenue stream estimate minus the competitive market value estimate times l the length of obligation for the utility this is all related to our municipal utility and just let's start with l there's a very reasonable possibility that l will be zero our franchise with xl terminated in 2010 any number no matter what it is time zero is zero in addition patrick has made quite a few either errors or emissions didn't subtract the transmission costs from the revenue stream estimate he added the revenue stream estimate instead of

[51:00] averaging this is huge he failed to discuss option two i'm going to send you all of this from for the ferc order there's another option too another way to figure out the competitive market value estimate and that's what it costs us to replace when you do all of these things when you think about all the ways that the city could mitigate our stranded cost obligation our staff is working extremely hard on that we can expect the community to have quite a few options when the time comes and then if we do have stranded cost obligations there's lots of ways to pay it um and if we're going to save a lot as we've learned we're very likely to do on our energy bills on our then we can use that to help so just because patrick says a lot of things doesn't always mean they're well grounded thank you thank you leslie david and then elizabeth black david adamson 815 north street bowler colorado and the executive director of goose creek community land trust thank you so much for your service thank you

[52:01] for reading that big alpine balsam packet that was one of many we want to the folks that are here that are promoting number three for community so especially thinking about that alpine balsam hospital redevelopment site we're promoting the maximum you know strong housing emphasis for that site and we're interested in that throughout that area and i think that rather than getting into the depth of density we're asking you all to come from the values that i think we all share i think we can unite around these values of affordability sustainability you know equity and livability so we we can build a beautiful neighborhood center there that doesn't have transportation problems we can have people that we don't have spillover parking we can make sure that doesn't happen and we can make sure that it's not a source of a bunch of trips so the natural concerns that neighbors have

[53:00] about um impacts that's that's natural but we can definitely develop without those impacts and we can meet our values of diversity and have a lot of permanently affordable mixed income housing permanently affordable so middle income housing and the more of that we have the more we meet our value of diversity that's a key value of our town why would we have less why when we invested so much money would we have less housing if it isn't going to have a big negative impact but only a positive impact we need a place as a as martin boone talked about for our firefighters for our policemen for our teachers 60 000 people a day having to commute in that's a lot of frowns of the people who serve us and work for us so in summary we can have a project that i think meets our values and we should talk about how do we best meet our values thank you very much thank you david elizabeth and then france floss

[54:05] hi elizabeth black 4340 north 13th street grasses have deep roots which help them survive and build rich soil grass supports many grazing animals and grazing actually keeps our grasslands healthy and productive how can grace oops what did i do how can grazing help grasslands when a cow or bison or prairie dog clips down grass the smaller top can no longer support all the roots the grass sloughs off part of its roots those dying roots feed soil microbes who multiply and feed nutrients back to the grass the grass slowly starts to grow again eventually the grass recovers fully its roots and leaves return to normal size and soil microbes have sequestered extra

[55:00] carbon in the soil from all the dying roots this is how grazing animals keep grass healthy and sequestering carbon however it's different if the grass is grazed too much if an animal clips the grass and then clips the grass again before the grass recovers the grass will slough off even more roots the grass then becomes stunted grass doesn't care which animal overgrazes it grass does the exact same thing whether overgrazed by cows or bison or prairie dogs if grass has a chance to recover after its grace it will grow back strong and sequester carbon if grass is overgrazed it will become stunted and will eventually fail the bare soil then releases carbon instead of sequestering in just look at land at 47th and j a decade ago the farmer cut hay and carefully managed grazing grass was healthy and sequestered carbon today your land is overgrazed by uncontrolled prairie dogs no farmer no pasture no carbon

[56:01] sequestration grasses are stunted or absent replaced by noxious weeds bare soil releases carbon to the atmosphere thank you thank you elizabeth branslaus and then elizabeth hi francoise poinsett i'm here to speak on alpine balsam and i'd like to question the whole idea of neighborhood character being single-family homes in that particular thing if you look all around there are a lot of multi-family homes right after i just got married in 1985 i lived in a 350 square foot unit right across the street from there right across um from ideal market so look up and down the care it's the perfect place for higher density and i was able to afford that way back when i probably couldn't even afford that unit very much right now but we need affordability in this town we just honored immigrants my children who are moving back to boulder and they're moving back here with their immigrant family truly

[57:00] immigrants from other countries cannot afford their hometown anymore there's something really wrong here in our community we are losing our housing for our teachers for the baristas for our firefighters we've had a long time of caring about this if we keep going with our 85 percent resident of a residential land in the city is zoned single family we can't continue with that so i'm asking you to say don't zone it like my house which is in the neighborhood it's very interesting because most of my neighbors my friends who have been there as long as we have since 1989 or since the last 20 years they've seen radical changes the neighborhood has changed radically because of spec homes luxury homes that have been built after the original homes were demolished so we want to talk neighborhood character you really have to say which neighborhoods are we talking about the ones from the 50s a lot of that is gone we really should go back to good zoning practices and that

[58:00] means high density and diverse housing which we sorely need please listen to that and do your conscious thank you thank you francoise elizabeth and then richard o'brien hi i'm elizabeth hondorf i've lived in alpine balsam since 76 and although i don't agree with all of you i really appreciate that you ran for office and the highest community service you can do for your country is to try to get in office one reason our neighborhood is radically changed is because we have an inordinately high amount of abortion in my neighborhood we have one of the foremost doctors of late and mid term of abortion and i'd like to see that clinic move because if the city and community offices come in there i'm afraid they're going to steer women with social services into the abortion clinic [Music] also we had casey becker

[59:01] who was pushed through the ranks here pretty fast who campaigned on abortion not abortion iuds for teenagers well it's really none of her business to tell any of us what our children should be doing and it's my understanding that iuds cause a lot of other physical problems for women and so i'm concerned now that other states are outlawing abortion are we going to harbor these women are they going to come and is it going to occur in my neighborhood i think the clinic should be moved to the hospital where people can get the utmost care until the whole row versus weight is decided i go with the federal law what they tell you tell me i agree with i also objected before to you bringing in old city leaders to push through your your agendas this happened at 3 11. we had a mayor old old mayors and hospital owners this and that who shoved it

[60:00] through and now i've had will tour at my house with a bunch of women on women's day objecting to maybe what i'm speaking on tonight i don't know but i'd like jared pulis to come and take a look at who is advocating for what thank you thank you elizabeth richard hi i'm richard o'brien uh moorhead circle in south boulder i'm just here tonight to invite you all to come to our event at the planetarium about your work the event is bringing back dark skies it's about the outdoor lighting ordinance that you you have supported uh and are continuing to support in in i'd really greatly uh appreciate seeing you there um

[61:00] it's open it's free to the it's open to the public and free and 7 pm on all week from tomorrow thank you great thank you all right with that we're going to close open comment i'm going to turn to staff to see if you have any responses none for me thanks nothing for me not for you council i had a question regarding the sprinkling of the um adu unit and the possibility of having to enlarge one's water lines in order to be able to do that and a plumber who used to live here who now lives in one of the cities outside of boulder um asked how long ago it was that we put in the regs for usage for the size lines that we have in other words with the new kinds of utilities that we have in terms of flushing low

[62:00] whatever it is faucets that there's probably much less use than there was back in the time when those lines were first sized and i think it might be helpful in terms of how these regulations are coming down to have that kind of information looked at by staff by the utilities and see whether or not there would be some compensation because of those things so we can provide a report to council about the sizing of water lines as well as the requirements for sprinklers so we're happy to provide that information i don't think any compensation would be owed to people but certainly we can provide you information and you can go from there with that information i think it would be helpful for all of these people the the woman who spoke and talked about the cost of doing an adu and one of the things that we in making those uh opening that up was to make it more affordable to have more affordable housing so this seems to be a contradiction in terms

[63:01] here of what or intent and outcome for what the council was trying to do and charles farrow for that matter i do think to the extent that there's options because i definitely understand this um challenge having experienced it myself and um anyhow i don't know if there's a way to make it easier to address adu's fire sprinklers but to me it is an interesting yeah thanks um i spoke with the fire chief about two weeks ago and he's got some ideas of things to look at so i'll ask him to provide information to you about the great i think that would be wonderful okay i have a cute mirror by aaron and then sam i was just curious because this came up a couple months ago when we were having discussions about the homeless shelter and i'd asked for information on if we could get service animals and or even pets in there so that people weren't

[64:00] left out in the cold just because they had an animal so i was just curious if we had any response on where that was at i don't know about your request i just sent an email to kurt fernharber and wendy schwartz to figure out um if the city somehow um controls that i certainly doubt it so we'll provide information to you about that great thanks dean sure aaron i was going to bring that up as well because certainly it would hope that at least service animals it seems from a legal perspective we might need to allow that but so i look forward to hearing back about that uh the other one i was just going to ask to follow up on the gentleman who was talking about the dark skies in the mobile home park do you know more about how that would work like how the ordinance it whether it's enforceable on on private property like mobile home parks i don't know i think that'd be interesting to know um you know about how that how that would work out so i'd request that we get more information about it absolutely so after

[65:00] the last meeting when mr feeney spoke i also asked people from our housing department to reach out to the mobile home owners to see if they would voluntarily require people to comply with dark skies that i haven't heard back okay and just one more on that i know the so we're coming into the enforcement period is coming up on the dark sides before too long thank you lisa um is there an easy way for homeowners to determine whether their fixtures are compliant like it seems like it's a fairly technical requirement do we have a web page or something that people could look at i believe we do but i'll send you more information on that as well after it was adopted we did prepare a web page and information that people could get online and look at but maybe we need to provide more information about that great thanks so much so i too would like to find out if um we could apply dark skies ordinance

[66:02] within mobile home parks and i brought this up last last meeting because these are all from my perspective single family homes and they should enjoy the same quality of life that everyone else does with regard to um what was your other point how to be compliant you know information about owners homeowners whether they're fixtures or complaints right and and i was wondering on um informing people if we could have maybe an insert in our water bill or something like that that everybody would get and would be able to see if they are compliant or not or i think it comes up july 30th is when enforcement is supposed to go into effect or july 31st and so

[67:00] i think it would be good if everybody could at least look and see for themselves if they are compliant yeah we might not be able to get it in the next water bill because we actually decide what's going to be in there a couple of months in advance but certainly later in the year we could maybe schedule it okay sure great idea sam yeah and tom this is probably for you um the gentleman brought up the um point that uh cu is obligated to take water service or sewer service from the city um could you send us the reference for that is that an iga or i think what he said i've heard that before and actually jeff arthur sent me the iga's right now i haven't had a chance to read them but i will i can yeah i can speak to that so in 1997 when the um cu did purchase the property and we realized or the city kind of realized what was going on

[68:02] and that they had an ability to connect to lafayette or lewisville we entered into an iga for 30 years thinking we would have this figured but and i guess that does expire in 2030 but there's nothing to say that we couldn't renew that as well either so so so the iga is between the city and cu or is it between the city and the county it's between the city my end my recollection is it's between the city the county um and louisville and lafayette i see so it doesn't involve it does not involve cu okay and so we wanted to make sure that cu could not get water and and annex backwards or create this large campus at the edge of

[69:00] our town without our having some oversight that good i was i was just gonna say my recollection is that ron stewart put this together when he was on the board of commissioners and it was an iga amongst all of the cities within the county in terms of respecting their own areas and that was a different idea was that okay so that's so there was another one that did the same thing though in terms of okay so maybe we'll get the that information okay so the other topics being discussed at length we'll be discussing later in the meeting so i think with that unless there's anything more thanks everybody for sharing their input at open comment and we'll move on to our consent agenda items a through d are before you tonight on your consent agenda um tom you were going to explain a little bit so to speak briefly about items c and d item c is a motion to approve

[70:00] well actually to pass on first reading and ordinance there's a uh public hearing schedule for june 18th on this ordinance this would be part of a settlement that the city entered into with excel to settle a lawsuit uh it does not settle municipalization as some we've had some people read it like that there's been a a lawsuit going on since 2014 by 2014 uh challenging the city council's decision to create the entity that was the utility we went up and back to the supreme court uh we talked to excel and agreed to settle that in a manner where uh both parties seem to get what they wanted um but so this as i said will be up for public hearing next in two weeks the second item 3d is a motion uh for that well the council will affirm the assets to be acquired if and when the city files condemnation against excel you may recall the council in december

[71:02] of 2018 passed ordinance 8302 authorizing acquisition of excel's assets since then there have been some minor changes to that list we keep hoping that we will get through the cut the puc proceeding we are working diligently to do that we want to be ready to go to condemnation when we can this the changes in this list are relatively minor they're really two one there was a question about so the commission as you may recall in september of 2017 conditionally approved the transfer of assets outside of the substations so we have a list of assets that we say are outside of the substations a dispute arose because distribution lines necessarily have to go inside of substations because substations are the places where the transmission lines connect with the distribution system so there was a dispute over what whether the uh tips of the distribution lines that actually cross over the fence in the distribute

[72:00] in the substations and enter the substations were assets inside the substations or assets outside the substations we have agreed with excel that we will note on the list that these are as these are part of the distribution system even though they are physically located inside the substations so we think we've addressed that concern you may also recall that there were some issues with respect to substations on the list that was included with ordnance 8302 uh we there is one substation up on 75th street that we enlisted in alternative solutions for one was building a new station substation adjacent or the other alternative was building a substation on the city's wastewater treatment plant we have worked with excel through the ferc regulated process to to look at those options and narrowed it to only consider the one for the wastewater treatment plant so we've eliminated the option of building a new substation on open space so the list that you'll be

[73:00] affirming by passing the consent agenda tonight and passing this motion includes those two changes otherwise it's reaffirming the same list that you approved in december of 2018 when you passed ordinance 8302 great and when can we expect exhibit 5b to be done that is the 64 000 question suzanne we are working on that we have a list that we think is complete excel has promised um us a list sometime soon that they will not object to um as you will recall there are two separate lists that we included in our uh in our petition for transfer of assets uh list 5a is a list of all of the physical facilities that will acquire that's the one i spoke with with the tips that that is the important thing for condemnation there is no longer any dispute about that list other than that one issue that we've addressed um the second list is what we call 5b that's a list of property interests that

[74:00] are going to need to be transferred for condemnation purposes all we need to say is we're acquiring the property just interests that are necessary to operate the facilities that are in 5a so that's fine the commission has ordered us to list all of the property interests that we're acquiring from excel that has proved to be a very difficult task because a lot of those interests are not recorded also it's not clear where exactly excel's facilities are we have a lot of schematic drawings uh i got an email yesterday with overhead pictures purporting to show polls that may be an easements that we may have to acquire somebody to look at them and uh one was a transmission poll one was a poll that excel is gonna require one actually wasn't in the easement this is a very difficult task for our purposes as long as the list includes every interest that we're going to acquire necessary to operate the facilities in exhibit 5a it's fine uh excel seems to want to do a lot more uh we would we are trying very hard to get

[75:00] an agreed list before the the commission they have represented to us that they will get us there they will be able to file a list by mid to late june so we are hoping to do that we are working with them i sent them two different emails today asking for an update on when that list is going to be when we can see the list because obviously we have to see it before we file it with the commission great thank you for that explanation um any questions concerns about the consent agenda oh okay call me consistent i'm going to vote against um item d the um i voted against the condemnation back in december so i think it's appropriate for me to vote against the amended list of condemnation assets uh tonight so i'll move the consent agenda second any more discussion it's a roll call vote we start with council member brockett hi

[76:00] carlisle i jones hi marcel on all items and no on 3d young yes the motion passes unanimously with council member yates neon 3d your first public hearing your only public hearing tonight is second reading of four ordinances designating individual landmarks on 14th street [Applause] excuse me good evening council

[77:00] marcie cameron our historic preservation planner will present this item great thank you so tonight is this one right the city council may approve the designations modify and approve or deny these designations and the criteria for review is found in 9 11 1 and 9 11 2 of the boulder revised code finding whether the subject properties meet the criteria for individual landmark designation imbalanced with the policies of the boulder valley comprehensive plan and that criteria speaks to protecting enhancing and perpetuating buildings sites and areas reminiscent of past eras enhancing property values stabilizing neighborhoods promoting tourist trade and interest and fostering knowledge of the city's living heritage and the property owner is in support of this designation say that again the property owner is in support of these designations the same property owner it is there's two ownership groups but

[78:02] common ownership so the properties are located on the corner of 14th in euclid up the street from the old jones drug and the colorado bookstore in the university hill neighborhood zooming in you can see the properties to the south have multiple buildings on them the one at 10 27 has three residential buildings the one to the north has two residential buildings and a shed and then the properties to the north each have one building and i'll go through each one of those a little bit of background of where these applications came in in 2015 the historic preservation program received a demolition permit application for the building on the corner which is pictured and the committee found that it was potentially eligible for landmark designation and referred it to the full board in response the owners proposed to relocate it on the other side of the adjacent

[79:01] building in the same block and designate it along with seven other buildings stabilizing the historic character of that block and so the relocation was approved and the buildings were moved in 20 the singular building was moved in 2016. so in researching these eight buildings some interesting themes arose they are all um indicative of architectural styles popular in the early 20th century and associated with the early development of the university hill as a residential neighborhood for faculty students and greek organizations as the university grew many of the buildings served as boarding houses at some point and they are associated with successful and educated women who held advanced degrees and ran businesses in the early part of the 20th century and they're all located within the potential university hill historic district and we spoke with the owner about the

[80:00] benefits or the pros and cons of designating these as a historic district or as individual landmarks and they preferred individual landmark designation and from our view it provides the same amount of protection so the first property is at 10 27 14th street and it includes the swain house the glen huntington greek house and the jackson house the new apartment building located to the south is not included in the proposed landmark boundary so the swain house was constructed around 1900 and is an example of the edwardian vernacular style it's associated with josephine and ida swain josephine was a lady manager of the 1890 chicago world's fair and ran one of the first apartment buildings in the university hill area her daughter ida was a chemistry professor at cu and was named in american men of science who's who of american women and co-authored chemistry

[81:01] textbooks used at the university of colorado and then it was used as a boarding house from 1955 until 1965. the next house located directly south of the swain house is the glenn huntington greek house which was constructed in 1926 by the node architect glenn huntington who also designed the boulder county courthouse and the band shell and it served as a sorority or fraternity for most of its existence and was also a non-organizational boarding house from 1946 to 1952. the du mouth house is a small stone cottage along the alleyway and it was constructed in 1924 and it has craftsman elements it was the short-term home of percy paddock who was boulder's postmaster for many years and then was also associated with the daily camera it served as student housing from 1926 until

