May 17, 2022 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] [Music] [Music]

[1:22] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[2:21] [Music] [Music]

[3:13] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[4:24] uh [Music] she was distracting you talking about something it's the second one that's hard right the first side gets by surprise the second year you're waiting you know [Music]

[6:40] so [Music]

[7:46] it's six o'clock so just let me know you should get going and we are live so you are welcome to start as you wish all right well good evening everyone and

[8:02] welcome to the may 17th 2020 may 12th may 17 2022 meeting of the boulder city council so we're going to start with a couple of announcements before we call roll and get started so the first one cover 19 testing and vaccinations testing for information and provider locations for free code 19 testing go to www.boco.org copic testing and that boulder site is at 2445 stasio drive it's open seven days a week 8 a.m to 6 p.m and for vaccine information and provider locations go to www.voco.org covet vaccine of course this is very timely information because our numbers are up we did move to medium level transmission of the community in the last few days we'll be getting an update later on in the meeting about exactly what that means but number one is that we're all virtual again for our council meetings so uh in order to prevent further spread of

[9:02] the virus okay next announcement celebrating safely during graduation with graduation parties to look forward to the city would like to remind you all all new grads to celebrate safely and never drink and drive choose a safe way to get home instead of getting behind the wheel and intoxicated so you can get an uber or a lyft and call a friend or a family member to pick you up or take the bus you can download the transit app for real-time info we've got great transit here in boulder and by celebrating safely you can help our community reach our vision zero goal of zero deaths and zero serious injuries on our streets and have nothing but celebrations for your graduation so congratulations to the class of 2022 and thank you for celebrating safely

[10:06] gotta get used to the mute button again alrighty good evening everyone councilmember benjamin president mayor brockett president council member falkert present mayor pro tem friend here council member joseph i didn't okay great no worries just wanted to make sure i knew you were here all right councilmember spear president wallach here weiner present and yates you're from home mayor we have our quorum thank you alicia so if we can start i'm hoping for a motion to amend the agenda we need to

[11:00] make a few changes one is to add item 1b an update on the city of buffalo and words of support and item 6b the medium coveted risk impacts and steps the city's city is taking and also to remove item 6a the update of the boulder museum contemporary arts community culture and safety tax matching grant agreement and rescheduling that to next week so moved second motion in a second uh we do a show of hands all right looks like we got all in favor that's unanimous so the amen agenda is duly amended right well we're now going to move to a gun violence awareness day decoration to be presented by council member benjamin so matt if you could do that for us please my pleasure mayor um this declaration was scheduled before the tragic events in buffalo um

[12:00] so it has added added weight for those of us that are certainly um reliving our tragedy here in the community um so it's it's an honor but it's also with a heavy heart to read this declaration every day more than 110 americans are killed by gun violence on average there are more than 15 000 gun homicides every year and americans are 25 times more likely to die by gun homicide than people in other high-income countries colorado has an average of 850 gun deaths every year with a rate of 14.5 deaths per 100 000 people colorado has the 22nd highest rate of gun deaths in the us gun homicides predominantly occur in cities with more than half of all firearm related deaths in the nation occurring in 127 cities cities across the nation including in boulder are working to end the senseless violence with evidence-based solutions protecting public safety in the communities they serve is the highest responsibility of council

[13:01] support for the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from people with dangerous and violent histories council and law enforcement officers know their communities are the most familiar with the local criminal activity and how to address it and are well positioned to understand how to keep their community members safe the pandemic facing america is has dramatically impacted communities and individuals sheltering in place which may result in situations where a cross to fire where access to firearms results in the increased risk in intimate partner gun violent deaths suicide by gun and unintentional shootings in january 2013 hadiyah pendleton a teenager who marched in the presidential inaugural parade was tragically shot and killed just weeks later should be now just sweet sorry should be killed oh she was shot and killed just weeks later should be now celebrated she would be now celebrating her 25th birthday to help honor hadiya and the more than 110

[14:00] americans whose lives are cut short every day and the countless survivors who are injured by shootings every day a national coalition of organizations has designated june 3rd 2022 the first friday in june as the eighth 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 the color that symbolizes the value of human life anyone can join the campaign by pledging to wear orange on june 3rd the la the first friday of june in 2022 to help raise awareness about gun violence by wearing orange we can raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of gun violence victims and survivors following the king shooper's table mesa mass shooting on march 22 2021 in the city of boulder we renew our commitment to reduce gun violence now more than ever and pledge to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our community

[15:00] safe we the city council of the city of boulder colorado declared june 3rd 2022 as national gun violence awareness day and encourage all community members to support their local communities efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor and value human lives thank you so much for that matt that's very important and do we have anyone to receive this declaration good evening council this is taylor um yes i believe nicole from mom's demand action is here to give some remarks hi nicole hi thank you for the introduction taylor um thank you council members and mayor brockett for once again recognizing national gun violence awareness day here in the city of boulder as the local group lead of monster demand action we appreciate you honoring the victims their families and the communities who

[16:00] are affected by gun violence i want to thank you all for bringing awareness to the scourge of gun violence a report came out recently saying that firearms overtook auto accidents as the leading cause of death of children but this is something that we've been raising the alarm about for years and while we have created numerous regulations around car safety features and laws designed to protect children from deaths in auto accident we have done little to change the statistics around childhood death by firearm this declaration is a recognition of the problems and risks of being in a society that has access to deadly weapons and for all of the debate around our right to bear arms these are the statistics that being aware really highlights forty five thousand two hundred and twenty two people in america died by firearm incident in 2020. over four thousand and three hundred of