[82:00] 1949 and the longest residence was francis de mouth who lived there from 1949 until 1970. she returned to school later in life and attained a degree after she worked at cu in the administration for a while after she got that degree she left and taught in netherland the next property at 1031 14th street has two residential houses and one shed the first one is one of the first of three american four squares all constructed in 1909 they all sit in a row this one is the vase cache house and it was owned by lillian vici a widow of prominent jeweler and optician and she operated the house as a boarding house from 1920 until 1940. and then subsequently margaret crash lived there from 1943 until until 1965 and ran the house as a boarding house as well after her

[83:01] husband passed away along the alley is the jackson house and it was built for student housing in 1946 and inhabited by alma and her daughter ellen jackson from 1946 until 1956. ellen was the head of the documents library at cu and published several documents and one book and it was constructed in 1923 and then there's a small vernacular shed along the alleyway the next property is at 1045 14th street and it's the nelson german house it was built by ben nelson a locally renowned contractor in boulder who worked on the glen huntington band shell and also many buildings at cu it was inhabited by frank e german and his family from 1919 until 1951 he is considered to have founded the modern chemistry department at cu and gained national renown for his studies in carbon dioxide radiochemistry

[84:04] spectroscopy fluorescence and dry ice and here's the subject of the book parallel lives to hoosier chemist from peru and that goes it was recently published i'm sure the library might have a copy and it documents his life along with his brothers and their history in chemistry so this house was also constructed in 1909 it's an example of the american foursquare it's a little bit more refined in its detailing than its maybe sisters on on either side of it but a very handsome house and then finally at 10 59 14th street is the beck coppinger house and it was built by john and rachel beck also in 1909. john was a union civil war veteran and a chaplain of a local fraternal organization for veterans they ran up the building as a boarding house and

[85:00] then later moved to a house in whittier that is also a local landmark that's at 1815 mapleton and then later james and edith coppinger lived in the house from 1933 until 1961 and also rented out rooms and again it is an example of the american foursquare built in 1909. and so the proposed landmark boundaries follow the property lines for the three northern properties and then encompass the portion of the site where the three historic buildings are on 1027 14th street and with that staff in the landmarks board recommend that the city council designate these four properties as individual landmarks great thank you so much any questions from council no very all right let us open up the public hearing no one has signed up okay we will close the public hearing

[86:02] yes you may so i would like to make the motion the city council designate the following properties as local historic landmarks with boundaries as described in the four staff memoranda dated june 4th 2019 finding that they meet the standards for individual landmark designation in sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 brc 1981 and adopted the stated memorandum as the findings of the board a portion of the property at 10 27 14th street as a local historic landmark with the buildings to be known as the glen huntington greek house the swain house and the dumuth house the property at 10 31 14th street as a local historic landmark with the buildings to be known as the the say

[87:00] cash house in the jackson house the property at 10 45 14 to be known as the nelson german house and the property at 10 59 14th street to be known as the back your house second and i'm thrilled this happened i used to live just two houses up the street in the back one of those tiny little cottages for a couple years my new baby and that was a long time ago and it's a i used to walk down that street and i was very concerned when the first house that you described was going to be demolished or was that was being considered and i just want to thank the property owner and i want to thank staff for putting this together and this is a significant i think

[88:00] landmarking and it is appropriate and it is um it just helps retain the character the historic character up the hill so those are my reasons anything to add cindy i just think it's also great to be preserving these houses these as a great example of part of our past so it will live in the future thank you uh i i would just echo that these are very have to say they have fine looking houses and they add a lot to the university hill district until which is near where i live in yeah i think it helps anchored the neighborhood yeah and very importantly we're not demolishing so okay anything else okay roll call vote we start with council member carlisle aye jones aye where's elle yes nagel i

[89:00] weaver yes yates hi young yes rocky aye the motion passes unanimously your next item is alpine balsam thank you thank you okay chris messtrak is going to lead this one off followed by gene thanks jane i'm going to let gene grab a seat here next to me we are here tonight to check in on the alpine balsam area plan as council will recall we were here just a couple of weeks ago on may 16th to talk specifically about the alpine balsam city owned site tonight we're here to talk about the area plan in general so the flow for the presentation tonight is a brief introduction and then gene will talk through the community feedback and recent analysis that we've done

[90:01] since we were last here at council back in february we'll touch base on the project goals and objectives and some slight refinements to those and then go over the land use options and the components with the key question of are they ready for public review and then we'll go over what those next steps are for public review and community engagement and then we'll be happy to answer questions and we've prepared some council questions to help frame the conversation and the first is if council agrees with the revised area plan goals and objectives the second is if the area plan draft components and options are ready for public review and input and really with the key question of should any of these options be eliminated or any new options added and then any feedback or questions about um the other components related to land use character connections access to mobility etc and then to touch base on the approach for further assessment of flood mitigation and the homework that we've

[91:00] done in the last few weeks related to that so just a real quick touch base as we talked about on may 16th the direction that we received from council was to finish the planning process for the alpine balsam area plan and the words up here on the screen are a little small but we talked about that there's a clear process for adopting area plans in that we identify opportunities and issues we develop options we engage the community on those options and that's the phase we're in right now this is similar to the engagement framework wheel and the the next step is to do a final engagement about final options and then to bring forward the area plan to make a decision to adopt that plan then we would proceed with implementation to achieve the vision in the area and just as a quick reminder what's the purpose of an area plan why do we do area plans they are to help define areas and vision for the area and in this case we have an incredibly successful neighborhood center so how do we continue to make

[92:00] that carry forward to guide the redevelopment within the area and to create a common understanding of changes and to ensure that those changes are consistent with the overall community vision to also identify any public improvements so that's streets and path connections any infrastructure those sorts of related things and to also ensure economic and financial viability of the plan so just as a bit of a quick forecast what will you have in this area plan the alpine balsam area plan it it will include an introduction and background as well as the vision goals and objectives for the area and then it will define what's that future planning for the area so it'll have a land use map so that's why the options that you have before you are look a lot like land use maps and it'll also include urban design guidelines character districts so that helps define what do we want this place to look and feel like to make sure we get the outcomes as redevelopment occurs over time and

[93:00] then also related to our strategies around access and mobility as well as transportation demand management and lastly about flood and storm water and the strategy related to that and then as we do in all area plans and sub-community plans there's a section on facilities and services so that's how do we make sure that our city infrastructure helps support the redevelopment that occurs in that area so things related to utilities parks fire and police library schools public art and then there'll be a specific section for this about planning for the city-owned land and then identify the implementation steps so that's just a bit of a forecast of what will be included you've received basically the pieces and parts of the draft area plan and that's what we'll take out for public review so with that i'm going to hand it over to gene who's going to um go through uh the character of the area great thank you chris um so as you know in previous discussions that we've had we've been really focused on the um the city-owned site but where we're we're

[94:01] talking about tonight is really that wider area for the area plan i'm going to briefly walk through start with a quick orientation to the planning area's character districts district one is the neighborhood center there we go and it's the it's really the heart of the neighborhood center that includes the retail center the community plaza and ideal market and shops it also includes the east block of the city site including the pavilion and the parking structure the boulder medical center at balsam and broadway character district 2 is really the rest of the redevelop redeveloped hospital site the center and west blocks and it also includes the two private parcels that are on that southwest corner by 9th street character district 3 is really two areas that serve as the north and south gateways for the neighborhood center along broadway the south gateway includes mixed use both commercial and residential uses and historic buildings on that west side

[95:01] and on the east side of broadway is one to two story commercial buildings with surface parking or on that east side the area presents some opportunities for changes to encourage housing and then the north gateway is primarily high density residential that provides a transition from some of the lower density residential areas further north that transitions into the neighborhood center no changes are proposed for that north gateway area character district 4 includes the block between alpine and north that's east of 9th street the current uses are a mix of residential and medical and commercial office uses there's a good amount of surface parking and the non-residential areas in this character district are places where the options suggest ways where we can add housing character district 5 reflects several areas where existing housing or

[96:00] civic uses function well and the options reflect the vision to preserve these areas with no changes proposed many folks have expressed appreciation for the current mix of the residential types and densities especially in the block along port portland avenue just east of 9th street as well as how these areas serve to func serve to transition to lower density housing in the outer areas okay now i want to share some of the key findings about what we've learned from the community engagement and the analysis that's been completed over the past year and that has shaped the options key themes from the community engagement include neighborhood quality of life is very high the results this results from a mix of people mix of housing character and safety of the areas walkability and access to activity activities like the north boulder park and the commercial center as well as the downtown and the mountains the neighborhood center functions very well and is beloved people appreciate the current look and feel of the center

[97:01] as well as the easy access to the range of retail commercial and medical uses in the area as you know there are mixed views about new housing and density some of the residents have concerns about adding too much housing on the city site or in the area that might be too big or might negatively impact traffic parking services or visual character conversely others see the area as an ideal location to add density to address the critical housing needs in an innovative and attractive way on recreation open and green spaces people love the north boulder park but as the area changes other green and open spaces will be important for connections and places to gather changes for flood mitigation should be very carefully con considered and on access and mobility people appreciate the current ability to walk bike take transit and drive there are concerns for more traffic and parking people suggested improvements for safety ease of moving through the area with or without a car and ways to promote all mode mobility

[98:02] and then regarding redevelopment on the city site needing to be thoughtful and innovative people want the redevelopment to fit in to support the neighborhood center to add value and have good public spaces they want housing that helps meet affordability goals they also want open spaces welcoming places to gather and a little retail along with the city service hub retail results from the traffic impact study suggests that changes in trips and traffic from any of the options can be accommodated by the existing roadway network any of the changes from redevelopment on the site will generate fewer trips than those who that were to that were estimated to have been generated by the active hospital and the consultants also made recommendations about the access and mobility strategy findings about flood mitigation analysis the staff and the consultants explored many options for flood mitigation for both the site and the wider area the results indicate that it's not

[99:01] possible to construct flood mitigation on the north boulder park without significant impacts to the park and we recommend taking that off the table even if mitigation could address the hundred year flood event in this stretch of upper goose creek there's limited ability east of 13th street to continue those improvements for the alpine balsam site we recommend proceeding with site-specific mitigation this includes pursuing conveyance at the northern side of the site and not a center greenway the upper grouse creek flood mitigation study will proceed in evaluating potential flood mitigations in the reaches downstream of the alpine balsam site and that will proceed on a different schedule than the area plan findings about affordable housing making progress toward the affordable housing goal is a primary objective for the area and for the site redevelopment what we know about affordability of new housing is that for private development in the area affordability will likely be addressed through the city's incl inclusionary housing program and through

[100:00] cash in lieu for the city site we have more leverage and control we know that density effect directly affects the ability to support a development of sufficient size to leverage state and federal funds for a 100 affordable project there will also need to be a mix of market rate and affordable housing and for the market rate to contribute by cash and lieu affordable housing outcomes are best supported on the site with more flexibility in future zoning for parking building heights and density on to our goals and objectives so council has seen the initial alpine balsam goals and we have added some objectives over the course of the project these goals build upon the vision plan and clarifying objectives that are based on further analysis option development and community feed feedback excuse me the full list of goals and objectives the objectives part is in your packet and so land use options as chris mentioned there's there are maps that look like

[101:00] land use maps and these are our options we've developed five that emphasize different goals focusing on the critical need for housing and how we might change and how the area might change to add housing with each of these options we developed rough estimates of potential new units in the area these are very high level projections based on simple dwelling unit per acre assumptions and they're really to be shown just as an order of magnitude for the range of future present potential as you know land use changes don't force property owners to redevelop into something different but allow and sometimes incentivize redevelopment to occur over time land use prototypes so before i describe the differences in the land use options i want to talk a little bit about what we mean by land use prototypes developing prototypes in the plan allows us to get more specific about the desired character we can use both the description and a range of images to help define what's in the what's the range of appropriate for each of these areas without being too prescriptive and

[102:01] these prototypes and the final plan will help shape the appropriate zoning and potentially design guidelines so for example what we mean by high density in boulder based on the comprehensive plan definitions high density means oh these are i'm sorry i don't really want these flying and we'll just put them all up here okay here we go um based in on the comp plan land use designation high density means really anything above 14 dwelling units per acre and that can take many forms as was described at the three different prototypes that you saw in the draft legend the mixed and high density housing within the area some of the areas along portland place and in the wider area have many different shapes and forms these are generally three stories but can look and feel really different from townhouses to further stacked flats and apartments the building height map will be used in conjunction with the land use prototypes and for example you know we've heard a lot about not wanting buildings to be so boxy

[103:00] and to have potential for pitched roofs with the building height maps we can specify more detail about what is desired between the 35 and 55 feet to achieve the desired character gene can i interrupt you for there sorry about that but just you're talking about a building height map that's not a concept i'm familiar with from our other area plans do we have that anywhere else can you flesh that out a little bit what that might look like yeah i think it's uh it's a something that isn't in our other area plans but i think the idea was knowing that we will either apply existing zoning designations or write new zoning designations for this site but knowing that height has been a primary concern from some folks we wanted to try and introduce a concept into the area plan that would help differentiate areas of transition across the site so it's really just a way to try and describe that future vision so that when we actually apply regulations um we we can have a little bit more specificity than just a maybe a broad zoning designation

[104:00] across the whole site do you want a picture also go for it yeah yeah and that's gene raises a really good point which is right now that area is not um accepted in appendix j of the height ordinance and so in order to achieve some of those building forms of pitched roofs and things like that and then what we've heard from council in the past around on building heights as we get closer to broadway is that up to 55 feet would be appropriate so this area would be added to the height exception area in appendix j and so we wanted to be able to provide again more specificity of how building forms would look in the site if we're going to be able to lift the heights and go higher in that area and so are you imagining that being a regulatory thing like that you would have a maximum height that's different from our kind of current zoning codes that might fluctuate between some of the different levels we have currently yeah the idea is that in the area plan that

[105:01] would give us that guidance and then we would apply that either through existing zoning or when we create new zoning districts for the area okay very good it sounds like a great idea so i just have a follow-up on that and how would this be different from form-based code i think in the area plan itself this is more of that policy guidance and then when when we apply zoning to this area and re-zone the area if we decide to do it as a form-based code we could do that or if we want to do it as a more standard zoning district with design guidelines attached to it we can still pick and choose but we would use the guidance in the area plan around building heights to achieve it so this would kind of tee it up for that kind of approach for a form-based code approach it allows that yeah thank you okay clarify so would this also achieve that um on that site all the roofs would not or

[106:01] height would not be the same because one of the problems i would think where i would say with transit village is they're all the same so you get this big boxy kind of perspective and so within the site you would have controls or i think put another way could we require a variety of heights that's exactly the idea is now we may apply zoning to a larger geographic area but then we can we can start to derive where building heights are or drive building forms a little bit differently to respond to that feedback that we've heard about big buildings or boxy buildings all the exact same height that so as you can see in the graphic here um hit forward one more for me and it's a little hard to see but in the examples in your packet it shows where there may be an area where it's three-story buildings with pitch roofs or four-story buildings with pitched roofs or areas where

[107:00] maybe it's appropriate to go up to the height maximum with a more flat roof like the parking garage those sorts of things it's a way to give more refinement institutions one more thing so like a form based code it really goes into an extreme level of detail on all the windows and and lots and lots of details we could kind of take a piece of that here in other words i can say well maximum height of whatever 42 feet but no more than 25 percent could go up to that maximum and there might you know so right so we do something like that it's weird yeah okay great okay i want to touch briefly um included in your in your materials are the urban design maps that are have a lot on them and i just want to we're not going to spend a lot of time walking through this tonight but i want to assure you that the urban design components are a really key part of the area plan options and the outcomes for the area the options include recommendations for public realm public gathering spaces green spaces and connections so now for each option i'm going to very briefly touch on the intent of the changes for the area

[108:01] and also for the site and what that means for character and affordable housing eugene can i ask two questions can you explain you said earlier just for the community that in some of these you expect a lot of change in the larger area and some not and since we don't control the large area can you speak to that right why we why one of these would spur additional one of them is small one of them's big in terms of influence area and then the other thing is are these intended to be options that you can pick and choose from out in the public or that one of these is the winner okay those are my two questions good points um so first again like we have as you know we have more control over what happens on the site we don't have as much control over um what happens in the in the area but we do have control over the land use and zoning these changes would suggest future um just like as we have done in many of many areas sub community and

[109:02] area plans where we um suggest different changes in the area and it evolves over time so we would change those regulations too um so we'd actually change the zoning okay encourage or incentivize that type of thing within the area um and i and i'll touch on this a little bit in the community in the community engagement section as well um we floated some options but i you know we know that there are going to be some good ideas in the community about how to mix and match or how to change these and that's going to be one of the primary things that we're going to ask folks is what they like about them what they don't like about them how they might change them to better achieve the goals and objectives and what else we might consider about how to how to craft really the best path forward that both meets goals and objectives and addresses people's concerns so if we eventually adopt a single area plan and agree and and move that forward that will have some regulatory authority at site plan review correct um meaning

[110:01] that the planning board and the council will have to find that the proposal and site plan review meets the intent of the area plan is that correct that's correct so there's kind of a link to both at site review and then the other is related to our subdivision regulations for connections specifically by adopting a connections plan that allows us to then obtain those connections at the time of subdivision got it and so it's these would be this area plan would be something like the downtown design guidelines in other words it will have regulatory interpretive kind of control but not strict control like a form based code would correct it's not regulations but it'll give you that almost policy guidance in a more geographic specific area similar to the way we apply the north boulder sub-community plan or the transit village area plan or the scatterings of other area plans throughout the city great thank you okay

[111:01] okay all right option one proposes few changes in the area only a few small areas to change land use to reflect existing higher higher housing density these changes are proposed to reflect and protect that existing housing and to reduce the non-conformity for the site mixed-use business is proposed for the east block because it allows civic services and a mix of uses medium density housing is proposed on the center and west blocks based on the feedback that we received earlier from both planning board and council in our november and february check-ins about the desired amount of housing to be achieved staff was not intending to include a minimal growth or lower density option but since there was a lot of community feedback and concern for density we included the medium density option to show the differences and potential trade-offs especially around achieving affordable housing on the site the character of the area would remain much as it is today with changes only in the city site and there would be a