[17:01] those deaths were children an estimated 22 million guns were sold in america in 2020 alone this is a purchase increase of 40 percent there are an estimated 400 million guns in the hands of civilians in america but polls show only about 32 percent of americans report personally owning a firearm nationally six out of every 10 gun deaths are suicides with colorado seeing a 75 percent of firearm deaths as suicide um increase their in colorado the rate of gun suicide increased by 28 percent and gun homicides increased 103 percent from 2011 to 2020 compared to a 12 increase in a 70 percent increase nationwide respectively these numbers should put us all into a

[18:01] place of discomfort america author jason reynolds said be not afraid of discomfort if you can't put yourself in a situation where you are uncomfortable then you will never grow you will never change and you'll never learn thank you boulder city council for acknowledging that each death by firearm is worth all of our collective acknowledgement thank you so much for that nicole and we do so appreciate the partnership of mom's demand action reducing gun violence in our communities uh taylor did you have something you want to add yeah thank you mayor so much and thank you nicole for those those um really great words um i just did want to make the council and the community aware that we have scheduled um the bandshell to be lit up in orange on june 3rd um in support of this day you taylor and um rachel um thanks for noting that taylor and i

[19:00] just want to say um a personal thank you to nicole i think she is stepping down as chapter lead after a lot of years of doing really great work and um sort of propelling our local chapter into um a really state of the art um activism um spot where we can do good work and they they lift us all up they monster man action and nicole and others who are leadership were instrumental in bringing the community together um after our mass shooting and and organizing a vigil so i'm just really grateful and wish nicole well in her next endeavors thanks for that okay well we're moving on to our next item about an update on events in buffalo new york so i'll just say a few words here this past weekend our country experienced yet more devastation from

[20:00] gun violence with mass shootings in a number of locations including laguna woods california and buffalo new york and the circumstances of the buffalo shooting in particular hit very close to home as we and boulder know all too well the terror and the trauma of a mass shooting in our beloved neighborhood grocery store and king supers and table mesa so i along with other members of council and nuria our city manager have reached out to city leadership in buffalo including mayor byron brown to express our condolences and support and solidarity for their loss we also know that the shooter in buffalo specifically targeted the black community there and we unequivocally condemn the horrific hate crime we know that our community may want to lend support to buffalo at this time and if and how we learn more about the opportunities to support that city we will share it we have let them know that we stand ready to offer whatever kind of support that we

[21:00] can and we did get the a request from the buffalo mayor uh to light uh city buildings in orange in solidarity with their city and so thank you taylor for pointing out that we will be you doing that um to like the band shell in orange and we're also aware that this past weekend's event may serve as a difficult reminder for many of us here in boulder the trauma that we experienced in our community a little bit over a year ago so through our cross-agency boulder strong efforts please know that we've reached out to the families of the march 22nd 2021 victims and to king supers directly and we also want to remind the community that the boulder strong resource center remains available to offer support however you might need it and this support is provided at no cost in this slide i believe we're getting a slide up on the screen there we go this this slide includes the current hours of operation and the address of that facility

[22:00] and for him for more information you can check the website as well we are boulderstrong.com so our hearts are with buffalo and the other communities that have suffered from this continued senseless gun violence that's a scourge on our nation and i will also say that in just a few weeks on june 7th we have ordinances that we are bringing forward uh to pass additional gun control regulations to stem some of this uh horrific gun violence that we experience in our in our country and our community so um come back to us on june 7th for that public hearing and action that we will be taking action and not just speaking words on that day that's that's what i had to say but i'll open it up if anyone else wanted to offer any additional thoughts

[23:00] and we will now move on uh to open comment i believe so ryan or brenda will you go over our public participation guidelines yes thank you and thank you emily for bringing those up um sorry i missed my camera there welcome my name is brenda rittenhauer i am the communication and engagement representative um hosting public participation this evening um we like to begin open comment by reminding folks about our guidelines and sharing that we worked with community members to co-create this vision for productive and meaningful and inclusive civic conversations we um we use this vision to support physical and emotional safety for community members and counsel as well as promoting democracy for people of all ages identities lived experiences and political perspectives

[24:00] for more information about this vision you can go to the city of boulder homepage oldercolorado.gov and search productive atmospheres in the search bar next slide please emily next slide please number one on the next slide we have some examples that are pulled from our rules of decorum and the bolder revised code and other guidelines we use in the city and these will be upheld during this evening's meetings all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability of this meeting to continue are prohibited and participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they're commonly

[25:02] known by and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online i have seen all of your whole names those who are registered tonight so thank you so much for that and currently only audio testimony is permitted online thank you mary you may continue thank you so much brenda all right so nine people sign up for open comments uh each person gets two minutes to speak to us and our first three speakers are mary gorman patrick murphy and michelle and emily it looks like oh sorry just looking for the timer go ahead i'm i i'm unmuting hello my name is mary gorman having been a resident of boulder and a city pool user for the past 34 years i am very