[112:00] limited mix of housing types in about the two to three story range this option has lower potential for affordable housing as it does not have sufficient density to be attractive to affordable housing projects the housing would likely be market rate only with inclusionary housing met through cash and loot hey on these are you going to give any range of units just so that people get a sense or are you deliberately not i can okay i think that might be helpful just because isn't it here elder down here they're just not up there okay all right so there's i did want to couch with the preface that these are pretty broad estimates um so i wouldn't just for comparison purposes or comparison purposes the housing yields um for the site so these are a little bit because there is there is some there's a you know some housing potential within the area for redevelopment cur under current

[113:02] zoning and but not not especially um a lot so for the site the range is really between about 65 and 105 units and within the area around 50 units so a total of about 150 units just so i'm clear in the area it's just the area for the area plan right okay yeah yeah so when we say area it's the area that's kind of outlined in any color on the screen and when we say the site we're referring to the city owned site um where the former hospital stands today which is number two in your site yeah okay yeah so it's just just it's one and two correct but it's pieces of it it's not the whole thing right so just to be clear abundantly clear you've got the site then you've got the area and then there's the total so the area as it's mentioned here means everything except the site correct and that contemplates um

[114:00] well as we go through these these are going to contemplate potentially zoning changes in other words when we get to two you say potentially in the area that could be 400 100 housing units in area uh an under option one is 50. so that that difference between 450 would be as a result of some zoning changes in the area outside of the site is that right correct okay yeah but it's also it's from in option 165 to 105 units and in option 2 it's 170 to 250 units he was just comparing the forty four hundred and ten fifty yeah i understand that yeah yep okay okay ready yep all right so option two focuses on encouraging future redevelopment in select areas to add housing you'll see on the red maps on the handouts in front of you several areas are proposed for conversion from commercial and office uses to residential and mixed use the

[115:00] neighborhood center is proposed for the change to mixed-use business the area in purple that you see on the map to ensure that the heart of the retail center is maintained and to achieve the vision for neighborhood centers in the comp plan for the site this option includes a range of higher density prototypes to allow variation in building and housing types and to allow greater flexibility in ways to achieve affordable housing the prototypes most closely reflect the mixed density residential in the area especially to the south two to four stories with a variation of building types this option offers good potential for for affordable housing on the site option three gene sorry interrupt again but just a question on the areas of potential change which the folks in the audience aren't seeing but we've got these kind of red areas on the map and they're they're a really broad area of red for potential change and you know some of those buildings are recent and you know pretty nice and you figure

[116:01] they're not going anywhere anytime soon but that's not kind of factored in here so what would makes you call it an area of potential change in that it's areas where we have identified some changes to the land use and in some of those um i think what you're mentioning it's it's for consistency of land use so it's a land use for the area we're not we're not going to apply land use parcel by parcel based on the age of the building but in a in an area where we want to anticipate what that future is and maintain it gotcha i i guess i'll just one quick comment um as you go forward to maybe clarify that that's where you're talking about potentially changing the zoning but not where the buildings would necessarily change you know because i think it gives it kind of a sense of people like oh well this whole area here is just going to you know redevelop over now as i mentioned um changing the land use and zoning would would be really an evolution over time um and should that happen and it's it's not required and it may not happen to

[117:00] all of the all of the parcels or all of the areas right totally understood i just want to make sure that that message is clear to folks that's really strictly about where you might contemplate changing and i'm guessing it won't be so yeah think about how this looks yeah um yeah very scary and i'm not sure that it gets that yeah your messaging a point taken understood for the messaging for the engagement thank you that makes sense okay where are we we're on three all right option three would steer future redevelopment toward housing uses housing uses and allow higher density of housing development the option suggests converting non-residential uses to housing and proposes a bit more intensity than an option two as a way to show what might maximize the potential in the area similar to option two and also the recommendations for options four and five the neighborhood center is proposed for the change to mixed-use business to support that comp plan neighborhood

[118:00] center vision for the site option three includes two higher density prototypes to allow variation in building in buildings and again maximize the flexibility to achieve affordable housing the character would include buildings that range from two to four stories with more areas above that 35 foot height mark and it offers good potential for affordable housing on the site okay so estimates for the strongly emphasize housing so i think i missed the numbers on on option two so if we went back to option two the estimates for housing for the site ranged from about 170 to 250 and in the area approximately 400 so her a total of up to 650 units for option three strongly emphasize housing the options uh the prototypes on the site is estimates are for 230 to about 300 units

[119:02] and in the area approximately 530 so for a total of up to um 830 units but again that's just just to be clear some some of those units already exist right now this is this would be really about changes and it's an upper limit broad estimate of dus per acre so evolution over time should properties redevelop yeah you're going to have to figure out how to say that in a way that conveys a range over time over time yeah okay so so i have a question um it looks like every option except for one changes the shopping center designation to mixed-use business from community business can you talk about the rationale for that briefly yeah i think the rationale is really how do we start to indicate um the evolution

[120:01] of those areas to meet the principles that we have described in the boulder valley comprehensive plan in the last update so whether the zoning that we apply to that area changes to something else or whether we change the bc1 or bc2 zoning to meet the intent of this area plan the idea is that the area plan would signal the same thing that our comprehensive plan signals which is we want to see those neighborhood centers evolve to more mixed-use areas how do we retain the really amazing retail and commercial that exists today while allowing them to become more mixed use over time i think that's going to be really important to communicate what that could look like so how do we maintain the ideal market how do we maintain you know the community plaza and get additional uses on the site and i think that's going to be really hard for people to picture right what does that look like and so anything that you can do to

[121:00] visualize that because in in two through five those shopping centers are all proposed to be changed to mixed-use business and so what does that mean what does that look like i think is going to be really important to communicate okay but before we give our opinions describe your last one a little bit a little bit more all right option four option four would allow some intensification of use in the area and allow redevelopment of either business or residential uses this option acknowledges the desire to preserve many of the medical or professional offices in the area while allows while allowing housing to develop above or alongside for the site option four includes the same proposed prototypes as an option two that em that's for to emphasize housing the character in the area could evolve over time to more mixed use or new housing and building heights could increase in some areas to three to four stories

[122:01] the estimates for housing for option four as on the site is 170 to 250 units and and up to 400 in the area so for a total of up to 650. okay and option five right on option five could you contrast four and two for us can you tell us which one or in two can you kind of call out the difference um because they look a lot like yeah so two is a little bit uh it's the um it's really the differences are in character district four and um some in character district five b um five well yeah the 5b um it's really five five or three a the gateway at the bottom there the difference of mixed use types so for option two character district 4 is really going

[123:02] to housing so it's changed to from the transitional business uses the and and land use that is there today to housing whereas option four proposes the mixed-use residential in character district four and then we have the more the mixed use business for the gateway area that would allow a little bit more of the it's more of an emphasis on the non-residential uses at first first or first and second floor where the mixed-use residential is really about non-residential uses just on the first floor in housing above does that help bob yeah so so they're fundamentally the same that looks like the difference is is one encourages housing to the southwest the other one encourages housing to the southeast

[124:00] and that looks like the financial it's these two parcels right it's the parcel four and partial three three a and one of the five b's right those are the differences so one one push this house so two pushes housing into parcel four which is like called the i guess west center below our site is that right yep and the other and and that was four and two there's more mixed use in those areas yeah two pushes housing down south along the broadway corridor but they're they both kind of net the same amount of housing just in different places is that right yes and with respect to the site itself they're identical yeah okay okay so option five is similar to option four and the recommendations for mixed use in the area for the site it for the site it focuses on the significant civic president's presence that is along with the city service center relocating the boulder county services functions from iris and broadway

[125:01] we've been working with the county staff to fully understand the county space and parking needs and for this location to be viable for the county it would require utilizing the entire center block to accommodate the 120 000 square foot four-story building as well as some structured parking for clients and customers there's a lot to understand about this option and several variables that are not yet known as we discussed at our last check-in at may 16th we are working with the county to understand the process and all of the variables this area under this option the area would be or the site would be more of a civic campus than in other options would require construction of some structured parking there would be fewer housing units than in other options however presumably there would be potential for housing at the iris complex if the county's functions could move to the alpine balsam site and the estimates are about between 30 and 90 units on the site and then that same about 400 units

[126:01] within the area as in um option four okay we have some questions and bob and then sam uh just a couple of questions but these are clarifying questions but we're gonna let her finish and then we're gonna give then we're gonna go deeper definitely clarifying questions okay um how many acres is that a good question between broadway and 11th alpine and balsa just look at number five you see that black line there just give us an order is that like two or two in a bit acres say that again bob sure 11th broadway alpine balsam 11. broadway so you've got that black line the vertical black land that runs lungs the eastern third of the house eastern third of the hospital site is that roughly two acres or two and a quarter roughly the reason i'm asking the question i'm just trying to understand like how much more land the county the county accommodation i know that they asked for two acres i'm just trying to figure out where the two acres is yeah i think a way a way to

[127:01] look at it is if you look at between options four and options five yeah see how in option five the purple mixed use business area extends further west that's the idea to go towards that center block area to meet meet the needs to have a county presence as well as so so under all the options between 11th and 12th and 11th and broadway sorry alpine and balsam that's all designated for city is that right there's no county in there along broadway correct why is that what yeah what is that because i see where the pavilion building is what goes in the other acre and a half there so what we've talked about and you can kind of see it on the screen here is the pavilion building is in the southeast corner so at the corner of alpine and broadway yeah and then as you go north right now some of that area is in a high hazard and in the flood zone and we've kind of talked about that as more of a flexible area that depending on how the flood mitigation

[128:01] work occurs that that could then be either a civic presence city or county or it could go more mixed use or more housing um the idea is that it would still have that mixed-use business designation so there could be housing in there but but you haven't explained why why wouldn't that if we were gonna why isn't that part of the county why is the county and we'll have the count we'll ask you guys to come on a second but why isn't that why doesn't the county thing goes this way and take that front corner um so if we were keeping the configuration with the connect with connections through there that upper parcel with the fit testing it's only about it could only really accommodate about 80 000 square feet so it wouldn't meet the full county needs if if the city didn't go in there at all at all let's say we decided that we didn't we didn't need the pavilion building for the city needs could the county go in in the the eastern acre between 11th or eastern two acres between 11th and broadway could that be a county site sure okay

[129:03] okay sam so the other thing that i think we need to understand for option five is how many acres at iris and broadway should that be something that we contemplate with the county how much of that land could be developed into housing and what would that yield for units because when i look at option five i kind of want to have both pieces in place as far as the amount of housing that can be developed because we're giving up some land at the hospital site in order to put county offices there but in exchange the county offices will be vacated at iverson broadway so i think as we go forward doesn't need to be answered tonight but we need to understand how much can be developed there and what we would expect that to yield for housing great exactly okay so we clearly are moving on beyond clarifying so why don't you finish up

[130:00] and then we'll all right so also included in your materials is um access and mobility strategy the proposed strategy is based on the transportation master plan the access and mobility and parking strategy and the climate commitment policy as well as prior direction about access and parking for the site it includes a shared parking strategy that's guided by the sump principles creation of a general improvement district to fund ongoing programs and services there are options for transportation demand management and parking management there has been interest in expanding the district beyond the city's site and that will be assessed through further in the engagement process so the tdm options might include eco passes van pooling subsidies bike share and car share memberships micro mobility programs and mobility on demand subsidies as chris mentioned we also have a draft connections plan this planning area really benefits from being already being very walkable with good bike and transit routes

[131:00] as well as infrastructure access and mobility were a big part of the discussions of the community workshops earlier this year and community members provided a lot of suggestions our staff has worked to develop a draft connections plan that outlines new opportunities for paths streets and other improvements and the draft connections plan reflects the community feedback as well as the work on the low stress walk and bike network plan with recommendations to build strong mobility options in the in the area for all modes of travel before you move off transportation have a question on transportation you may not be able to answer this tonight that's fine but i just want to make sure well maybe you can i'll answer the question if not kick it down the road um can you guys because i know what we're struggling with here is two things right you know um high density medium density low density that's density on housing and then we're also trying to balance between office and and housing right um can you guys do math on i guess this is a tdm like what what kind of traffic

[132:01] loads are implicated by office you know an acre of office versus an acre of housing you know and maybe it's an acre of office acre of right light housing across dense housing because i know the neighbors have raised questions and concerns about internet traffic but i don't know how to compare office to housing right with the traffic impact study the consultants took a look at all the different look broadly looked at the different types of uses recommended or proposed within all of these options and and the results that we had from the traffic impact analysis showed some differences within those but the ultimate result was within any of the options that the existing network could could accommodate those uses there are but there's differences between office use and housing or low density housing high density right very different trip generation rates different um different implications for um peak times okay and probably times of day yeah at some

[133:01] point you'll kind of lay that all out for the community as part of this engagement um yeah we we can include more specific information about what what the results from the traffic impact analysis were thanks if you dive into that attachment that's in your memo it's it gets pretty technical pretty fast we tried to kind of at least just include the high level executive summary but we can get into lots of details but at least we can explain that difference between the number of trips that are generated by different uses and what those what those outcomes are okay we yeah just a quick question but it's also dependent on who lives there correct and to what extent if you dive deeply um was that address yeah in terms of in in terms of who lives there so for example if it is um people with disabilities for example that can't drive so therefore wouldn't

[134:00] have cars um so to what extent was that um factored in yep mary i think it was it's really trying to take a look at what you know what what the upper side of trips oh okay so and not the the lower end yeah and the modeling that we did because we heard so many concerns about traffic generation and the potential for that in the scenarios that they modeled we had the model essentially assume that they were all housing units that also included you know residential that would typically have a car so at least we'd know what those upper limits are but if through the actual redevelopment and the buildings that are built there say are for as you said maybe buildings that house a population with disabilities that don't have as many cars obviously that would then reduce the number of trips and those are the sorts of things that then get identified through the actual redevelopment on the parcels and i think

[135:01] a lot of that might factor into the parking strategy as well parking management okay how many more slides do you have because we're dying to give you our opinions i have three i have i have only really so many one of substance okay well go quick really quick because we're almost done with this okay we are excited about community engagement the purposes will be to share the options the goals the analysis the trade-off and the decision-making process um and schedule we're going to be asking community members exactly we talked about a little bit ago about how we best meet the goals what they like about the options etc we're planning several opportunities and venues recognizing that the engagement has incurred and occurring during the summer months when people might be away so we need to have several times in ways so that people can engage our next steps include a discussion just like this with the planning board on thursday meeting with advisory boards as well as community engagement through

[136:00] june and july with the goal of refining this information into a recommended draft plan for a public hearing review and direction by the planning board in the city council in august and now we're back to the questions that you have before you are aimed at ensuring that the options and the information we have prepared for the community feedback address the priorities of council reflect the goals and objectives and include the desired range of potential changes if there are options that you consider to be off the table it would be useful to identify those for the community before the community engagement we have staff here to answer questions about all the components we realized there was a lot of information in this packet to digest and understand and then lastly we just want to confirm that the council agrees with the findings from the flood analysis and is comfortable with our recommended approach okay so we're going to come back to that so we also have the county here and so maybe it seems like we should have you guys come up and if you want to

[137:00] say anything i think we will have questions for you um if you want to do that now i don't know how late you want to be stuck here [Music] well thank you i'm deb gardner boulder county commissioner and this is james butler how do you describe yourself i'm boulder county building services design supervisor there you go thank you and um we're really just here to answer questions and i think also to reiterate the point that we've made in the past that in looking to develop a hub for our human services and other public-facing services we keep looking at alpine boston as our number one site we really can't do what we want to do up on iris and broadway in the best possible way because we need to be continuing to provide those services at the same time we would be building something so if we were to do

[138:01] it at alpine balsam we would need to move everyone that's working there now to some other place and then redevelop that site for a hub and you mean it iris and broadway yes and so the ideal solution for us would be to build a site at alpine boston that's like our hub in longmont and then be able to sell the property that we have at iris and broadway for affordable housing development can you speak at all to the synergy you would see with the city on that site or you know you mentioned the hub at longmont i guess yeah do you have expectations around that or ideas um or ambitions because yeah by the word hub what what would folks be getting that they wouldn't be if we were separated or you know i guess sure well i mean it's

[139:00] totally i think dependent on what kind of services the city were to provide at that location we would be providing mostly human services and workforce and those types of services so it depends on what you had at the at the city site but i think the potential is always there for a person if they were to come and pay their utility bill but they also needed help with snap or some other human service idea i don't know james you have anything to add to that yeah i would like to just add a couple of things you know we had our facilities master plan um done last year and one of the overarching goals was to consolidate our services and so to that end having um our services on alpine and balsam we're closer to our services downtown and so that's better services for people looking for county

[140:02] services it's also easier for us to maintain our facilities having our all of our different departments together and it gives us more opportunities for different amenities like large conference rooms and break rooms and that kind of stuff so there's some efficiencies having all of our services together and there was a question earlier about whether we could be in another building 120 000 square feet is pretty important to us that's the model that we generated from here and that is that longmont hub and so um i know it's gone back and forth could we be in an 80 000 square foot building or 100 we really would love to have 120 so we can meet our model and our goal for that boulder hub so okay we're going to come back to you but there's a few other questions one i think that is really a little bit of a stickler is the idea of building more parking and so talk to us i'm not sure who i mean we're going to do a trap it sounds like a trap transportation district

[141:03] why wouldn't that work along with our existing parking structure so we can avoid ever building more parking well yeah we would have to do a traffic study in parking study to figure out how much parking we actually need for our services um just looking at how much parking we have over at the same print hub in longmont which is a pretty similar size um the the whole building's about 105 000 when you take both of those components together and we have a lot of um clients that come in for services um one of the things that we found is that the type of services people have an expectation of whether it's pay for parking or not pay for parking and so for example our health and human services facilities people have this expectation they're coming in for something that they don't want to do and so they don't want to pay for parking whether it's somebody's coming in for a building permit um it's easier

[142:01] for that person to have that expectation that they have to pay for two-hour parking out on the street and so we want to measure that with our clients because we want to provide the best opportunity for our clients to access the services that they need but did you but yeah do you can you see an option where we we're building additional structured parking is off the tab i mean i think there's a real reluctance to do that is it a possibility you wouldn't have to i have talked to our transportation folks um to say you know how much parking would we need how do you do that study and they are very much in favor of reducing our required parking for a structure much greater than the required zoning for that site um whether that's 20 right now it's 20 or something like that yeah twenty percent so like how many are we talking oh oh it's a factor of how many square feet so okay yeah 120 000 square feet divided by 300