[26:01] disappointed that spruce pool will not open this summer i want to make sure the entire city council is fully aware of the long-term consequences of the aquatics department's closures and limited offerings of our public pools i spoke with the director of parks and rec allison rhodes she said even pre-pandemic they had severely reduced swim lessons and eliminated the kids swim team now as kovit is surging again she is choosing not to open spruce a safer outdoor pool and instead will deploy guards to north and east because it's too expensive to open another facility even though there is money in the budget to open spruce if they could find guards press releases stated the reason spruce pool will not open is because the aquatics department was not able to hire enough lifeguards even though there is enough money in the budget well there was one lifeguard training on may 5th during ceus finals week and the

[27:02] other training is scheduled for mid-june with 15 people on a wait list also note the website says applicants must pay upfront 50 to 127 dollars for a training suggestions offer free lifeguard trainings more frequently like every week in may before the summer season and then keep offering them year round pay guards more than fifteen to eighteen dollars an hour target offers twenty to twenty eight dollars for stocking shelves give hiring bonuses and bonuses plus benefits for all returning employees it is the park and rec administrators responsibility to develop new styles of recruiting and hiring they can fulfill the taxpayers desires to have fully functional parks and rec programs like with certified lifeguards and experienced pool maintenance workers what what will happen to there i'm afraid your time is up but thank you so much for your testimony

[28:02] next we have patrick murphy and michelle hill and melissa printmaker my name is patrick murphy i've lived in boulder 52 years the planet burns floods and dies while boulder fiddles with climate change i attended the once every three-month meeting of the boulder xl advisory panel what they voted to approve was flawed and once again the product of old ideas from the muni here's an example of one deeply flawed item that rejected the use of rex based on the buzzwords authentically additive slide two the definition of authentically additive makes it seem that existing wrecks are of no value and ignores the fact that any new project has non-additive wrecks after the first wreck is generated we should be filling the gaps of our carbon footprint with wrecks of any flavor now and into the future because wrecks stimulate the renewables industry no matter where they come from

[29:01] the advisory panel voted to approve this flawed goal without real critical review also note that the voting demonstrated only about 10 or 14 of the 17 panel members were attending despite carolyn elam's claims that they're all active i'd like you to verify this and have some real accounting otherwise the panel is not representing a cross-section of boulder the next ridiculous limitation the panel leaders have foisted on us is the restriction to only invest in actions that are in state it's called a global climate crisis and this limitation is ludicrous in its blindness the equity lens is also smudged as boulder government spends money on electric vehicles and building electrification this money could be leveraged to produce twice the benefit if used as incentives for the public boulder government seems to have champagne tastes with a tap water budget and likes to tell most of its citizens that we're rich and you must be too

[30:03] well most of us are not thank you thank you patrick next we have anne michelle hill melissa printmaker and gala orban good evening council my name is anne michelle hill i've been a boulder resident for 15 years raising two kids and volunteering for moms demand action just as i did in 2018 and in light of this weekend's events i support banning assault weapons large capacity magazines and bump stocks obviously however data gathered by the cdc show that more gun deaths occur not mass shootings but in suicide and domestic violence firearms are the leading cause of death for children in colorado according to a daily camera article boulder experienced close to 200 suicide attempts last year amongst 17 to 20 year olds

[31:00] an annual average of 26 gun suicide suicide deaths occurred in boulder county raising the age to purchase to 21 and requiring a waiting period as proposed can stop an impulsive and irreversible act i strongly encourage those ordinances to be passed ordinance 8259 requiring signage stating the dangers of owning a firearm could be an impactful proposal however i think it could be more effective with more useful information and strategically placed in more locations the public needs education about the extreme risk protective order and safe storage requirement the irpo law could have actually prevented the king super killing had his family been aware and acted on this law his weapon could have been removed from his possession also the safe storage requirement when children are in the home is extremely important for preventing accidental deaths and suicide amongst children these laws could be stated on their proposed signs the signs could be posted

[32:01] not only at gun dealers but also at firing ranges mental health facilities and delivered to parents of the school district colorado's suicide and homicide rates are increasing at a pace much faster than the national average we must make local changes and we need it now thank you for the opportunity to address you today let's do this thank you now we have melissa printmaker gala orba and lynn hi can you hear me yes great hi my name is melissa and i have been a resident of the city of boulder for 27 years i am a gun violence survivor which means that i have lost close loved ones several to death by gun for me this was from both murder and suicide it took losing two beautiful friends in 2016 for me to get involved in gun violence prevention and i am speaking to you hoping that someday enough will be done so that others don't have to speak to

[33:01] you like this i am tired i am tired of talking about my friends that i lost in this context and i want to see the madness end i encourage you to pass the gun violence prevention ordinances that you've prepared regarding ghost guns they are do-it-yourself homemade guns that are purchased without a background check or any other traceable documentation technology is moving faster than most realize or want to accept making a gun at home is not something we want to become a norm yet ghost gun recoveries are on the rise with most being connected to criminal enterprises done trafficking rings and far right extremists no more please regarding open carry no one should have to worry about a firearm when they go to a park or a playground allowing guns into spaces where children play where people gather to vote or demonstrate or other sensitive government buildings puts us all at risk

[34:01] wearing a gun in the open is flat out bullying and research shows that the presence of a visible gun makes people aggressive in an average year more than 10 000 hate crimes in the u.s involve a firearm more than 28 each day oh i don't have to draw the connection for you this past weekend another sick mass shooting occurred an act of racist terrorism this could happen anywhere i'm sure people have said thank you for your courage i'd like to refrain and say thank you city council for doing your job thank you for not shying away from what could be twisted to say controversial and instead should be seen as simply taking care of business thank you thank you melissa next we have gala orba lynn siegel and kathleen charles hello council my name is gala and i'm an actuarial scientist