[143:01] or something like that is i don't know off the top of my head sorry okay well maybe as a principal like a factor of that sorry i could just add that we're loath to build parking as well and so working together to find a way to build the minimum amount of parking would be i think a shared goal sounds like and then two the parking that we're having to build at our kauffman site in longmont at the hub across the street from the hub we're building that parking in conjunction with affordable housing and we're building the parking structure in a way so that we can convert whole floors of the parking to housing if and when we're almost certain the need for parking will be reduced for all of us we expect and that so then so now we've got two or three floors of parking planned

[144:00] and at some point we expect to be able to convert one of those floors to housing and we're building it in a way that that's possible so we would do the same thing here okay i know there's a cue the other thing that was asked was about units on the irish site can you speak to even ballparks so we can get a sense well i can i can tell you we have 17 acres 17.7 acres up there um so we have a lot more land to work with um but it's all a factor of how much density you're going to go with so if it's high density medium density low density we also have four ball fields on that site we also have the old community hospital which is a historic building that we would love to preserve and you know i think the city comprehensive plan and the county comprehensive plan we like to preserve buildings so there's a lot of different factors that need to be part of the assessment of how we can

[145:00] meet our goals on that site i can say confidently a lot more than what you can do on your site because it's smaller fair enough okay aaron and then lisa thanks for coming and talking to us tonight in terms of i'm just wondering about potential synergies i mean clearly we would want our separate facilities fundamentally but would there be an openness to say sharing some lower use facilities think about a really large conference room for example that you certainly wouldn't need to fill every day do you imagine we could partner on stuff like that oh absolutely i mean i think that's the beauty of being able to do this together that there are things that could be shared and yeah and it would benefit both of us and the public thanks for that and that like another one that occurs to me would be a shuttle to downtown like to the bus station for example you know that would be it could help reduce all of our parking counts if we could get people in from transit with a little shuttle that we co-funded for example well i think since you

[146:00] talked about transit that's important because i think that's another reason that site is more viable to us than uh doing additional services up on iris and broadway because the transit opportunities are not as great up there as they are at alpine and balsam right and then it just the there's the you mentioned the idea of a land swap or if we're working together like this or are you open to different possibilities in terms of swapping or purchasing or things like that i think so particularly because we have those shared goals of how do we increase affordable housing and how do we create a place that really serves the public and so i think i think we should at this point keep all options on the table and have a robust conversation about what makes sense for both of us as entities great thank you very much i have lisa bob mary yeah so i wanted to know if you could um live with 80 000 square feet just for you

[147:01] they already answered that they already answered no well he said you'd prefer but could you have 80 000 square feet not to meet the needs for our services that we wanted and could you live without parking we can definitely manage our employees and how they come to the site it's it's the clients that's going to be harder so we have to really do an analysis right parking is needed for our clients okay thank you bob so i'm going to pick up where lisa left off um so the the existing pavilion building is about 75 000 square feet right and you've told us 35 000 existing you can add another 18 000 to make it 93. that's what you told us last meeting roughly roughly and i think i heard you guys say i'm going to get to you guys in a second i think i heard you guys say that subject to some flood analysis you might be able to add an incremental 80 000 square feet of office in the northeast

[148:01] corner of that parcel in other words at the corner of balsam and broadway is that right that's correct okay so 80 plus 75 equals 155 so that would seem to give you guys 120 you're looking for yeah so do you have any [Laughter] he really doesn't want us to occupy that yeah we'll get in there um so you guys have any like um like big heartburn about being on broadway is would that be it's like as long as you got 120 000 square feet and all the parking needed would you guys be cool with that well the way that the saint brain hub works in longmont is it it's a public-facing building where all of the services are provided in central atrium space and i don't know the buildings that you're talking about and whether or not that would meet the functional needs of how we want those services to be delivered well one would be bespoke you could build it any way you want want it all together right okay well we'll we'll take you over there maybe we'll take a look at it okay and then getting back in parking

[149:00] and i do want to come back to broadway iris so we have a 401 stall parking garage again assuming that we weren't on that site the site we just talked about you guys were on broadway and that two acres along broadway would 401 spaces do the trick for you guys i would assume we'd have to do a parking analysis yeah i thought i heard i thought i heard you say something like 300 square feet per parking spot so 120 divided by 300 is 400 so zip code zip code okay with that new hook with a gut check that sounds okay okay good so let's shoot up to broadway and iris um i get the density question we can do that math but of that 17.7 acres how how many acres are taking off the bite but the ball fields roughly roughly half of it roughly half of it so it leaves about nine acres okay and then how much of it is taken up by the historic hospital an acre or something yeah a half acre okay so can we assume i know there's gonna be open space and maybe internal roads and whatnot but we could assume that there's maybe roughly eight-ish

[150:01] acres i'm just trying to do some rough math eightish acres up there that would be potentially buildable there's also flood more than two more than two right more than two less than ten yeah okay i'm just again i'm trying to get order event because to sam's question we're trying to figure out is this a good deal for us and we're trying 2 4 and i don't know what x is so i don't know i don't know if i assume that x is bigger than 2 but i don't know what it is it feels like it's an 8-ish does that kind of like in the zip code when you're talking about the the site on the western portion of the site because you're closer to iris and broadway and that's kind of a busier neighborhood if you were to look at a higher density housing i could see it more towards those streets whereas i could see you know with a lower density housing in neighborhood on the north side you'd probably want to replicate that and yeah scale it kind of like you were talking about the different scales and that old hospital kind of sits right smack in the middle yeah yeah and it could be a great

[151:00] community center or a daycare center yeah okay great thanks sorry um mary and then cindy here so i i'm i'm going to pick up where erin left off with respect to trying to figure out where your clients come from so you have a hub in longmont that provides a variety of services with the hub that you're hoping to build in boulder have provide that same variety or would it be a different set of services so it would be i guess what i'm asking is do the two hubs target different um clients coming from different geographic locations yes they're the same demographics of clients looking for the same services but they come from different geography different areas so you have these county mostly okay so then you would be looking at northwest county for

[152:01] this hub is that correct uh well the the clients that are coming are in boulder and southeast county that oh so okay okay and so based on that would you said you would do an analysis of where folks are coming from and um based on that would you look at the transit availability um to determine your need for parking and how would you go about doing that to flesh that out because i would imagine that many folks you know it they it's it seems like hard to know um whether they're using transit or not or they're coming in personal cars and how how would you go about doing that kind of analysis to know so you we can survey our clients and we can survey our employees um our

[153:00] employees about 10 percent use our eco passes it's we actually did a pretty a good survey um about seven years ago for our employees back in longmont and it was surprising to me how many people do not live in longmont um a lot of our employees would be looking for affordable housing options and so that's why it's also a good value for us um a good thing to have affordable housing on in boulder but so that our employees can work and live in the same town so a lot of them drive they don't have access to the rtd that is the bus routes that are available when they live in the city proper and then did you serve the client survey the clients as well we did yeah and what did you find out there it was a long time ago um there was there was a lot of clients that um get driven and walk a lot of

[154:00] them um take mass transit a lot more than our employees so that's why it's very important for us to be closer to bus routes yeah thank you so so i'll just remind us it's really helpful for us to kind of get a sense of what you're thinking to make sure it's reflected in these options and then we're going to we don't have to hold forth on what we think about them we just need to make sure they're clear so with that in mind we have were you done sorry i'm done yeah we have cindy and then maybe we're done and and maybe you've said this but how many trips a day does the longmont hub generate is that did you say i i i don't know that's something that i would be interested in knowing as well well and yeah i mean maybe i just add that yeah those kinds of details i think we can certainly get the data on it and do it again specifically for a potential

[155:01] boulder hub as well by surveying our clients that are currently going to iris and broadway i think you know to the bigger question that mayor jones is talking about when we were looking at the options obviously we prefer to have to continue to have option five included and option seven as well right or just option five and any of the options after yeah yeah five um because that gives us the option to be able to have uh a hub there at that site the other options with the addition with the ex additional emphasis on housing doesn't really offer the opportunity for this kind of services at that location all right aaron you had one up one last thing so that uh are you all planning to stay in your facility along 13th street that's just kind of across the street is that a long-term hold for you guys yes okay

[156:02] because then it's one of the differences in some of these plans was the zoning on just on your parcel there do you care much what that's zoned now that that building is meeting our our needs for our transportation department right thank you okay so we have a process question a process question for you guys because as you saw in the earlier slides we're hoping to get this area plan approved by september uh it sounds like we got a lot of work to do between us because we got a lot of i don't knows and are you guys going to be i mean we're going to be deciding one of these things in september are you guys going to be fully ready to commit both as to this site and as to iris and broadway by september is that within the realm of possibility for you guys well i think actually we'd rather ha it happened sooner okay so i think we're good a lot of work to do then don't we okay okay is there anything else you wanted to say that we haven't asked and then we're going to answer these questions but i don't think so but thank you so much

[157:00] for the opportunity to be able to share our thoughts with you well we appreciate you you coming it's really helpful to talk in person yeah thank you yeah okay so in terms of what we need to do tonight it doesn't matter what we think our personal opinions are it matters right now it matters of whether do we have the options do we think the options are working to go out to public so this is all about teeing them up for the public discussion and whether okay so that's just want to clarify that we have a process question well it's a fact question for staff um well i guess it's a process question when will you have the remember we had a lot of questions about the renovation of the pavilion building the cost of the pavilion building when we have that information for us um we're going to bring that information back in august um we have a city facilities master plan conversation um right around the same time as the alpine balsam conversation so we're going to bring it back then okay okay so question number one can you put up the revised area plan goals and objectives that you want us to weigh

[158:01] forth on or are they somewhere where you can look at them and i mentioned their um which page are they on they are on i think second attachment these are the goals the the one in the packet has a little bit more detail with the objectives i i think they work um it might be helpful on local government to note that maybe in parentheses city count city or county or ann county and or county is what is being talked about in local government so that there's options there for consideration [Music] and i do think we should put a little asterisk there because if we do a hub here it frees up

[159:00] potential for land elsewhere otherwise the trade-off doesn't make sense it only makes sense because there would be the potential for that so i just think again if we're going to get people's input people need to know there'd be less housing here for the potential for more housing up the street or a mile away so we can actually get people's take on that i think the end or to tie onto that at the end or is really important because if we say and then we're just we've just noted that option five right we've taken all the other options off the table so i think it's andor it's either us or the county or both of us that way it keeps all these options alive yeah however best to say that um i don't so is this the time to say something about that what do you think about that okay about that i have difficulty picking any one of these options because i don't think they've been

[160:01] like this one number five gives such a emphasis to one thing and doesn't really take into consideration for example incorporate design and character that it respects and enhances the neighborhood so i have to me looking at all of these i mean i want to so with community engagement i want to know did the staff read the um survey that the neighborhood group did with their 538 or 78 responses we did so that's the kind of thing that i would like to hear more of in terms before making something that we just sort of fit on top of this area without knowing whether or not it actually does fit into like our boulder valley comp plans regarding neighborhood areas and furthermore with the transportation options last time we were told that transportation was going to change there were there needed to be some big improvements on broadway

[161:00] if such and such happened or such and such didn't happen and mostly it was the city these kind this option five with this intense civic use and um with the intense civic use if the county is there will the city be there also so there are other places for the city to go there have been some really great suggestions so i'm just having some difficulty with this and with the transportation i also need to say just one more thing and then i'll be quiet um that this one of the staff reports said that there won't be as many trips as the hospital generated so that shouldn't be an issue with any of the kind of build out that was going to be happening here however this is part of my neighborhood in the sense that it's a shopping area that i've been going to since old mr what's his name owned ideal market and so so so i've been in all kinds of vehicles going past the

[162:00] hospital seeing what's happening and there has never been the kind of traffic congestion there is today between broadway and 9th street on balsam if you're trying to make a left turn you can wade through three easily traffic signals at certain times of the day okay so so noted so transportation issues we need to know more about that before we start shoving more in there okay i have lisa and sam and i want us to look at that slide and make any changes you want to make to that slide and aaron okay is there anything sorry we're going to move us along okay i'm going to speak to urban design okay that's number one okay and just from urban design and that's how i'm going to approach this project in terms of building mass bulk form design all of the end uses and i think if you look at one two three four five

[163:01] um five definitely doesn't respect good urban decisions okay we don't care what you think about okay okay well you're asking are these goals and objectives good to for framing the project yes they are but okay but i think they could be presented better okay so we're gonna clearly we need to dive deep on these options anything else on this slide i have sam and aaron in the queue i think these are the right goals i mean what lisa and sydney are talking about was kind of do these different scenarios meet the goals that's a perfectly fair question but i think these are the right goals and i agree with the um caveat that number four needs to say city and or county yeah and so except with that minor change i think the rest of these are good aaron so i agree with that on number four i one my one comment would be that one of the threads i'm trying to make sure stays through this process is an intent to keep the ideal and community

[164:00] plaza shopping centers uh and and not tear them down and and build big new buildings in their place so i wonder if you might tweak the language on number one uh a little bit to to reflect that um you know so something something about you know retaining and enhancing that you know uh just to carry that through do people kind of nod on that one i have a further suggestion along those lines um perhaps that could be um addressed by adding an uh item under land-use and urban design that would say preserve historic structures where applicable like the hospital i wasn't going to let that one go well historic preservation i guess anyway yeah something like that yeah mary if i can what we have on the screen is just some of the goal statements it

[165:00] doesn't include the objective bullets that are in your memo one of the bullets under that section says to protect historic qualities and encourage adaptive reuse of historic properties where is it so what page what page could we pull up a page number i don't know my principle 140. okay all right we're going to keep moving to the next question then i think are people good with that then yes we're going to get to the options we're going to get to the options i have to ask how these are such generalized questions enhance the neighborhood center at alpine balsam to support a vibrant mix of uses for community life it does that how are you going to enhance it to make it do more so i mean those are the kinds of questions i have when you have goals and objectives how are they accomplished not just it's a great goal of course it's a great goal but it is that way what are you going to do to make it better some of the retail along broadway's

[166:00] could use some enhancing i'm thinking about that what aaron was just talking well just the way it is that there are certain bits that are very successful that you want to preserve and maybe enhance just a little bit but then there are others if you think about the east side of broadway south of north which they could really use new buildings or rehabilitation or something that needs some enhancing you know so so that's i think you got that okay that's the area yeah okay so let's go to number two draft area components and options so this is you cindy options so we're looking at the options and yep mary um do we want well first off does anybody want to one of the questions is you want to get rid of any of the options okay mary so well i will propose that my my answer to that is yes and i will preface it by

[167:01] saying that um tonight we had some folks come and speak to us about basically the two extremes some folks that would probably prefer option one and then folks that clearly preferred option three and those are at either end of the spectrum and i th part of what i would hope would happen through community engagement would be that people would begin to compromise and come together on some sort of um option that was more in the middle so the memo also said that there was not consensus on the density so what i would like to pres to propose based on what we heard tonight what the memo said is to remove options one and options

[168:02] three and so we an option three we can still keep the the option that talks about potentially having the county hub on the site and then the other option that is basically saying where do we put the density but i think part of our job is to try and start the conversation of bringing people to um a compromise and so that's what i would propose to do that is to remove option one and option three can i call a queen with you on that because i hear where you're going and i on one hand i appreciate that on the other hand does that mean that the people that just came and testified for one and three feel like wow we were just not heard um well you know like that's one of the well and to that i would respond is we did

[169:00] hear you and and i think that that's part of our job is to make that tough decision and and i think to keep option unless unless keeping option one and option three and i guess this is a question for staff is providing um examples of things that could fit into the other options i don't know to what extent that's true but [Music] but i think that part of it is for us to say we're going to start to bring you together and and to do that is we're not going to lead either extreme opinion um think that they will prevail in the end because our hope is that it will be somewhere in the middle okay thoughts on that nearby and then lisa so i appreciate what you're saying mary and i do think that both sides need to kind of work together but i guess i'm really stuck on the fact that

[170:02] i understand it wasn't a statistically valid survey but this neighborhood group got 500 and almost 50 respondents when the city only got 100 and if you look at it overwhelming and again maybe it's the way the questions are asked but overwhelmingly these 537 people preferred low density and so again i get that we're not catering to just a neighborhood but i think that the option at least one needs to be left on the table because we're already hearing from community engagement that people had to go do themselves because they didn't felt like they were hurt by the city so i mean if we're going to leave one on then i think it would be fair to leave three on as well because then i think it starts getting cited but i mean i'd really hope and i don't i know this might not be on topic but i'm curious how robust we're gonna be having engagement because again a hundred people from the last time wasn't robust to me when the neighborhood went and did 537 of their own accord just in their

[171:01] little neighborhoods so that's kind of where i'm sitting okay lisa then sam okay now i'm going back to urban design so i would take options one and five off and i think um i'll speak to it option five and option five um i think bringing um what do you call it mixed-use business back into the neighborhood on balsam is totally inappropriate that back block i really don't like it i'm sorry block is that lisa if you look at option five and if you look at kind of the middle part of balsam it just doesn't work to have a tall building office building right across the street from a bunch of

[172:01] um of houses and i don't care whether they're apartments or whether they're single-family houses but it is incongruent it doesn't work and basic urban design would say like unlike across the street especially when you have a major street like broadway coming down there and we have and staff has done that where you have the same use facing each other on broadway but if we came down balsam it's all housing for the most part it's a hospital right now well yeah but but you know i just it's a low building too and it's mostly this part of the hospital is relatively low but anyway i just i just think if you want to take down the hospital which i'm the only one who doesn't

[173:01] i feel like then do it right and do your urban design right and so i kind of liked where we were back in february where our staff prepared a bunch of kind of i don't know what you call these diagrams but where you had along broadway i look at this our site as um not in isolation but i look at it as kind of six blocks um you know it's got the east east or looks to look at it in three blocks the east block the middle block and the west block the west block is going to be housing we have housing back back there it faces housing on 9th and and what is that alpine it faces housing across broadway then the middle block so in the interest of time i get that you don't like option five but

[174:00] just just so we get that you'd like us to remove it okay um i'm just collecting opinions on whether we want to remove so let's just you want to take out five you take out one and three you don't want it and i would keep so i can be positive i would keep two three and four okay bob oh i'm sorry sam i'm pretty close to where mary is on this um i think that these are all interesting to talk about but i don't think that we're going to to spend 40 million dollars to do essentially keep it the way it is and take the hospital down and have some city offices i think we're looking for housing as a component of this as well and i you know i understand that the county needs 120 000 square feet but i'm not sure that that means they need the whole central block so one of the reasons i want to keep five on the table is to have staff explore with the county how we could do you know the the fit