[35:00] i enjoy the math behind risk assessment and i like to make decisions based off of analyzing data i bet sources of data to make sure that they are an accurate representation of the population they're not skewed for propaganda purposes and i i do that analysis before i use them moms demand action has accurate data i do not represent them tonight but i just wanted to let you know a little bit about my process i'm also a teacher and feel like both students teachers and service workers should be safe at school the data shows that 18 to 20 year olds commit gun homicides at a rate that is four times higher than adults 21 and older so this ordinance change will help keep firearms out of the hands of people more likely to misuse them

[36:00] one study found that state laws raising the minimum legal age to purchase firearms to 21 years was associated with a nine percent decline in rates of firearm suicides among 18 to 20 year olds i also agree that no one should have to worry about a firearm when they take their kids to a playground allowing guns into parks where children play and at crowded demonstrations or other sensitive government buildings puts all of us at risk hopefully we can add grocery stores and movie theaters and schools in this list in the future as well i hope to see a decline in mass shootings through the years instead of an increase in frequency and i can't help but wonder if banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons is the way to do that perhaps we can talk more in the future thank you so much for your time tonight and thank you for helping our community

[37:01] thank you uh next we have lynn segal kathleen charles and nicole leah broughton interrupt me if the transmission is impaired instantly please um first i wanted to bring up shireen the assassination by the israelis of a reporter in janine where there was a massacre in 2002 and reporters and everybody else was shut out from seeing the massacre and ironically there was a great film you should all see it called janine janine um and it's interesting because there are two genes but there's not three the first janine was the massacre in 2002 the next one was the assassination of shireen that should never have happened it's unconscionable the buck stops here for israel stop all support to israel

[38:01] um guns none none at all there won't be people stockpiling because the rest of us will stop them we are so done with firearms it is so yesterday we have evolved out of them entirely no more discussion um alyssa i just realized this week that's the guy that did the shooting at boulder i just realized he and his family moved in 2003 when he was four years old with eight siblings and two fam two family members from arika which is east of aleppo syria and that was the same year we attacked iraq not much surprise that he moved to come here and experienced islamophobia and reacted to it so it's a provocation and he did it in a in a you know in a

[39:00] high-end community this other guy you know people everyone has a mental level but with stochastic terrorism which is when someone rises above that because there's an angst in the whole world community then mental cases rise to the occasion then your time is up but thank you very much for your testimony next we have kathleen charles nicole leah bratton and rachel daly hello i'm kathleen thank you for listening to me i actually live in neighboring jeffco but i work in boulder and have on and off for several years and just have unfortunately never been able to live inside city limits ever since i finished cu but i would like to thank you all for considering these gun violence gun safety ordinances as nicole mentioned earlier

[40:01] gun violence is now the leading cause of death in children in this country which is just shameful and it's just been an issue that's been ignored for far too long and people seem afraid to address it and it's crucial to address so i really appreciate that you're taking the time to do so it's i think a sad sign in our country that it is controversial because there can be no harm when you're looking at violence prevention open carry restrictions are of interest to me my children were raised in australia for the last eight years up until just before the pandemic started so their first time seeing a gun in public was in yellowstone last year and it was terrifying they know as children that there's only one thing a gun can do and they don't understand why someone would need to carry it around out in the open waiting periods are also of interest

[41:00] we've all seen far too often the effects of hate desperation anger when it's armed and so cooling off period i think can be helpful and in our country it seems that a bottom-up approach seems to be the best way i wish this would just get taken care of nationally but i think at the local level in our municipalities we need to show the state and then just keep working up at what the people in our country really want so again thank you for the time to address you this evening thank you kathleen our last two speakers are nicole leo broughton and rachel daly again um it's me nicole and i am speaking tonight to support the gun sense local ordinances i'm the mother of two young boys who go

[42:01] to school here in boulder i'm a proud military brat and i learned at a very early age how to check the safety on a handgun while firing aluminum cans in my grandparents backyard like many americans i am a gun owner i was going to start my comments with a list of shootings that i have been personally identified with in one way or another but sadly that list is too long to cover in two minutes particularly after the news of four mass shootings over the weekend i just want to say i'm saddened i'm angry and i'm wondering is it enough is this enough for change gun violence has a long history in america and in more recent years uh suburban communities saw the problem of gun violence as the problem of others an urban problem politicians were tempted by the funds of the nra and their connections and their marketing and now we've arrived at a place of

[43:00] being desensitized to a culture of people killing people and themselves with firearms and some people have decided that the problem is too big or that it's happening somewhere else but it's not somewhere else it's in every community in america we know that mass killings are more deadly when a firearm can be modified to fire bullets faster we know that waiting periods reduce death by firearm suicide and that suicide by firearm is almost always deadly we know that higher homicides by firearm are 45 percent of all homicides and we know that victims of domestic violence are five times more likely to die at the hands of their abuser if there is access to a firearm i'm here to support the local ordinances and city council for having the bravery to bring these forth and to have a conversation as a community thank you so much for being the voice of change thank you nicole and lastly we have rachel daley