[175:01] between the pavilion building which i'm in favor of being city offices and whatever the county needs and if we can leave part of that central block in option five clear for housing and minimize the parking that was imagined to go in there then i think five could provide us with both a hub as well as housing and i think two and four are both interesting you know they both have elements that i think would enhance the neighborhood services there and i think the the medium density type of of housing um as as it goes back towards ninth street is good in both options two and four so i'm kind of where mary is i would keep two four and five going forward and you know those aren't fixed points right you can you can massage sheets of them based on what we hear back from the public you know it could be a little more housing could be a little less density but i think those are good starting points i don't think status quo is going to work

[176:02] and i don't think we want to three i think takes the um hub idea completely away so anyway okay bob i find myself in agreement with lisa get rid of one and five well i i'm more ambivalent about one i i can't see myself ultimately supporting one but i wouldn't i don't care if it comes off the table or not um but five is the one i just hate the worst and i'll tell you why um first i agree with lisa on on design i agree that that's too much office jammed into a neighborhood i know there's a hospital there now but i think we're trying to make it more neighborhood e um we don't know what it's gonna cause we won't know for another two months sounds like what the cost of the renovation the pavilion building is i'm still not convinced that that's going to be city offices until i see the numbers we don't know how much parking the county needs we don't know if the county can use the eastern third i mean i might be supportive of that depending on what we get at broadway and iris but we connie doesn't hasn't even looked at it sounds like um i've i've yet to be convinced that there's truly synergy between the

[177:00] county in the city maybe there's a receptionist but i haven't heard like what exactly overlap there's going to be between us and that's something that the city staff needs to bring back i don't know what other options there are for the city if we don't go the pavilion building i'd like those to be explored i don't know where we're going to get at broadway and iris are we going to get eight acres we get something else when is it when are we going to have it um and as i look at option 8 it provides us with as little as 30 units of housing is that why we spend 40 million dollars to get 30 units of housing i know we need office space but i think we need to explore all the office space opportunities in town not just this one little corner if the county wants it great um but um i'm not convinced that that's where we need to go and i'll just make a general comment i am given all the work that's got to happen here i am really really skeptical this can happen by september it was just us maybe but but we we haven't progress on a scale of one to ten we're like at a two with the county i know there's interest there but but there's so much due diligence that's gonna happen on iris and broadway and about fit for here so i

[178:01] just want us to be really realistic about the schedule i take five off aaron well we can be all scatter shot so well i guess you know bob not not to just disagree with you but since you just spoke and i'll just offer i think five is worth keeping on the table um i think um as one of our options i mean i think the thing that we can do here is go out to the public um with and and say that these are parts and pieces you know that that uh it's not like you have to just take five or just take three you know or just one you know you can bring in different bits of different options and i think we should be open about that and i think we should communicate that very clearly in our public outreach through this process so um i'm going to hear you about maybe taking one and three off the table i could imagine that as long as you made it clear that um that you could slot in you know different pieces from different options

[179:00] in that but i think it's worth continuing to talk to the county i mean i wouldn't i see that in number five that says the site would only have 30 to 90 units um the the pavilion building doesn't occupy nearly that full eastern third it seems like if we were to partner with the county i would imagine still being able to get housing on almost half of that eastern two-thirds certainly a third of it and with a lot of potential options there so so i think we could still get some housing there but if we do partner with the county we got to do it in such a way that we get you know a really great affordable housing package up at iris and broadway and which i think is feasible i mean i think with two public agencies working together with similar goals i think we could potentially make something great happen there so i want to keep that option on the table and but really i'm just willing to go out to the community with what we've got here for the next steps cindy so

[180:00] i agree with erin about wanting to see what kind of synergy we have with the county and with bob and saying that we we just need to know a lot more and it seems that this as well as a bunch of other things we're just being put on this really fast timeline for too many things that aren't going to happen that quickly if we do our due diligence i could see taking five off the table for the same reason i don't know i have some i also don't like to see that much business being put into this plan um and agree erin with what you said about using less of it on that top part of the city site which is why i said what i said at the beginning i mean they're pieces of each of these i agree with mary however that i would take off option three i think that's just too intense it's too dense and it just doesn't um if we're talking about the comp plan preservation aspects

[181:01] having to do with neighborhoods it just doesn't do it and one of the questions and maybe someone's answered this already too is um what kind of density does the holiday neighborhood have i'm alright is that mrx and how does that fit with any of these options that we have been presented with us in terms of housing and business that's sort of there and what we've identified that we might be doing with the county do you mind if i speak a little bit of this inside since i lived there just the um you know there's a park in the middle of holiday and which is a little different you know because the park here would be in north boulder park but like the block that i live in is 20 dwelling units per acre so that's in the high density range there are other blocks that are maybe more like 12 units per acre than on the maybe high end of medium density so the zoning is

[182:01] rmx2 which is immediate a mixed density but since you have affordable housing on site you can double the density and get into those high density levels so it's it's a mix so i was just going to say it might be helpful when we take these kinds of things to the people for commentary that we have some kind of on the ground instead of just these abstractions i agree with examples and photographs i think and we'll just pause for a moment and discover that there's ways i think these are so hard to they're not evocative they're like wait what is purple okay wait black it's really hard these are what planners use but it's really hard i think to get public opinion so i guess there's apartment buildings nearby the park okay that's what is that is that get some examples of pitch roof second and third and fourth so those are the

[183:01] pictures okay and that would go here and then just just so that people can can relate to it and i think that would make a world of difference i i feel the same way about well what the heck is a hub well we know what they look like maybe um what do they do there how many people yeah so i guess i feel like we need to to illustrate options so people can feel what they would feel like um okay so and i'm sure that other people have suggestions along those lines um [Music] we haven't quite finished about options but let's pause and do something helpful go ahead who wants to weigh in on that is that what you want to weigh in on or do we want to no other than to agree with you that okay some examples would be really great what comes to mind but i don't know within the timeline might work the the fly-through that was done for the civic park was really helpful to visit visualize um

[184:02] but i understand that that requires a lot of work although event did in a week but um some something that is um that kind of like you said evocative you know that right do we have 3d of like our city as it exists now so you can like zoom in if you were like google mapping it and get a sense okay here it is now if we i don't know um okay make a process suggestion because we're all over the place can we go back to options i just wanted to pause and go okay so the one other thing on the maps is i just i said some of this before but just in terms of the areas of change i mean i probably scrapped that entirely or just i think there are areas that might change in areas that wouldn't but it's not these big red blobs yeah right so if you if we're talking about changing zoning or not okay then put some hash marks about do we want to change zoning in these other

[185:01] areas but yeah people will see their apartment building and be like what do you mean it's changing either they can tear it down okay and to the extent that we're talking about areas of change though the time component has got to be there so we get that okay so going back and i agree with that the the over how much time yeah over the next 20 years we expect or 50 or whatever okay regarding options um i think i feel pretty strongly we want to have [Music] four and five because they have very different concepts and i want to know what people think about them i also think just out of courtesy of the county they put something on the table let's see what people think there's a chance that we could really get something amazing at iris and we should we are obligated i think to at least explore it we can decide it's not worth it that's fine but that involved the public in that discussion makes sense to me and then on the housing one some

[186:01] people the problem with having lots of options is it's confusing to people but the idea that we want to have a housing an option that stresses housing and it's depending on how much i mean that's basically we want to have a conversation about housing and we could do it with one two and three i'm fine with that some people would rather have one option but with the idea that there's intensities and types so as long as what we want to do is provoke that conversation about intensities and types um in a meaningful way and i don't really care how we do that well the thing about one is that it it doesn't meet objective number five that we saw about affordable housing and and that seems to be something that everyone agrees on is to have affordable housing and one just doesn't meet that objective so um i'll just throw that up just i'm

[187:00] going to make an observation you and then i want to get a suggestion for process first of all i just want to observe that um that that um if i was taken off the table at some point in time that doesn't exclude the county because i think four and three and they all they all include the county it what it excludes as soon as the city is what it would exclude in other words option four for example could be the county but just the county okay you're the only person that's talking about a hub that doesn't involve the city well then let me talk to you oh okay all right all right all right okay then that's good to know you didn't mention it before but you don't have to talk about it well let me just make this a process suggestion um can we do like a little straw poll and see if we get like five or maybe six votes on eliminate because it sounds like one is like is a lot of people are not real big fans of one so can we see if we have five or six votes to eliminate you know an option maybe two options but but it would start with one because i've heard one mentioned most often why don't we just go through and see if you want to eliminate this vote on

[188:02] who wants to eliminate something and if you get a majority vote i'm not sure there's a great way to do this but that's all you need to do is that's what i'm saying okay all right um starting with one so actually like what you said cause i wouldn't i wouldn't eliminate anything but if we're eliminating something i would eliminate one so like okay that's how i feel threshold concept i wouldn't eliminate but if i was going to i'd probably eliminate what you don't have to vote for anything you can you can ask a question are you hoping that we take some options off the table before you go to the public or would you rather go with all five because if you are comfortable going with all five i think that's probably what the consensus will end up being i think that if there's an option that you don't think that you would want to have considered in the area plan then you should let us know so that we can convey that to the community okay okay go for it then yeah so i mean that sounds like some guidance to us that if we like i don't think i could support one

[189:00] right if even if it came through the process it doesn't meet the fundamental goal of affordable housing and so i would suggest we take it off okay we'll put like that then how many people would eliminate one do you want to speak to it before you vote question yep go ahead do you guys have a number of how many units on site that we would need to reach affordable housing because right now one at the max was at 105 and you're saying that that doesn't reach affordable housing so but it looks like 170 could so do we have a 170 is our magic number mr curt come on it okay so the lowest number of houses that we can have on site is 170 in order to have affordable housing yeah obviously i'm so curtford howard director of housing human services that's the number that we put in there but also knowing that there's other factors that could come that could play into that but as a as a general concept we wanted to use that as a starting point uh

[190:01] hopefully to be helpful towards you great thanks kurt okay that is helpful okay how many people would then like to eliminate option one one two three four five six seven and you would not okay so i think we've eliminated option one um how many people want to eliminate option two nobody option three one one two three four four who's supporting cindy oh um so right that means we leave it on and let me just clarify that like on on option three the part that has high-density housing along ninth street i totally disagree with that piece of it so are there other things that i think have promise in that plan but i just i want to get on record i don't think it's perfect to be clear i wouldn't want to accept any of these options as is

[191:00] this is just what we think helps structure the conversation okay okay option four does anybody want to get rid of option four okay option five one two three okay so it looks like we just get rid of one and um okay three i'm assuming we're not gonna add any new options let's not do that let's not do that okay um we talked we already had a lot of questions i think let me just sum up where i heard is um urban design is gonna matter and then i think i'll just reiterate what i said is getting a sense for people's feel about the types would be most helpful you heard a lot about transportation i think the one thing i would throw into that is understanding the tdm district certainly for option five we need to understand where the county is coming from and whether we can avoid structured more structured

[192:00] parking and i think there's a lot of i think one of the reasons people don't necessarily believe us on transportation always is again it doesn't feel like it's accurate and so i think the deal is traffic overall has increased the number of trips coming from the hospital used to be more but overall there's more traffic in the city going up and down broadway and up and down 9th street so i guess to me the context of transportation matters because the world has changed right so that's why it's hard to turn it was probably it'd be even harder to turn if the hospital was open and we had current transportation i mean so anyhow i guess you need to ground it in reality and just saying it won't be worse than way it used to be it doesn't really feel accurate to people we can delve into that a little bit more with our staff and with the consultants because they did look at trip trip counts and intersections and that nine different intersections in the area and how they function but we can definitely delve into that information a

[193:00] little bit more and and be able to portray it for folks okay and also the the things that people are going to want to know well i think when you take it out again you're painting pictures um about what it would feel like and how we would mitigate certain things right so [Music] again if you point to the transportation treatment that exists somewhere in the city and say we would put one of these in here to help deal with the turning or whatever it is again people can visualize yes so looking at these maps and looking at these colors i mean again i would just like to reiterate my otherwise i'm going to change my vote on number one that looking at these other options doesn't mean that there can't be low and medium density in there is that correct everyone up here agreed so that just because it we've taken the colors off on option one doesn't mean

[194:00] that those same colors can't go in these other all these other units just so people understand we all i hope agree with that i think what we said is we would like to hit a number of units such that we can get affordable housing they have affordable housing which the neighborhood has also said that there's something that's mostly what we said could i add one are we on three yet oh yeah we are whipping through three okay well okay so i do want to make a comment with respect to three and i don't know maybe perhaps in the first bullet it would fit under which is to use the urban design principle that you go from high intensity to lower intensity and that you would feather down as you go west and that's and that's something that option three doesn't do which is why i thought that it should come off but okay there's aaron's next are you going to speak to that yeah it was this is actually what i was going to speak to thanks mary um and i mean i wonder if if we can get that

[195:02] principle into the goals and objectives somewhere because i mean we've been talking about it from the first time that i remember us talking about this site you say oh well you'd start with more intense along broadway and then as you hit 9th street you would have a lower intensity shorter building so can we just write that in there somewhere yeah we've got a little bit in there about the tallest building should be along broadway but we can flush that out further i think that'd be helpful and and then the other thing i'd say is does everybody agree with that yes cascading density yeah yeah very good thank you and then the other thing is that i really liked um the idea that you were talking about about the the height map that we would eventually put together so kind of taking the height bit of the form-based code and i think it would be helpful to talk to people about that to say you know what we can write into this plan that this bit over here can't be over 33 feet tall you know we can write into this bit that'll have varying reforms you know so and maybe you solicit some ideas around that but i think if people are aware because you know it

[196:01] i think in currently the way boulder's site review process works there's a little bit over the roll the dice you don't know exactly what the building is going to look like when until development plane comes in and gets approved so if we can tell people hey we actually can specify building forms and heights in this area plan and let's get some feedback on it i think that could help lisa and then sam yeah i was just going to make a comment on cascading densities and i agree with that and i i said i think in february i think if we could deal with building form and mass and scale and the design i think that's better than putting labels on as low density and high and i don't i low medium and high and i don't think that helps the discussion and um i agree and so you know i think if we can just stick

[197:01] with the urban form i mean that's what we did up in north boulder in the sub-community plan we really never got into the densities except that we wanted some higher densities but we were dealing with building form height mass and scale so i think that's important and so when i went for three i didn't see it as necessarily greater than what would be in mid block you know i i've always thought of it as cascading okay sam then cindy and then we'll see what else we want to say so just to comment i think two four and five all have that element if you kind of squint your eyes and look at the way that the intensity is laid out those all seem to to shade back to less intense well i i think five would be reconfigured i mean i don't think that

[198:00] entire middle block is needed for county but we'll find out staff will tell us that the other piece that i just want to emphasize is i think when we have five summarize the way it is it doesn't give credit for what might be able to happen at iris and broadway as far as housing and affordable housing go so i would just comment that when these are taken out to the public five needs to have an asterisk or you know another category of housing that talks about what is off-site but which could be created because five is what we go forward i with with that anybody disagree with that okay well you don't like that but cindy i well i wanted to comment about that as well and say that that should be true of any of the options again that what happens up on broadway and iris could could affect how i don't want to use the word dense but how much density is on the site that we're looking at so or the only in that option otherwise

[199:02] but or you could say in that option in the next one or oh if you let me if you didn't have the city let me explain that i want to help cindy here because we're talking about 700 per square foot for this pavilion building that's the number we heard last time we met i'm going to guess that we could build city offices for 700 per square foot or broadway and iris so i mean this is all interchangeable i mean it doesn't have to be all city offices here and housing up there i mean there's builders out there who will build those office buildings for less than 700 per square foot we already debunked that that was not the right number we haven't heard we haven't heard an alternative number and and maybe there's existing buildings that we could put the offices okay we're not going to stay all right we're going to we didn't get to finish that was just the first part of mine because the second part was going to be that i agree with bob and it sounds like lisa may agree too that the city i would like to see the staff explore looking for at other options other places to put the city offices there are many good reasons not to

[200:00] necessarily locate them here at broadway and will that come up in july or what's going to come up in july our facilities management it's in the in august the city facilities master plan that's where we're going to talk about where should government live in boulder okay with with different kinds of options chris for where they may be and changing demographics and i'm looking at michelle a little bit in terms of the options of what will will include in that conversation in august hi michelle crane city facilities design and construction manager so that is our intent is to give a much broader perspective across the city where's ideal city locations to serve our community to consolidate staff and present those options and cost as well as bob has been well yes and and have that comparison cost analysis as well as comparison with developer costs for other buildings great anything else yeah and i would like added on because before we had this

[201:01] we had plans for the east bookends so i'd like to know about that and then i'd like to know about um some well we can bring this up later but there's existing office buildings or existing buildings that perhaps we could use and that is really what we're looking at comprehensively because even the pavilion doesn't accommodate everything we've talked about much earlier when we're looking at the civic area so it's looking at different consolidation scenarios and where that might be optimal one consideration is you know the presence on the western edge of town which is one thing we're considering but we want to look at that with all the factors and so that's the intent of the facilities master plan and what also would be really helpful michelle is if we had a better breakdown and i don't know how granular you can do this but a better breakdown of where our employees are coming from and so i mean i think right now more than half of our employees don't live in boulder and so i don't know where

[202:02] exactly they're coming from and so i'd like to have a better understanding of that and what might be better we want to understand where our employees are coming from how that impacts where they they arrive but also where our customers are being served and so that is that kind of broad look across the city and you know is there a dual hub scenario that makes a lot of sense um as well as the cost breakdowns right and that's good nearby once in we got to go you guys we have another 90-minute conversation ryan's just really quick in terms of engagement with the community so i get that you guys don't have crystal balls and you can't tell me who was all going to answer but just again from the amount of people that we heard from that had knew nothing about the project and now it sounds like they're pretty much on board and have the word out do you guys have different ways that you're going to be engaging to make sure that

[203:01] hopefully we cover a little bit more or get a little more interaction our intent is to offer various venues various times online engagement as well so you know we try to do our best to offer different things that can meet different people's needs because we certainly want to offer everyone the opportunity to um weigh in and understand these options and to give us their feedback great thanks guys for that any other thoughts on community engagement do we okay good flood i will say i appreciate you guys getting to where you ended up i'm glad we're not going to decimate northwater park nor try to solve all the flood mitigation for that side of the city on a site that then we hit a 10-year straw that was a very helpful discussion last time around so i appreciate where we've ended up other thoughts on flood