[44:11] rachel i see that you're unmuted but we can't hear you we're still not getting your voice okay rachel i apologize for not getting anything from you um but perhaps you could uh take whatever testimony you're going to speak and send it to us an email so we can get it from you that way so since we're not able to hear from rachel that completes open comment on all of our speakers i'll turn to city staff to see if you have uh responses to any of the speakers

[45:00] just a quick one mayor i'd say that first of all i i just want to so appreciate folks who have shared their vulnerability and passion and heartfelt stories around gun violence prevention and i know that um you all will be taking that up soon but mostly i think i wanted to respond to the speaker who talked a little bit about our pools and just want to say because i know that we are all concerned about staff shortages in general lord knows i have been a big champion of trying to do all we can that recruit i want to say that we continue to do that we know that we are battling just like every other frankly municipality and our private industries who we hear the same stories to recruit good folks and wanted to share that part of what we've been doing is we've hired a consultant we are looking at our competitiveness in the marketplace we are looking at how to be a leader in the public sector um here in our region and we are doing all that we can to think about what are those potential incentives that we can do to bring more people on board so i just wanted to

[46:01] share out loud that we too share uh communities concern and consternation when our lack of staffing doesn't allow us to move forward with some things we ourselves would like to and we are trying to move on it as fast as we can and remain that sort of employer of choice as we move forward so just wanted to share those words thanks for that um didn't any council members want to follow up on anything mark yeah um thank you nuria for the comments with respect to the pool situation uh the first thing that struck me when the speaker put up the slides of her suggestions is that it's a little anomalous if we're short of lifeguards to be charging them to be trained as lifeguards um does that make sense i appreciate the question i don't see ali here with us today but i'm sure that

[47:00] there are there was a reason for which that happened and i don't want to speak without knowing and so i'll make sure that we get back to you about what that looks like as we move forward and and maybe at some point at ali's leisure uh not that she had a lot of leisure but at some point convenient for ali she she might respond to some of those other suggestions and uh can we do them why can't we do them i'm sure there's a rationale for everything and nice to know about it no i appreciate that mark and part of what we certainly are looking at uh what compensation we offer a variety of positions we're trying we're frankly and i it's a conversation i have with staff all the time um trying to be consistent across an organization because some jobs and perhaps lifeguard is not the the one to choose but some jobs are similar depending on what uh but but could be paid differently depending on what department you're in so we're trying to be consistent which is why we hired someone from the outset to make sure that we're actually trying to lift

[48:00] everyone up um and frankly as i talked to um city managers and administrators across the region we are all in similar votes as we move forward so everyone is offering bonuses and incentives and raising salary and that is artificially lifting uh salaries across and and we have to be mindful on on what's sustainable but we are certainly looking at that um across the board well if you get the compensation high enough there's at least one city council member who might be interested in being trained as a lifeguard to supplement our current income um so let us know we will keep that in mind mark are you volunteering me i don't know if i'm up for this [Laughter] okay thanks for that um nicole yeah i'm sorry mark i'm not a good enough swimmer uh for that unfortunately but um i did want to just put out a plug to the community anybody listening if you know teenagers um you know if you are somebody who has a little bit of

[49:01] extra time and might not mind a little bit of extra money um in your pocket we could really use some help with recruiting too and so you know please appeal to those in your life um who who may be interested and try to help us out with recruiting if you can thanks for that nicole all right well if we don't have any other comments on this uh elisha can we can you take us to the consent agenda please sir that is item three on tonight's agenda and that includes items a through h very good does anyone have any uh questions or comments on the consent agenda rachel i had a couple questions um on three c um where we are looking at um sewer interceptor project if i'm numbering this right and noted in the memo it says that rab

[50:00] has been supportive it looks like there was no vote um or dissent or discussion and um so i'm just wondering if that's like it seems like i think it was around 60 million dollars it's a it's a goodly amount of money so i just wanted to make sure that that we had um all rabs feedback because i've been to a number of rap meetings and finding them to generally have really helpful comments so um that was just one question and then also i believe that this is a first reading so wondering if maybe we could invite the chair of brad to be here for second reading if that might help i believe joe is around uh joe tattayucci there he is i am here uh good evening uh good evening mayor and members of the council joe teddyci i'm the utilities director and definitely rab has been supportive of the interceptor project and it is one of the highest priority projects in utilities as a whole

[51:02] and so we're excited to be moving forward this will this will allow us to to move forward expeditiously without delay and um still negotiating good faith with uh property owners regarding rab i need to look at the memo here and um trying to recall whether we've discussed this with them specifically or if that was just a general statement around the their support for the project it said something like rab has been supportive just there was a general statement of support which is maybe just usual for how things come up but often we'll see like a vote and a vote was 5-0 and and you know it'll give a little bit of context and so i just didn't see that here so yeah and just that this is more of an operational item and how we manage the project so they don't vote specifically on an item like like this yeah but they've been

[52:01] supportive of the project through the cip so i think that's what that's what we mean by that okay thanks joe i had a couple more questions i think but i don't know if we want to go uh there's there's a lot on the consent agenda so if anybody else is okay all right um i think next on d um do we will we be getting we don't have a presentation on this correct and uh designating landmark for first reading um okay i just wanted to um make sure i understand the process for this because if if i'm reading the first reading correct um it is where there is a split between staff and the board as here i assume the bulk of discussion would still take place at second reading or do we need to be asking any clarifying questions tonight hi this is james hewitt historic