[204:00] agree good job yeah okay was that the end of the questions okay i know i'm i'm pushing us but we got we still have many issues ahead tonight i i just want to thank you for the sheets oh yes found them extremely helpful yeah yeah you're welcome but i still hope you use different sheets of the public yeah okay well i like them on that on that moment the um the attachment c offered a lot more of the the the height maps as well as the prototypes and some more of the imagery but we'll be building on those materials now that we have a little more sense of where this where you guys wanted to go sweet okay anything else thank you so much i know this is a bulking bronco but we're making progress thank you so much this was the easy one this is easy one okay

[205:00] okay so we're only at a half hour when you're helpful you're really helpful and when you're not i'm helping the other director in the direction you don't want it but you're gonna make clearly there's something in your mind that i don't see where you're headed well yes there is something out there that three of us okay we are going to do this as efficiently as we are without okay i've already heard everything you've been on the process today so help me from our perspective they're gonna rattle through two minute presentations

[206:00] this computer doesn't do anything we don't have a clicker do we are you ready to go before you go okay yes you're ready great um i think phil kleiser is going to start yeah sure i can go ahead and get started while our team is pulling up the slides unless they need just a moment if you don't mind we were having a moment we'll go back to having one on the desktop oh maybe minimize i know it's like so while that's happening uh phil kleisler with the city of boulder planning department thank you very much for your time this evening um the purpose of this agenda item is to update council on several several aspects of a project relating to the university of colorado boulders south campus or cu south you can select and and the purpose of tonight is to

[207:00] not only provide you with that update but also get some clarification and some direction from council around some next steps in the project you may recall that originally this project was scheduled for a briefer relatively short update from the process committee um but since recently there's been um you know the letter from the university as well as some um negotiations and discussions with the colorado department of transportation or cdot um and so council with that in mind thought it would be a good idea to go ahead and have a broader conversation on the topic this evening uh the presentation tonight will be fairly brief about 12 slides i'll give a brief update on the annexation application douglas sullivan with utilities division will bring you up to speed on the preliminary engineering engineering happening on the site relating to the city's flood mitigation efforts kathleen brackey from the transportation department will go over some of the highlights of the cdot discussions that recently took place and lastly dan burke with open space and mountain parks department will provide council with some important

[208:01] considerations that you'll want to keep in mind as we move forward in the project so the bulk of the conversation we would anticipate being a council discussion and the two things that those will likely focus on would be first the approach for the upcoming meetings and so cac yesterday suggested that council add an item on the july 16 council meeting to direct staff on key some key issues around this project such as the flood mitigation concept and then depending on the outcome of that meeting council may be in a position to then have a discussion with the university on august 13th during a study session also wanted to point out that the university is in attendance tonight and we appreciate appreciate them for being here uh the second part of this discussion will likely be basically what information does council need in order to direct staff at that july 16 meeting and so the process subcommittee for this project suggested that perhaps it would be a good idea tonight to have some

[209:01] discussions around variables or parameters that you'd want to discuss in that july meeting such as design storm considerations land uses and so on so brief update about the annexation application as you know the university submitted an annexation application for their 300 acre site in south boulder in february city staff responded in march and the staff initial staff comments really included two parts one was a fairly lengthy term sheet that included both the university and the city's position on a number of issues as well as whether or not we were aligned and we kind of used the the green yellow red language in that term sheet and the second thing was that staff pulled out six issues that we called key issues that we thought relative to the other things will likely require more staff time and resources in order to resolve and so where are we now with the annexation application

[210:00] per the university's letter on may 20th and a subsequent discussion with university officials we do we did get an indication that the larger amount number of items on the term sheet are likely ones that will be able to work through throughout this process at this point we're not seeing fatal flaws in on those items of the six items that were pulled out as part of those key issues in the city's cover letter back to the university half of those which are listed here as analysis needed are really we need to do more analysis we need to do engagement and have more discussions before we're able to really make a call on whether or not we're on the same page with the university and then the other three um relate two of them relate to impacts this from the city's flood mitigation needs for the site relating to planned uses for university housing sports fields and the existing tennis courts as well as a concept that staff put forward in terms of regards to a payment in lieu of taxes

[211:00] agreement so council established the process committee the cu south process committee in which council member carlisle and yates thank you very much for your time thus far are the members that was established in early march and since then the process committee has been hard at work and has met three times um the process committee is generally looking at looking forward at a plan and strategy for how we will engage the community about this project as well as how we schedule and format meetings like tonight and moving forward they've gotten probably over a third of the way through an engagement plan the whole the whole plan of which would be presented to council later this year you'll likely also remember this diagram um from a meeting that you had in march 5th the reason we have it on the slides this evening is just to re-emphasize the council and the community that you know you know these have been discussions that council of hat has had of wanting to ensure that the annexation

[212:01] process negotiations with cdot as well as the preliminary design are happening concurrently and so that one process doesn't delay the other so we just wanted to re-emphasize that we're still intending to move along on that track and with that i'd like to turn it over to douglas sullivan for an update on the preliminary engineering piece okay thanks phil as phil noted you guys saw this uh diagram at the march 5th 2019 meeting and the purpose of this was sort of a reset to show you the long view of what was uh what would be entailed with a project of this magnitude so the three bars on the left are the critical ones for where we are and we showed a 15-month duration uh going through q2 halfway through 2020 with the three bars that we talked about the cu south annexation piece the c dot negotiations and the preliminary design so following council direction on february 5th of 2019 utility staff did move forward with a scope of work with our engineering consultant and we got them under contract and had that

[213:00] finalized and we have begun work to that end and so i have very few slides here tonight but we can answer some questions and talk about where we are so if you think about the preliminary design component it really comes into thirds and so there is the geotechnical investigation that we spoke about which is about a quarter of the project uh i say thirds because there are three major elements to the preliminary design for the next 15 months you'll see my little bullet down below all other tasks for which there are about six or seven comprise the other twenty percent so i've shown in blue that two of these are moving ahead in 2019 uh the preliminary design documents shown in red is the more significant what we would call technical specifications and drawings and so that would follow in in in 2020. so at this point uh there were some questions about could we continue to proceed the answer is yes and are any of those elements sunk cost at this point for the first two the answer is no

[214:02] so i would say comfortably we have a six to nine month window with which to move forward with respect to critical engineering elements that would be necessary for any of the options regardless what the terminology or variant names were if they're not any questions here if you want to come back i'd like to turn the microphone over to kathleen she has been the primary contact on the cdot negotiations and has played a vital role as not just the gobolder manager but the interim co-director of transit wait a second and i do have a question for you douglas okay thank you if i understood you correctly and saying that we have about you said six to nine months of the engineering work to do regardless of what option would have been picked earlier in the evening we heard from one person during open comments saying that we've lost um 10 months of time so if i heard you correctly

[215:02] has there been any time lost based on yeah i think what's probably confusing is we we tend to use certain terminologies for the various stages and up until february 5th we have been in a lengthy alternatives analysis phase where we were looking at an extensive number of options to get to a point looking for council direction to proceed so preliminary design is a relatively defined component in engineering it typically rents represents what's called a 30 percent design all right and if we go back to the bars there that's what we're trying to do in the next 15 months after that is the final design so it's a little presumptuous to say that we've lost time or that we could have gotten here before because all those steps were necessary to get to this point now for example there was a lot of groundwater and subsurface investigation done in the alternatives analysis site to determine whether the site would be acceptable the answer is yes there is additional groundwater

[216:00] investigations and that's shown in this first bullet that are part of the preliminary design thank you let's ask you follow me so part of the the process in the last however long it's been eight months or nine months or something is we've been exploring different possibilities like you came back to us some months ago say because we looked at a deeper detention area right and so you all and analyzed the deeper detention area possibility he came back he said well we could do it but it's i forget how many 30 million extra dollars or whatever it was um and we said oh no that's too expensive so you know go look at this other thing right so so that you you'll spend a certain amount of time exploring those kinds of alternatives if we had settled on one alternative earlier what would you have been doing during that time period instead so the the elements that you see up there on the board are the ones that i would define as the critical pieces to get to a 30 what's called a preliminary design report and to back into it that

[217:01] last component which is the most technical of this element is the red and we can feel comfortable waiting on that because there's so much work with a with a project of this magnitude that has to be done first so regardless of the option that was selected so much of the work is site specific to find out whether it can actually be done and so that is analogous and correct across all of the options so you've been doing that all along that was part of the as i mentioned before and i have one slide if you wanted to see it in terms of the actual number of wells for example there were 26 wells that have been drilled to date those serve two purposes there's the purpose of the soil there's the purpose of how the groundwater moves there are permits required whether it's with open space whether it's with cdot you know whether it's with cu all that was secured as part of the previous phase there will be additional components now that will basically look at the subsurface conditions to whether it can actually

[218:00] handle a wall of this size so thank you for that so i get about how the geotechnical studies are moving forward i didn't quite get an answer to the question that i asked which was that if we had if we had had an answer eight months ago that was kind of technically feasible and agreeable to all parties what would you all have been doing in instead of analyzing the sort of alternatives so had we had an answer that early then the preliminary design would have followed immediately in the same way that it's doing now so it took about four to six weeks to develop the scope for a project of this size and then we pushed it through purchasing as quickly as we could so that would follow that analysis phase so if that was completed six months before we would be six months ahead of where we are now thank you yep but had we heard from c dot at that point i don't think so well c dot is just one of a number no i know that but my question is we've been using the bridge and so um their bridge and so we hadn't met

[219:00] with cdot until just recently correct so uh no i mean there were meetings with cdot extensively over a number of years i think what came out of it was the level of confidence in terms of how far we were along in terms of what we agreed to okay right so so we've been having conversations with c dot uh kathleen brackey transportation and we've been having conversations with cdot over a long period of time we've had the most recent conversations with them since beginning of this year right and so i can i can that would help you if you have other questions for well we probably will but why don't you go ahead all right we'll move along um i just want to provide an update again we've had ongoing conversations but we had the most recent meeting with cdot last week and i want to say um how positive and productive that meeting was and we really appreciate them being here and coming forward to help work with us to solve these ideas and these options they're all complex and they all have

[220:01] trade-offs and i want to give a special um thanks to the new executive director shashana liu she really has been instrumental in helping to come to the table and be willing to roll up their sleeves and look at ideas and options with us so the meeting that we held last week was really to look at options for where could and again at a high conceptual level but where could we align the flood mitigation wall along the cdot right of way earlier this year cdot staff had indicated that they wanted that wall located outside of their future right-of-way that had been identified as part of the us-36 environmental impact statement so that would have been much farther away from the highway at the meeting last week cdot supported putting the wall along the existing right-of-way line so that was a really big step forward and very helpful guidance for them to provide to the staff and and the project team working on that they do recognize that by locating the wall along the existing

[221:01] right-of-way line that the portions of the wall that are underground the foundational elements would need to extend into their existing right-of-way so between the wall and and the highway just in terms of how the wall would need to be built um so those were that was kind of the big part of the conversation to focus on where we could locate um the wall along the highway um we also talked about the bridge can we just pause and say that that was a big give on the on behalf of c-dot yes and it was yeah i don't think we can be thankful enough for their willingness to say okay we'll let go of our ambitions about what might happen in the future right away about if we ever wanted to realign the highway and we will forgo that so it was significant absolutely thank you very much and really appreciate um your help and and the team's help to to get to that point it was a a big step forward um cdot did express concerns though with any of the designs that would affect the their bridge

[222:00] infrastructure over us 36 so there were different designs that would be different either attached or close to the bridge and they did not feel comfortable with those designs so again they were very helpful regarding the alignment of the wall but did not feel comfortable with something that would impact their existing bridge again as we're talking tonight there's a lot of additional technical work that needs to go on with all of the stakeholders with the city with all the city departments including open space with cu and with cdot so we want to continue that technical work and moving forward but this guidance was very helpful are you guys going to show the right-of-way line as it relates to the bridge or not just because there was it keeps coming up right so we have exhibits that show you have the cdot exhibit that shows the existing and future right-of-way correct so well yeah specifically at the bridge well

[223:01] yeah should we just tackle the bridge thing because there's a level of detail that some people are aware of and different opinions and we might as well air that yeah you know either that or um we've got i would say three more minutes left of previously and then we could go back i just thought it was useful to look at the map yeah we can do that in a minute okay great well i'll turn it over today and then to cover the we got a question for you sure kathleen on your third bullet there you say cdot was not supportive of modifications to the existing us-36 bridge that is also known as the variant two option correct that would have been that one right but they didn't i want to be clear that they didn't look at the entire that entire alternative they were just talking specifically about how that alternative would relate to their existing bridge exactly but that existing bridge i just have to say this because that existing bridge was the whole

[224:00] thrust as it were a variant too so we'll look at that in a minute we can look at it but i believe that and that will explain that we'll explain that better in a minute great thanks i'll turn it over today and then to cover the open space good evening dan burke interim director open space to mountain parks i just want a preference to say that while it you know it's really important that we do have a much better understanding of where cdot stands and their position what we have learned does represent a pretty significant departure from the understanding uh and the assumptions that there would be no flood structures located in open space lands and again that is a from an open space perspective that is a bit of a deviation from what what the understandings um have been to date and so the latest discussions with c dots you know has negated this assumption and it basically has put the disposal of open space lands uh back on the table um so just want to

[225:00] bring that up is a very potentially significant matter and i'll just spend a couple of minutes talking a little bit about dispos disposals but back in 2014 there was an option that was looked at for uh uh a flood structure on open space lands and because of the disposal issue in the lands that were involved at that time and through feedback from the board of trustees council decided to look at other alternatives that would avoid a disposal situation in 2015 after considering several alternatives the option d was selected in part because it did not require a disposal of open space lands and i just want to set this context because uh one of the most you know one of the uh reasons for avoiding direct impacts to open space lands in this particular location is because of the high quality habitat that's involved in this area it

[226:01] is within the south boulder creek state natural area which is the state of colorado's recognition of some of the best high quality habitats that remain in the state in this particular state natural area it's because of remnant tall grass prairie the populations of lady lady trust his orchid pebbles jumping metal jumpy mouse it's also habitat for very significant and high quality wetlands so those are some of the reasons why up to this point we've been trying to avoid direct impacts from flood structures on on open space lands but what we're learning from cdot is that in this case that may not be that we may not be able to avoid that and in this case if there are direct impacts to open space lands in this situation because flood structures would be located on our lands uh then uh it would its staff's opinion that it would amount

[227:00] to an open space disposal situation and city charter section 176 provides us with guidance for um and section 177 regulates the disposal of open space lands and lays out a process for how uh the disposal of lands uh would take place and basically there's three uh there's three steps involved uh disposal of land yes go ahead tom this is a little premature um we haven't um so the disposal is this process council decides whether a particular use of open space land is an open space purpose open space purpose includes preventing stuff from coaching on front planes that's a discussion we haven't had yet we've been analyzing this in our office i'm surprised that we're talking about disposal that's the next step the step before this is you deciding whether or not this is an appropriate use for open space this land still belongs to the city and you could consider construe the charter to say that this was appropriate um but we are

[228:01] way down that way long way away from making a disposal decision or deciding whether or not you have to activate the charter um so and this is a problem we've had with the open space board gets to decide whether or not something is a disposal can be disposed the council decides whether or not a disposal is necessary and so since you haven't made that decision the open space board can't take that away from you now i'm not suggesting which way that decision would go i'm just suggesting that this particular discussion is a little premature for deciding whether or not flood management is an open space purpose can we just clarify this yeah we would decide whether we want to ask the open space board about disposal whether it's an open space purpose to use open space land for flood management oh so we could say hey we're going to build this on open space but we think that falls under the uses of open space so it's not a

[229:01] disposal that's what you're saying possibility that's a possibility okay all right so that's interesting though that was muddled yes but can you can you quantify the impacts were you going to get to that in another slide uh nope i was just going to wrap it up just to let you know that with flood structures there's a possibility that the disposal situation would arise and tom is right that that would be a council decision and analyzing if the disposal situation does come up we did thoroughly uh look at this situation last year when the ospt made recommendations to you um and and did consult with cao office and and uh there's a possibility that the disposal situation is on the table so i just wanted to actually can i just say if we had the right-of-way slide which i think we do it will help to illustrate the question

[230:00] you're asking about impacts about impacts okay yeah do we have that side well i guess we need to let them finish their okay conceptual and then we're going to come back to them yeah okay so maybe was there anything else you wanted to say i guess that i was just going to say that we have cleared off some agenda item items on our july 10th uh uh osbt meeting if the council would like to ask uh any considerations or information back from the board that uh we would be uh saving some time on our agenda to provide you any information that you may seek at this time although it looks like our next meeting on this might be the 16th but okay but thank you for that offer we may have to think about timing is that the last slide of the presentation yeah i was gonna uh turn things over to phil at this point because i i really do think and nope that's really just coming back full circle to council's discussion thank you okay can you guys put up the right-of-way slide

[231:03] well i may need a hand here i know you included a ton in the uh right here so we got it i want suzanne while we're waiting can we have some more clarification i'm con i'm uh confused by what the city manager said about who's bailey sorry city attorney said about who's bailiwick it falls into to make a decision about disposal of open space land according to our charter so i didn't say who makes so the decision on open space is a joint decision between council and osbt both to dispose of open space land both the osbt and council have to agree to do it right well so who agrees first on that is my question my comment wasn't about the disposal it's about who decides what an open space purpose is so this this came up about five six years ago and we drafted

[232:00] an ordinance to sort of make it clear but everybody agreed that it's council's prerogative to decide what's a legitimate open space purpose so the charter says um what what those purposes are and then there is some ambiguity and so one of the open space purposes is you do utilization of land to prevent encroachment on floodplains now i'm not sure exactly what that means but you're the ones who get to interpret that and so that we've had situations before where osbt jumps to this is a disposal so it's we're going to say no when the council can't do it it's important to remember that it's council's prerogative to decide what's an open space purpose and then if something doesn't fit in open space purpose whether the land then has to be disposed so that's the point i was making well with all due respect i totally disagree with you i mean i think that that lies with the open space board of trustees according to the charter no disposal lies with them interpretation of what's a purpose

[233:01] lies with you well then we could just make up purposes if we agreed what it was and purposes are in the charter to the extent that there's interesting most frequently in the in the in the question of what constitutes passive recreation passive recreation is an open space purpose and we have gone back and forth on what that mean what that term means you get to interpret it okay so we're not going to resolve that tonight no but it says in the charter what passive recreation is with a couple of exceptions okay so i think this is a thing we've opened up a little bit of a can of worms and we can all think about that but the thing we want to do is update ourselves on what's what we know what we learned and give directions for our next meeting and what we want staff so i'll just say sitting in this meeting you're very good at explaining things to explain what the lines are on the map what it would take to build a flood wall in terms of the encroachments either way