[53:00] preservation planner uh tonight is your opportunity to ask questions that we can answer in the second reading memo um and so yeah um we we aren't necessarily um you know we we do think that the the boundary expansion should happen we're just feeling that it might it might make sense to wait till next year so um but i can elaborate a bit more about that in the second reading memo if that's helpful i think it would be helpful yeah they're um want to make sure that we're understanding and and i think that maybe fleshing out the timing a bit more um just sort of how how we got here i mean i think it was a lift up landmark right and then uh staff is thinking it'll be better um timed for a year from now but yeah just i think going into more depth on that would help absolutely thanks

[54:01] thanks um okay so that's that one and if relevant maybe to invite the landmark chair for that hearing as well since there is a split if that wasn't automatic um i think that those are all i have on consent actually for my questions thanks okay thanks rachel uh mark yeah i have a question for james as well um you say you are essentially in support of changing the boundary mark you're a mute uh i'm hearing him yeah i'm not on you i don't believe can can you hear me james i can okay um you state that you are generally in support of changing the boundary what is the functional difference between doing this as a standalone as opposed to folding it into a larger project i mean is there any possible designation for the bandshell um going forward other than uh as a

[55:01] landmark property i mean we're not going to put a costco there um what other what other use might you contemplate for that piece of property that we ought to be aware of well uh and and you probably know this but the but the ban shell is landmarked right now as is the seating and this is the proposal to expand the boundary to the ditch um and so it is a recognition of that larger park area and um the friends of the band shell submitted this application in the landmarks board um you know is the applicant so i i guess your your your question is the question is what what does the uh if this is the direction we're going to go one way or the other um why aren't we simply doing it now yeah is this is this a dispute that has teeth to it or is it

[56:01] well i don't think there's really a dispute um james if you if you don't mind i know you know this but just want to make sure as you're answering questions that you're mindful of that quasi-judicial space that we often find ourselves in so just want to say that thank you yes um so uh that that's actually nuria's got a good point um but i i can explain in the in the memo that once again it's it's really just about the timing and because the landmark application comes quite quickly and there wasn't a lot of time to share with the prabh and um the public the idea of the expansion we thought it as staff that it would make sense to just just push that out into the next year and so our one of our recommendations is as you'll see in the memo is that we would make that a part of our work plan in the next year 2023 that is to to look at the a larger area which is a best practices um in

[57:01] historic preservation to look at a larger area uh but there but to answer your question there's no reason other than that that it couldn't happen now okay so thank you thank you okay um i'm not seeing any other hands perhaps motion might be in order and everybody jump on it once i move the consent agenda okay second right we have a motion and a second alicia all right sir we will start this vote with you mayor brockett yes council member folkerts yes mayor pro tem friend yes

[58:02] council member joseph yes spear yes wallach yes weiner yes yates yes and benjamin yes the coincidence the consent agenda passed unanimously nine to one nine to zero great thanks alicia thanks everybody all right we've got uh four call-up check-ins and i think we have um a little bit of a presentation for the first one so who should i hand that off to you elaine all right all right elaine and they read it into the record too is that okay or you want to go ahead and proceed well i was going to see if maybe elaine might start us off but either one of you could read into the

[59:00] record to get us going on what the item is okay missy lane i was going to suggest alicia if you've got it handy please go go forward i have it thank you that's item 4a on tonight's agenda the citing use review application for the redevelopment of a 9.27 acre property located at 3320 28th street and 3265 and 3267 30th street as a mixed use development with new street connections and ground floor retail along 28th street and with ground floor amenity space along street a the project includes 282 residential units the adjacent boulder housing partners diagonal court town homes property is included in the proposal and a new park is proposed to be shared between the two properties this is reviewed under case number lur 2021-0037

[60:01] great thanks for that alicia and good evening everyone i'll share the screen and please let me know if you don't see the presentation um and i'll try and go ahead and fix that um everybody see this screen at this point yes excellent all right so just as a brief overview as requested by council of the process in the project and planning boards uh decision and discussion so the planning process to date has been pretty thorough almost exactly a year ago the concept plan for this site was reviewed by the planning board and then after a call up by council uh city council discussed it on july 13th last year and um at that time indicated support for the direction of the plan that was presented in particular uh

[61:01] given the desire to revitalize the area along with the need for residential and at that time council also supported the applicant's suggestion of an ordinance to achieve a greater number of residential units as was presented in the concept plan so then following concept plan review the applicant filed their site and use review application and staff reviewed the application and resubmittals on four occasions uh city council um the recommendation for an ordinance was brought forward as 8512 and that was to permit a reduction in open space and then after planning board's unanimous recommendation council in turn unanimously approved the ordinance in october last year so while the site is not part of an area that required dab review staff referred it to the design advisory with some

[62:01] specific areas of discussion dab reviewed and provided feedback on the plans in a lengthy meeting december and then at the end of last month planning board reviewed and unanimously approved the site news review application so that brings us to where we are this evening so then it's important to note that while there is no area plan for diagonal plaza there was a planning process a little over 10 years ago that focused on diagno plaza wins city council at that time explored strategies to revitalize diagonal plaza which has been struggling for decades and at that time they requested the assistance of an urban land institute technical advisory panel or a tap and they provided findings on how best to achieve revitalization the study concluded that um an incremental approach to revitalization and redevelopment would be the most achievable and workable in partnership with boulder housing partners to create a mix of uses in a