[234:02] and uh whoever wants to do it but i just meant you explained it at the meeting so at the city cdot meeting this was a a slide that the cdot staff brought and they basically showed a couple of different options now these options have nothing to do with our terminology for any of the variants and in a nutshell they were trying so if you look at the red line that you see there all right so so this is the this is the cu south property on the west side and open space on the east all right and and the red line represents what they called their future eis and that's what kathleen had explained at different times was a potential option where they would develop you know more comprehensively than what's there the yellow line albeit it's hard to see is their existing c dot right-of-way so there were two things that came out of that meeting you know there was not a lot do you want to handle this one okay answer questions so what we tried to do in in the meeting following with

[235:00] the subcommittee meeting was do a combination of this and then a sketch to show you what was at stake in terms of how narrow the section is between open space and between c dot and it sort of depicts you know the movement that c dot did in the meeting and so so what they gave up was the red line and i just wanted to show that's pretty significant so they said we can work with the yellow line okay so that's the part a that was very that was progress so so the yellow line is cdot's existing right of way and as kathleen noted prior conversations had said they did not want any city or flood infrastructure inside their right-of-way the compromise that they came forward with is that they did not want the wall in their right-of-way however the wall will likely be a a vertical concrete wall with a huge horizontal section called a foundation and they were comfortable with that foundation extending into c dot right away as long as it was buried and then

[236:02] may in fact have a bike path on top of that their fundamental concern was to maintain was maintenance for the us-36 corridor and they felt my understanding was that they could continue to do that on a bike path and as long as they had if our structure was buried on the seat outside and i think the cross section was helpful do you have this slide down we do have it would you like to see that i think so just so everybody has the same visual yep so i would like to explain one thing here this is not an engineering drawing i couldn't tell okay and there's a lot of color here the point of this was to give you a visual of what's at stake so what you're looking at on the right hand side if you were driving into boulder from louisville that is the median on the right the two black things are the eastbound lines so coming out of boulder then the dotted line approximately shows the c dot right of way which is varies between 40 and 50 feet

[237:01] the orange structure is a very large depiction of potentially what a wall would look like it's called a t-wall and it would have a vertical section it would have a horizontal and the two major pieces coming down are called caissons those are drilled down into bedrock which provide the stability i'm not going to do a bunch of engineering talk but one thing is important here that differentiates it from the flood berm you heard about the 100 year you've heard about the 500 regardless where we land in terms of the storage this is considered a high hazard flood structure which means people live below it and there are certain safety provisions which are required there is something called the pmf the probable maximum flood it is eight to ten times what the hundred year flood is it is the full disaster this structure needs to be built such that it can be over topped so picture a cascading waterfall over the top of this position and the water that drops on the

[238:00] downstream side cannot erode the foundation thus it cannot fail so when you look at what is a beefy concrete structure whether it has rock and rip-rop and other things like that on the side that's why what you're looking at so getting back to it the purple vertical line is c-dot is the right-of-way and what they effectively said they don't want the vertical wall in their right-of-way they're comfortable with the right side of the orange both the caisson and this horizontal foundation being there that's what you're looking at and then just explain the bike path part so the bike path what came up in conversation is it could be on either side of the wall but they were comfortable with it being on the c dot side in their right of way and although it's not shown to scale i think the standard for multi-use path in boulder i think is 12 feet and it would obviously be probably eight inches thick i'm just engineering talk because it would handle plows and and pick up trucks to clean it how does this structure relate to the

[239:02] existing bridge or does it okay we haven't gotten to the bridge part this is just a flood wall part the important piece here lisa is regardless where we land on any option this piece is the commonality you saw a lot of different drawings over a number of years and there was an earthen foundation with a gentle slope on each side and a big top all right and then this vertical structure is the same for all of the options for the reason i explained because it represents a high hazard dam so a couple questions here if i may um so when you say the bike path could be on either side but it would only be on there right of way if it is on the right hand side in this structure right that's correct as it's shown here otherwise it'd be an open space right yeah so clearly so it's fine we want it on that side clearly so then the what i was asking about before is in terms of quantifying the impact on open space so what is the width of that structure that would end up being in what

[240:00] in open space territory so again take this with a grain of salt because we're not even in preliminary design early estimates with the designers i've shown a 20 to 30 foot window on each side so there would be a permanent and a temporary impact on the open space side what you see in the first 20 to 30 feet left of the wall is a permanent impact there would likely be a case on and the foundation wall on that side it could be buried so it looked natural to build this we would then need a 40 to 50 40 to 60 foot section so it's a significant amount this wall is on the order of 20 to 25 feet tall depending upon where we would end up in the design so again permanent and temporary disturbance so the the permanent disturbance when you talk about that 20 to 30 feet it would potentially be buried yes but it's permanent impact because you no longer have soil going down you know indefinitely you could have soil on top of it but you then get into the o m the operations and maintenance piece and for

[241:01] a structure of this site from engineering side you would have maintenance typically on both sides so you might have some sort of some sort of gravel road or two track on on the on the left side and what about the temporary impacts temporary could be restored to as is or previous conditions okay thank you great and what is i just want to point out that as is for a wet meadow of this quality you could restore it to a natural condition but probably not bring it back to the wet metal condition it's in now just want to clarify that but can i just so one last bit of information i think we need here to quantify the impact is how i know it's not open space along the entire wall right so how what's the linear distance of the wall on open space well i have some numbers for you the entire length of the wall is about 2600 feet okay 2400 of that is on open space in

[242:01] just 200 on cu so if you go 20 feet times about 2 400 it's just over an acre of permanent disturbance the temporary disturbance sam would be on the order of three to four acres got it okay thank you and just for context how much open space land is there to the south of 36 and uh and around the south boulder creek how many acres of open space total is i would have to defer to dan or someone for that one how much potential is impacted no no he gave us that number he said an acre or so would be permanently impacted and temporarily would be up to three acres so my question is out of how many total open space acres in the south boulder creek watershed oh boy we have continued hundreds thousands of continuous acres off of this i could tell you that uh there's over a thousand acres alone in the south boulder creek uh

[243:01] state natural area and this is the epicenter or the heart of that so you're talking about at least eleven hundred acres in that state natural era alone i see so it would be about one acre out of 1100 that would be permanently impacted and then three acres out of the 1100 that would be on and off impacted does that sound right when you say on and off a temporary construction is typically just at the time of construction but it would be put into the last year we did talk about needing access and that would be on the permanent that would be permanent okay thank you yes so i would like to hear dan talk about the impact on the wet meadows and given that the drilling the geotechnical work if that's the correct terminology for it hasn't been finished we don't even know how those what's going to happen with the water tables going off and on so maybe you i mean over time so in terms of this being an impact and it being a permanent one

[244:01] we don't know whether or not going this far into osmp it's going to be permanent how far back in terms of this state natural area was is that a correct assumption well so the two issues that i heard is one is what is the uh there there could be potential groundwater disruptions we talked about that a lot last year with any of with any of the variants right right this presents a a disruption that we were not considering before last year so this is a brand new situation that we haven't really considered as a staff as of yet but um but can i ask about that because i guess what did you think was going to happen because even if they let us go into their right of way a bit that's a big under i mean the 20 to 30 feet on either side like surely we didn't think we were going to build it

[245:00] right next to the highway right i mean why do we think that we were going to get a better outcome than this well i guess that's what i'm saying because i was like wow i'm glad we got as good as we got but yeah what did what was the best we had hoped for to ease into their maintenance lane well the variants that we were considering as a department as a board all had had no structures on open space that's right so well i know but so so where would they have been i mean what it was i think it was envisioned that they would be within the right-of-way that's what we said yeah but okay but we were okay but we hadn't we didn't know that until just last week but either way 30 feet was going to be underground and i'm just saying that was an unreasonable expectation given how much has to be underground that we could move in that far into their right of way because it's only 40 50 feet and then you're gonna hit highway if you know what i meant i guess i'm just the well these are the kinds of things that i would have hoped

[246:00] that we would have gotten from the engineering perspective so that we could have had some kind of reasonable talk about that at the time in terms of what the expectations were well i'm just in yeah we're all learning we're learning we are learning but i mean this goes back to how long is this i mean all of this stuff started before i got on this council we've spent how much money okay how much staff time and are the assumptions we're making now even correct given how off they've been prior to this okay i mean you know that's i think that's a fair question because we're given a whole new scenario now again so [Music] all of our current approaches that we're contemplating involve this requirement right if we were to decide for some reason that this wasn't feasible or doable what would we have to do differently when you say if this wasn't doable do

[247:00] you so basically impinging higher variance is the flood detention facility on the south side let me put it this way let's if if if the open space board felt like this wasn't okay and they said no then what would we have to do differently in order to get flood detention so the purpose of this drawing very clearly was to show what was open space on the left and what was c dot so if there's not the ability to build something that is somewhere between 40 and 60 feet wide because there is no property or give from either side you have to look at a very very different configuration and so we do flood mitigation in lots of different ways throughout the community sometimes we're buying homes in the high hazard zone sometimes you know we would relocate a facility you know predated my role here but there was analysis on the west side of 93 at one time so if it was a deal breaker for example you're looking at a whole different level of alternatives analysis if if the goal is not to approach a detention facility on the

[248:00] cu south campus well are you saying that that you that this is required doing this is required to have a detention facility on the cu south property because people live downstream and there is that i just need a yes or no the answer is yes yeah so in order to do flood detention in this area we need this facility a high hazard dam structure that is exactly so we have to go back like 17 steps dan is trying to get were you trying to say something no okay good yeah well i just wanted to follow up on on aaron's line of questioning and so wouldn't the engineering and the requirement of it being a high hazard dam and people living downstream wouldn't that be the driving factor and not i mean that's the the requirement it is what it is it's the requirement so isn't that what would drive the design not some other

[249:00] i mean what other factor no that's what i'm saying is i guess if this this is what has to happen yeah so i mean if that's what has to happen then what are the things that would it's just apparently it's not enabled that so not that the caissons couldn't go in as far as they're needed the depth wouldn't be the issue there is another configuration this was just shown as one there is also an eye configuration that does not spread out as wide but the concrete wall gets bigger for example those are final design issues okay the caissons are there regardless you have to go into bedrock which is where rock starts and then you actually go in 20 feet because there are different fractures in the rock and you need to get to some level of stability there is a tremendous tipping moment on a dam and so this is the size it is to make sure it withstands the worst case scenario you could imagine and when you build a detention facility that is effectively what you are trying

[250:01] to ensure so yep so one of the previous options we had a earthen berm correct yes correctly and then but it went it was pretty wide yes it was when and it didn't really have any case ons or any structure that went down is that correct yes they're very different so if you look at the earlier drawing scene of the entire flood wall in the northwest corner approaching the table mesa park and ride that's all in earth and right right whether there was access to cu transportation wise whether there was um you know the bike path on there that's a different element of the structure maybe you can chill the right-of-way thing again and maybe point that that's still a part of the deal it's just not as he goes south sorry as you go so maybe if you could point to where the earthen berm is and where this wall would be so cdot did

[251:02] their their best estimate it's it's sort of near the curve of the highway and we can always pull up one of the actual drawings that you would have seen before under one of a number of variants so looking back on the left side of the drawing is the earth and burn piece when you get along 36 you know the light blue that you see there is the 2600 foot long vertical concrete wall you see that other color is the embankment greenish yeah the turquoise yeah okay so while that sinks in let's do the one more which is the bridge thing do we have where the right-of-way comes out in front of the bridge do we have that one phil well the one where they drew the 52 feet out one because that was also about that well that's what they're going to tell us it's just easier to show with the map

[252:01] okay there um we there was the map do we have the right-of-way map that was in the meeting uh i'm not sure suzanne if we have that one we don't have that one where it bumps out we we have the drawing depiction i don't believe we have that um we saw it the other day yes um well maybe we should just visually describe it because to me that was very i i can answer what the issue was so cdot made very clear in the meeting they were not interested in any structure attached to the us 36 bridge you know reduction in size or otherwise and so if one were to go in that direction it leaves you an option it has to be separated from the structure and then the question becomes how far is it separated from the structure so c-dot still has some right-of-way off the bridge so the question is is it in their right-of-way there are they okay with that or if it's or is it outside if in fact it's outside which is further south

[253:01] and further up the creek then there are additional implications from an open space mountain parks and what i thought i heard was again if you imagine the right-of-way line comes down along the highway that when it gets to the creek by the bridge it juts out so it's 52 feet out from the bridge okay and so if we were going to stick to staying outside of the right-of-way we'd have to build the wall 52 feet out from the bridge if you can get that in your head and then we also have the over-topping piece which you can explain yeah okay does that make sense so it would i need visuals okay so it's really hard without the visuals the only reason it matters and i'll just you correct me if i am wrong but they said it would have to be way back from the bridge let's put it way back into

[254:00] open space and you can imagine we'd have to build some kind of cement wall out there and 52 feet out and since it also has to prepare for being over topped you'd have to pave the stream bed after that that's at what point i said okay that's not going to happen near as i know this community that is probably a non-starter that's what i took away from that and that's a key element of variant too all of you other people can i know that we can engineer our way to it but aesthetically and what it would do to open space seem to me to be like okay that's not really an option then okay that's what suzanne jones took away from that meeting i'm happy for you guys to disagree or explain if you agree with that but that was very telling to me right that's my understanding as well from the meeting it's what they said so are you nodding to okay so yeah all nods okay so to me the

[255:00] implications was okay so variant two really isn't on the table are decision spaces variations on variant one um and and to me that's helpful tonight to know okay we heard from cu we know variant one is is the right answer or some i should say that quadrant and we need to negotiate within that space that's what i took away so i mean the way i think about it is it'll be good to get away from these discussions of variants because i just think of it as different locations of the spillway and so we have the the veli channel spillway version which i believe douglas you said is a tunnel that goes through the berm into the early channel and that's the spillway or we were considering the um using boulder creek itself as a spillway and we've kind of heard that that's not probably practical so we're back to the channel being what transports the water away

[256:01] as as the detention fills and then it drains it's going to go through really channel and then i think our discussion can be around um can we just see are you exactly right is that one small clarification sure so the variant one options whether it was 100 or 500 involved a lot of pooling to the west and picture sort of a high point in between two pools a certain amount of water gets trapped to the west which is why that tunnel is necessary under 36. so the vast majority when this bathtub empties goes under the cdot bridge the tunnel is necessary to drain the remaining component of water that is further west that is the fundamental difference which is why one had that tunnel and the other didn't see okay is that the west valley overflow the west valley overflow in general refers to the area up north okay so this is dragging areas that are inundated so veli channel is one of the 15 drainage ways and it contributes water back to south boulder creek

[257:01] downstream okay so we're taking a small percentage of the water i see i just wonder if we could have a map up just well just for back walking while we're talking yeah it'd be good to have a visual uh okay so this is the variant one 500 concept and everything in dark blue is the water and you see this yellow outlet tunnel there and so what as explaining don't forget north is to the right it's not up top so everything at the top here the water sort of gets stuck up there and so it has to make it back in so most of the water behind the concrete structure down at the bottom goes back through south boulder creek the main part of the channel but that little bit of water still needs to go back to the drainage way as well so it goes through an outlet tunnel and then the mechanism with which to get it back to south boulder creek is veli channel that's why you saw the yellow tunnel in the one option but not in the variant ii option okay thanks

[258:00] okay so that's the update portion of the evening does that work for people okay so then the direction you wanted maybe we've got to put that slide up is simply about meetings and in preparation for those meetings what else is there anything we want to make sure that staff is looking at given what we have learned so i'll just go ahead and say i think the recommendation is to have both meetings given the importance of this issue one is to further explore what this means because we've heard from cu we've still got some work to do um and then meet with cu in august so i think that the process committee is recommending we do both meetings does anybody disagree with that okay secondly in order to prepare for july 16th well and in preparation for a discussion

[259:01] with cu on the 13th what additional information and you know what maybe you should tell us what are you guys going to do something what are you guys planning to do absent us telling you anything to keep moving forward on with respect to the preliminary design no no we got that okay thank you for doing that i guess in terms of narrowing options and are you waiting for us to tell you you know i think at this point we're sort of at an impasse as it relates to something i think bob wanted to to make a comment here well i mean we're down to numbers now right and so the cs made it pretty clear that they 129 acres and so i guess the question is is are there within variant one or whatever we're going to call it now we can rename it within the plan are there variations on the plan that still do flood mitigation because that's our number one priority are there variations that um leave see

[260:00] you with i mean i think the bid asked right now is 129 acres is what they want and 99 acres is what they're getting the buildable right is there is are there are there variations on this plan that that get closer to 129 and and i don't know what those are i don't know if that would involve reducing the 500 year flood protection to 400 years or 300 years or it doesn't mean building on oso land or does it mean moving some boundaries around i mean i'm looking to you guys for that but i'm just throwing those out there are there things you can do that still achieves flood mitigation of some sort but it's really high caliber yeah i get the highest the color that we've been talking about but but achieves gets see you closer to 129 buildable acres that's the question i think don't answer that don't answer it that's what we would want to discuss on the 16th is that and is part of that also how we how i'm assuming that we're still protecting open space lands

[261:01] there's always open space yeah that would be the component that i would be looking for how are you going to do all of this and still or differently understanding what the open space impact is doesn't mean that we would do that but in other words these guys may come back and say oh geez we can give we can give see you 129 buildable acres but it affects 30 acres of open space and we say but that's not something i guess i would just add we made up the way we drew lines on the map is what resulted in 129 there's not necessarily anything magical about 129 it's just the result of how we drew lines so we might explore drawing lines differently some of those lands were oso some of them are open space some of them are lands we want to see restored so there's some some play there too it was also the 500-year floodplain consideration so that affected how some of the lines got drawn because our guiding principle was that we didn't want buildings in the 500-year floodplain right

[262:00] so i guess whoever we're looking at those are the kind of things we want explored would you like more direction than that or ask us some questions douglas can chime in so i would not expect that we'd be able to do engineering analysis of different things by then i also just want to make sure we've we've provided a variety of options in the past and i'm not sure to what extent we might just be revisiting some of those so like we did i think that the smaller footprint 500 and it was the one that was the excessive excavation i don't want to have the bookend there in terms of potentially looking at incrementally small design storms there's there's no magic number there you know so if we determine where reasonable footprint was we could optimize in that um we could give you a couple of samples of