[63:01] main street configuration that you see there in a sketch on the left and essentially to springboard off of the existing affordable housing that's there the report at the time noted several factors that still exist today that include the underutilized site that context that has highly used transit and surroundings that have a significant amount of goods and services in the area so the bbcp recognizes the site as part of a neighborhood center and oftentimes we're here discussing centers because that is an area where the bvcp has recognized that there's greater potential for infill and redevelopment and are higher intensity compared to established residential neighborhoods and then it's important to note as a neighborhood center diagonal plaza is intended to contribute to a sense of place and an achievement of a walkable 15-minute place and it's important to

[64:00] note that the comp plan also anticipates neighborhood centers to have a mix of usage as well as a range of services so just to bring us all succinctly to an aerial view of this area it's and it's familiar to most of us but there's a significant amount of retail and services in the area in the broader context uh that includes of course the safeway shopping center across uh 28th street along with willow spring shopping center nearby and everything from medical facilities to fitness and salons and restaurants and even an auto dealership three and four-story apartments are south of the site and also across 30th street to the east and then there's also some across diagonal highway most of us know the site itself it's about seven acres in the l shape that you see there on the south and west end of diagonal plaza marked by broad surface parking lots and a retail building that has walgreens on one end and vacant retail space on the south

[65:02] boulder housing partners diagonal court apartments is on the south side of the site and that part of the project brings the total of uh the site is being about 9.7 acres so then it's also important to note that the bulk of that l-shaped project site that you can see in blue outlines under separate ownership from the other retail buildings at the shopping center and because of the multiple ownerships um it's been acknowledged as primarily one of the reasons that the site's not successfully redeveloped over the decades and until now essentially with this site anticipated to be a catalyst so the proposed project's a mixed-use development there's two new east-west streets you can see their street a and b a new north-south connection along with a new multi-use path and then reconstruction of the multi-use path on 28th street there's the new park space planned at the apex of that l-shape 282 residential units in varying sizes

[66:03] and configurations are planned along with around 23 000 square feet of commercial space there's also amenity spaces and the planning board approved the applicant's request for 25 parking reduction however the applicant's request for long-term bike parking reduction was not included in the approval and then as you'll note uh from the renderings presented the architectures varied with some of the buildings illustrated with pitched roofs and variation in materials pallet that include brick composite wood and metal panel height modifications are approved by the planning board with some of the buildings required to provide for community benefit for the added height planning board discussed two key issues regarding consistency with both the site news free criteria for the site review the board concluded that the proposed project addresses a number of bbcp policies as

[67:01] it's intended to be a compact infill redevelopment project um and with those just under 300 residential units it will help with the jobs housing imbalance that exists today and that will also help to establish a new urban design pattern to help revitalize the diagno plaza area and then findings were made that the project meets the criteria for building design in that it's intended to present ground floor activity and design details for a pedestrian oriented neighborhood particularly along the streets and new streetscapes of course will help to establish trees um and contribute to the urban forest uh street trees um in an urban forest and the project essentially transforms the existing parking lot um into an area with a sense of place as is anticipated in the comp plan

[68:00] and then in addition the five uniquely designed buildings were found to be in keeping with the building design criteria related to mass and scale compatible in the context and with the surroundings and that the buildings are designed with durable attractive materials that request for the 25 parking reduction was supported by the site review criteria given the transit rich context and implementation of some principles um and then the request for the 45 or rather 34 long term biking uh bike parking reduction was not supported by the board so then the key issue related to a use review for ground floor residential is given that areas in appendix and in business community areas do necessitate that additional review and the ground floor residential units were found to be consistent in that they'll be designed in a manner that wouldn't adversely affect the function

[69:00] or character of the other retail that's not only in diagonal plasma but in the expanded area and in addition um it's essentially creating an inline configuration with that new street a that also will help to create a new pedestrian configuration so with that uh planning board unanimously approved the site in use review application with conditions and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have any inaccuracy and what i'm about to say i don't have the document in front of me um uh planning board member mcintyre raised an issue of uh the percentage of parking spaces that would have charging capabilities

[70:00] um he was either advocating for 20 or maybe more than 20 and i'm wondering what's the status of that at the moment and what percentage of those parking spaces are intended to be uh capable of servicing electric vehicles so that's actually a consideration that occurs at building permit and with regard to meeting the city's pretty rigorous energy efficiency standards the applicant um i know is available on the call to give you a status report on where they're at with the plans for that uh but essentially that's something that would occur at um building permit application is it inappropriate to discuss it this evening if you think that there's a finding to be made about energy efficiency in terms of the site review criteria it's not inappropriate and you know we could call the

[71:01] applicant online to see it would be to me it would be good to know if we're going to focus on climate change and energy efficiency to understand how many parking spaces are going to be able to service electric vehicles especially if we want to diminish the number of gas guzzlers and increase the number of evs that's something that would be a great interest to me i don't know so we can see if we can uh bring up the applicant team as a panelist to just identify where they're at with that okay can you remind me those names elaine uh it's uh bill holicky coburn um laura scheinbaum with bhp daniel pittinger they should all be on the call okay i'm just seeing bill but perhaps they are um with bill and bill you should be getting an

[72:00] invitation to become a panelist in this meeting oh looks like you got it okay great bill you should be able to turn your camera on as well as um there you are hi everyone um mark i will apologize i'm frantically scrolling to get you the exact numbers here um but i can give you a little a little um history so until recently the voter requirements for electric car charging were um substantial but you know i think we would all consider them minimal this project would have required if i if i have this correctly like about eight of them and then they slowly would have increased over time that changed when we did the sustainability code update and i believe that went into place at the end later in the fall of last year and so when mark brought it up he was asking i think for 40