[263:02] what that might look like in different sizes but there wouldn't be anything you know so the the fire on this and then you can go thank you i mean jeff i think the the direction that they're being asking for is that we have gone through some of this before right but um i think uh but the discussions with cu did not work out right so i think we're having to go back a step is my understanding of what we're talking about here and say well what are the options to give cu what they're looking for within the variant one parameters i think we probably do want to skip the really deep one that cost 30 million extra dollars right so that one probably don't want to talk over again but the but the hey if you have a lesser designed storm if you go into the oso land a little bit if you give them if you redraw the lines on the bvcp map like i think we i know we've gone over some of this before yeah but let's talk it over again what's the is that yeah i think that's it and i

[264:00] mean we're going to talk with cu and i know you're sitting there and if you guys want to say anything we'll ask you if you want to um but the other thing is that we also got new information about variant two which is ain't really an option which i think also gives some information to see you um if so if variant one is where we must play then we all must we almost take another look at where we can give because flood mitigation is everybody's highest priority absolutely so i'll just put that out there too and so i think what we would probably be able to bring you is kind of the bookends we've talked about before and give you a sense of where we might be able to to wiggle within those so probably not anything totally new but to be able to go here's kind of we could squeeze here we could squeeze here and here are the pros and cons so the 500-year design storm determines the detention volume in this case right and so it's something like 70 more than the

[265:01] 100-year design storm was it was some some ballpark like that so just tagging on what aaron said there's a continuum in there right and so it would be interesting to look at different volumes of detention and how much land that left for cu to be able to develop on so rather than thinking of it as a 400 300 200 year storm because i don't know that those are meaningful it could just be a detention volume and we could look at how much we'd be detaining versus the 500 500-year detention level in the 100-year detention level yeah yeah sam effectively what you're asking for is what i would call a sensitivity analysis okay absolutely have your 100 on one end you have your 500 on the other whether you decided to cut up in pies to 300 for whatever is one way to do it and see what the inundation is the other way to do that is look at what the inundation would be and then you would estimate statistically what level of service that would meet

[266:00] okay to use bob's example you know what does it leave from a buildable footprint what is the impact on open space it's a trade-off it's what we're talking about here so if you would like a few data points in between the bookends that jeff talks about then we can do that great yeah that's something i think that's the target cindy so one of the things while we're talking about wiggle room and looking at what we can do i would ask the university of colorado boulder to also look at what it may be able to do one of the things that we haven't heard are any definitive plans and if cu was really caring about their faculty staff and students they would be building i say this is a former regent emerita they would be building on grand view terrace rather than down there so i would like to see see you give a little bit of room here as well and be a good citizen and a good neighbor as we have tried to be all along the city and cu have tried to work their best together but i would ask that you really see

[267:01] where we are in this process and we have been trying to accommodate the university and i would hope the university would see where they might be able to move a little bit as well so [Music] that is helpful and maybe that's all we can give you tonight is that is that another question this is probably more of a question for council than it is for staff um i think when we when we arrived at variant one we um we we said back then several months ago that that we didn't want to build on or affect oso land is that do i am i remember that correctly sam my recollection is that we didn't want to have a major impact on major land because the detention for the other variant would have largely impacted the whole yeah so thanks for that so i guess the question is is does council still feel that strongly in other words if we had to if something had to give here right something had to give so we'd get some more buildable acres to see you and one was

[268:00] um reducing the the volume of detent detention as sam mentioned or the other was well we can we can still have the 500 year quality but we're going to have to do some impact on oso not open space but oso is that an option you guys would like them to bring forward that we're not making a decision tonight but is that another variable that you guys sensitivity and that you'd like to see i'm not making this up maybe either but isn't that what you would your data points will show various levels of inundation yeah that they would do exactly that okay is we're looking at everybody given a little bit and what would that look like well so actually but i think the the inundation is maybe a little bit different because we're i think we one of our options for moving forward and negotiating with cu is is digging a little bit in oso but it's also potentially you know saying to see well you might be able to use some of it do some of the oso and and and i would like for the options to be on the table for this next discussion because i think it's critical we move this

[269:00] project forward so to the extent that we have different choices that we can work over at our next meeting i think that's helpful i i would say as many options as you can you can think of variables i think around the spectrum variables our goals are a flood mitigation and b to get see you closer to one time no and it's also to minimize impacts that's all that's always overwriting okay well i just wanted we had to say all three so there's open space and there's open space other yes and so the open space other designation one of the ways we designated that was the 500-year floodplain right and so at least on that side of the project near the earth and berm that's in there now we had intentionally designated it that way because it would be hit in a 500 year flood so that's what makes it hard because you'd then be saying okay it's okay we're not going to follow the guiding principle it's okay to build and put buildings there and you know it's certainly not the recommendation of the

[270:00] association of floodplain managers at this point no i get that i guess that's the trade-off is this if we were going to inundate open space or do that you know which which do we hate least well oso preferably to open space we're not clinging to 129. again i think we should we have to look at the trade-offs yeah absolutely yeah okay yeah i want to throw one more variable in because we've introduced tonight the concept of having some impacts on open space so we will probably not by that point have had a chance to revisit how we might need to acquire and rehabilitate oso areas to provide a net positive benefit for open space because my assumption would be that if if we did to have temporary or permanent impacts typically the way you get mitigation is to go above and beyond the impact to have it be net positive so we may we may need to revisit what we would be seeking to equip i think that's important in oso okay

[271:00] um is that good enough for now see you did you want to say anything to us okay thank you for being here um all right what else i didn't hear an expectation on time just to be clear this is not something we could bring back in july now the good news is we would continue with the preliminary design and we would do these efforts in parallel so the main project of the preliminary design would not stop or even slow down we would add a scope of work to do what we're talking about here but i don't want to promise something that we cannot deliver here okay you guys and well i think the intent was that we would figure out what we could bring back high enough level to have something then and i think that and you can throw a shoe if you need to but i think we would try to figure out what we can so we will not have engineering design or detailed analysis but i think we can give you some general information and kind of range

[272:01] but it won't be it won't be detailed data on that turnaround i know right so just maybe a a progress update on july 16 like what you know already and then you know i think council cac would be willing to schedule time in to hear about this as you get results so whether it's as another meeting in august because i think it's of high concern as aaron says it's great that we're not slowing down on the preliminary design and the geotechnical work but we need to continue driving towards resolution on this so i think any when when you have it let us know and we are just sensitive that we have a number of times turned things around really quick that weren't fully cooked and they were taken as fully cooked and it doesn't tend to help so we will not like to bring you things that are that haven't been fully vetted for discussion we appreciate it can i i mean i appreciate that and we

[273:02] don't we don't want something presented as fully baked that is half-baked but if we're not if we don't have options to discuss in july i don't know why we're having the meeting you know i i mean my understanding is that this july 16th meeting was for us to look at are some of our potential options and think about how we might be willing to move forward as a council let me make an observation suggestion and observation that observation is is is the process committee's meeting on july 8th and we can accelerate that maybe a little bit if you need so we can kind of maybe test drive that a little bit and if if the committee says it's not ready for prime time we'll just pull the plug on it if that's okay that's fine but i do feel like we've seen most of this stuff already that's the other point i was going to make is is a lot of this stuff is is redo i mean just go back to your files i think it's potentially giving you slides you've already seen yeah i think it's colder i think it's absolutely we can do that if you actually want us to come back and say well how big is a 475-year pond that's not i think you guys have a lot of this work already i think the thing that's different is c dot is narrowing

[274:01] our space so we know we're closer to where we have to be and then within that before we could do a whole range of things and now we're narrowing it so it makes it a more meaningful discussion to look at the trade-offs as they're getting narrowed and also i think knowing that the flood wall is going to have impacts if indeed if that's looks like where we're headed then we also i think that's new information about owen's open space and how do we address that okay so do what you can be in contact with us you'll you guys in the realm no i thought the key point that jeff made is this is between the goal posts you know it's interpolating between two known it's not outside correct okay yes absolutely and you'll let csu know if it's not meaningful i have july 16th meeting but i think we'll stick with our august 13th since we've we're going to try to stick with both of

[275:00] them yes okay all right thank you everybody this is really helpful and i think well we'll just say to the public we know how important moving forward on flood mitigation and we've always felt that way and we're going to keep doing it so we're five minutes to ask it five minutes ahead of schedule we have three short matters you go first matters i don't know whose machine this is false it lives there um [Music]

[276:13] couple different parties to join uh an amicus brief a friend of the court brief in the supreme court there are three very important cases that are coming that the court is going to consider um that that address the question of whether title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity so we have been asked because we joined the brief in the masterpiece cake shop case i would recommend that we lend our support the brief is being drafted by the public rights project by the the county of santa clara and the city of san francisco i will of course review it and make sure that it doesn't it's not

[277:00] inconsistent with the city's values i don't expect it to be those all those organizations do excellent work so i would like council approval to join that brief everybody in it is pride month it is it is pride month um thank you for bringing this to our attention and absolutely yes um okay another real quick one is i sent to you all a letter that i want to see if the entire council wanted to sign or individuals if not the entire council wants and it has to do with the shoddy job that i'll back up the obama administration put a moratorium on the federal police program a moratorium on issuing new federal code leases and the trump administration undid that a court said you have to do analysis first so they took six weeks and then did an environmental assessment that found that there would be no

[278:00] climate impacts from restarting federal coal leasing of course who did and so that's 15 days yeah and gave 15 days to comment although they may end up changing that so anyhow i wanted to it this is in keeping with our climate agenda absolutely yep is everybody everybody's in okay so the whole council the whole council will figure out if they want to list us all or however they want to do it i'm also happy for you just to send a letter on behalf of all of us is that mechanically easier um we'll do whatever they want okay great thank you so much all right our third go ahead taking over the clerk's duties here oh a motion to approve appointments to boards and commissions and a process discussion okay so just to recap how many of these do we have to to make one two three four five six there's six sports only this time you didn't give us handouts okay six yeah

[279:01] so okay yes and a good question and then we're going to talk about the other ones okay but here are we considering also the transportation or whatever the other part of bjet is drafting can you show us the other slide for that one okay so it's the same okay and then just to clarify since we are still looking for someone to fill another seat on this board but neither of them qualify they do not they're not property owners i'm kind of done with the fact that we can't get people that want to serve and maybe we need to revisit the criteria well i did ask them if they would be willing to um seek out a property owner that would give them permission and neither one of them wanted to

[280:00] to take on that question for tom or um do do we have to have two bjob and and what would it take to not have to be jad boards they they it's been a while since we did this they have different responsibilities they're a different organizations i understand that we let them meet together we came as close as we could to emergencies we passed like could we through fiat change that is just a charter thing it comes under the condominium act um so it's how we created the boulder junction we created a condominium with units and these boards are part of it okay i have a different question so we made it so they could meet at the same time and essentially just switch hats can we change the criteria in terms of resident versus i can advise you on that i have to go back and look at the documents okay so because i think that would be right now yeah can we put one on one and one on the other there's two seats open on both right no

[281:01] there's only one seat for residents for for a resident okay so we'd have the benefit of having them both present with their brilliant okay i nominate sue for travel demand okay and ryan for parking yep second i'm fine with that okay okay um everybody's on board will officially vote in a minute okay okay okay okay who would like to nominate i'd like to nominate cherry goth i think aaron nominate mark gerwin okay those are the two um we'll close nominations can you all speak to your nominations whoever's prepared for women well i just mark growing has

[282:01] served the city ably in the past and he has a there's a lot of experience with working on architectural issues in the city so i think you would have to make a knowledgeable member of this board two women in three men okay lisa um yeah i mean sherry cherry is a um is an architect as well i guess they have to i don't know if they have to be or not but um and i just thought she interviewed well um i think actually you know either they're all very good but um oh we didn't flip our coin when you're ready to vote we'll flip okay and i would say that she hasn't served on the board so she hasn't served on the board well usually we straw poll it and then we officially vote i need to know which order to straw poll that's a big coin

[283:02] which way are we going all those for sherry five six six okay next should we get we can get two of these yep sam i i would nominate daniel teodoro i'll nominate tom clino this for the five-year term oh yep go ahead so i spoke with daniel yesterday and um because he also applied to hab and to osbt

[284:00] and asked him where he would rather serve and he said whatever you guys think i would best fit and um i'll throw it out there i think he would fit better in one of the other boards let me ask a question do we have a rule against somebody serving on two boards yes we do even for urban renault which doesn't mean because i've been the council liaison for three and a half years and we have never met there's a provisional charter that says that nobody can serve really well in that case i'll withdraw the nomination because he he's got a wealth of experience in um was in summit county right that he was working on so so let me make a suggestion then um why don't i suggest that we if you guys want to take daniel off and put them on have that we that we appoint tom now keep

[285:00] urban renewal one shy and then um cause i don't think anything's gonna happen in urban real between now and february and then we fill that spot in february and he was very good and he served or he just finished five years on prab so um i think he would be very good okay why don't we vote on uh the fif the five-year seat okay we're starting from the well we have one nominee okay so tom by acclimation to the five year seat um okay so we can hold the other one open or we can proceed what is the will of counsel

[286:00] well david didn't show up for the interview so i have no idea and i actually i thought hit well i'll just leave it there yeah i'd i'd prefer to hold it open okay so anybody object yeah although i just i don't want to presuppose i mean i i was very impressed by daniel theodore and i'm very willing to point him to a board i just don't want to pre-determine other board appointments coming but that's why we'll leave this one yeah so but i just want to put that out yeah so for example if daniel doesn't get appointed to have for some reason um he can presumably reapply to bureau yeah okay well he wouldn't even we're holding it open that's what i'm saying we'll hold it open and then he can apply in february to bureau oh oh you're not going to do it too well we can do it sooner if we want to we could just we're going to have another slave here's the other thing we can do let's just hold this seat open until we vote on have in open space we'll just and we can re-vote again yeah okay

[287:00] next we have two openings and two okay so which one i'd like to nominate todd for the five year um i had the president serving on prab when todd was the chair for a year or two and he's just a fantastic leader a fantastic chair he's a he's a professional mediator and he's just the kind of calm matthew seems like a great guy too i think they're going to be both great they both have great skills but but todd is just going to bring the leadership that i think that dab could benefit from and i think having him on for the full five years does that work for folks sure okay by acclamation todd for five years and matthew 4 2. does that work i'll just note that currently if somebody steps out to go to the bathroom at a dab meeting they don't have a quorum so it's really good that we're finally did last week okay excellent next i'd like to nominate zoe polk

[288:02] i would like to nominate susan newsom okay um we're gonna close nominations would you like to speak sure first of all they're both great i think we i i this is one i wish we had two appointments on um i think i'd say about zoe is um first of all her family's been in business on pearl street in downtown for 50 years exactly 50 years as pedestrian shops zoe is a young woman i don't even think she's 30 and i i think we don't have that many opportunities to get young people on our boards and i just would love to seize this opportunity to get a young person involved early on lisa so susan newsom is also part of a long time family here in boulder i think her father-in-law started nuzum's um nurseries where i had a lot of my stuff and um

[289:00] for my house and and um i just thought she had some pretty they both were great but i think susan had some really creative ideas and things that could i think help downtown and um and she's not that old either i mean she's she's a young woman she's not as young as zoe um but okay anyway i thought she was really good and so and she lives right off of downtown and works downtown and okay so anything else holder native alternative mm-hmm um lynnette we start from the top we start from the sorry the top yes all those in favor of susan all those for zoe two okay okay i would like to say too they were

[290:01] they're they were both really great at applicants and i hope zoe reapplies yeah she was really great totally how does she feel about boulder no [Laughter] okay all right next oh those are for later next time okay that's it so you can do an emotion on this well we're gonna um do it at the end um okay in terms of process who wants to sum up where we're at here yep very so i send sent out a hotline post that basically summarized where we're at but i will go over it so we have had recent resignations on the housing advisory board and on the environmental advisory board as well and we will be having one on the open space board of trustees so nearby and i spoke and

[291:00] and we thought that um and and heidi as well recommended or said that that's been how we do it in the past correct heidi that we um appoint from previous um applicant pool with the exception last year when we were looking for housing advisory board we needed a particular set of skills and we opened it up but in this case i think that the applicants in the pools from earlier this year have the appropriate skills so we recommend that we pick from that pool and that we um and this is something that i did not include in the in the hotline post that we um appoint in a couple of weeks um i think that makes it gives us a little more time to re-um visit the applications and watch the videos and it also provides staff some breathing

[292:01] room so and with regard to open space what did you find out about the date so i exchanged um an email with um andrea and she said that she is planning on staying on through august 2nd at that point is where the open space board is pretty much done with any having any impact on the master plan so um so and that's what she what her goal was to stay on until that point so um we'll be getting a resignation sometime around that time frame so are you recommending we go ahead and appoint in anticipation yes okay let's do it from the existing pools from the existing pool did

[293:00] just curious oh sorry i did the wrong one just oh there you go okay so so there's the open space and the star just means that those are the people that have responded back to me um or the star means actually that's the only person i haven't heard back from the rest would like to be considered okay but we have more time yeah you have a little more time okay can you go to the next one ab and then eab okay so we just have a good does that feel okay to people so i i have a quick question um is paul cure does he live in the city yes i've spoken with him believe and he does okay [Music] okay so you'll let us know i will do something we should give these people a little more time to get back to you about whether anybody's being taken off yep i just wanted to say i read jason

[294:01] vogel's letter of resignation today actually and i was really impressed with the things that the environmental advisory board has been doing in terms of everything from soil sequestration to he reeled off about four or five things and i thought i would really love to get an update from this board and he said one of the things he said which is true is that we've been so focused on the muni that we don't get really to look at this other range of things and i would be very interested in seeing what they're doing and hearing about what they're doing particularly after having heard brett can care and talk about soil sequestration on open space lands which was really interesting again just anything brief even anything written um but it'd be fun to have a presentation i look at it as fun that

[295:01] kind of thing okay which is so noted okay so can we have a motion or i guess actually well we need a motion then we'll see if there's anybody in the public that wants to speak to us i'm moved that we approved the nomination so we just suck does anybody want to speak to this okay we're closing the public hearing all those in favor of what we just lined up let's see lisa okay it's unanimous okay any process stuff before we adjourn can i just say we dealt with a lot of difficult topics and i thought the council did a good job on working through this collaboratively we are 15 minutes ahead of schedule all right people good night thank you

[296:00] [Music]