[73:02] i believe and what happened was um and then he started talking i think he was thinking a number lower than that but when staff transportation staff chimed in with the new requirements the new requirements were substantially similar to what he was proposing if i if i have this right i think that it's either a third or forty percent that are required to be um uh you know like conduits the wires don't have to be in place but the conduit has to be in place to run it so under the new sustainability code it's it's pretty substantial so if i can um beg off i'm going to go back to scrolling for the answer and try to get you the real number but it's not like it was two years ago it's a much bigger number okay and that's why mark didn't attach it as a condition okay i'd appreciate the information when you can okay and any other questions that i'm not seeing any then is anyone

[74:00] interested in calling this project out i'm certainly not interested in calling on project but i did want to make a comment um having lived near this property for more than 20 years it is such a joy that this is being turned into housing our community desperately needs and particularly given the partnership with bhp right next to her to the south um you know from the you know urban land institute study back in 2011 through literally 20 decades i think folks in this community have been trying to consider what can be done with this quite frankly blighted property and i'm so happy that um i know there's dozens and dozens of people who worked together to to present what we're seeing tonight and it looks like council will not call this up but i wanted to call out one particular person on city staff um who has worked tirelessly over the years to make introductions between various property owners this is a very very complex property with lots of property owners and who worked very very hard quietly behind the scenes to stitch together the

[75:01] deal that we're looking at tonight and that's yvette bowden our assistant city manager about contacted property owners worked very very hard over the last several years to um to put a deal together um it was eventually picked up by bill's colleagues and i think we're seeing the um the benefit of all that hard work by the vet and so many people so i just want to thank that and entire team for for delivering to our community something that we've needed for a long long time thank you and looking forward to more appreciate that bob and thanks to all my colleagues in planning and housing and transportation and everyone else who's been on this board let's go bill holiki thanks for that bob and i'll echo the thanks to that and and everyone else who worked so hard on this it's been a long road to get to this point um but i appreciate the collaboration with all their housing partners and the city with uh the ordnance change we did last year um so excited to see this moving forward

[76:00] i think it'll be a really fantastic project for the community and as you may be able to tell i'm not interested in calling it up either and any other uh comments or thoughts all right see none um bill did you have that number do you want to email us to follow up with that i'm gonna again since it's a newer code oh ed stafford's on he's saving me i have it in front of me now my apologies edward stafford senior manager planning and development services of engineering and the interim chief building official for the 2020 energy code for the city of boulder residential parking and new developments such as this with 125 spaces 10 of the spaces have to be what we call ev ready so they have to be able to be plugged plug there to plug a car into charge forty percent have to be ev capable so that's on top of that ten percent so the ev capable conduit run two capacity in the panel to add charging in the future and five percent of the spaces have to

[77:00] have uh the more advanced uh quick charge or uh dual port or single port charging stations installed as a minimum under the building code energy code regulation so separate from anything required in site review those are the standards that are applied to new development residential construction and so uh edward if i can just make sure that i clarify this correctly um all together that's more than 50 of the spaces have to be some form of ready or current correct 55 of the spaces overall have to have some version of ready for or offer at that spot charging all right edward for the win thanks for that very detailed information appreciate the answer and mattis your hands up thanks aaron you know what was mentioned is uh capable um or ready and i guess my question is how does once once the development is built how does that transition move like

[78:00] is it over time is it on demand is it per owner that once the originals are built the anybody who wants the ones that go beyond the ones that are built pay the expense i'm just kind of wondering how do we get beyond that barrier of them being ready to then being them actually ready you know usable for expanded use for residents in a particular development and that's a great question and i don't have a complete answer for you other than it's partially going to be market driven of course especially on a rental project in terms of being able to provide what the market is demanding there and at times of course you've also got third parties that are willing to come in and install pay for charging stations although that's less likely to happen in the residential it's not necessarily a trigger as to when the building owner has to start to convert those that are the ev capable so they have the conduit to it but not necessarily a receptacle or a charging port there but the intent of the code is to ensure that it can be easily done at low cost in the future and bill did you have any thoughts just in your experience and um you know

[79:01] previous projects yeah you know generally um the infrastructure has to support the renters so i know that jarvie the developer is on the call and he's beating us into our head if the residents are going to show up with an electric vehicle they have to have a place to charge it and so the intent of of edwards evie ready is that there there doesn't have to be any um you know panel locations figured out there doesn't have to be a location for a charger figured out no conduit needs to be run and no um you know no structure needs to be altered it's simply as as easy as pulling wire so um you know what does need to change this is important for the council to understand is that if enough load if enough of those places get converted and as edward said it's really inexpensive at some point there'll be enough load that the transformer will need to change so that's something that excel needs to coordinate and one of the interesting things is that if we can't show the load for that transformer they won't put that

[80:00] transformer in now we have to prove that the transformer demand is there because they don't want to set a bunch of really expensive transformers that they don't use so as soon as we pull enough stations and we can show the loads there they flip out the transformer and the building works for it so that's the way it has been working um and you know for years we were putting the stations we weren't seeing a lot of take up but over the last three years i would say um the the city's code is timely because we would have been exceeding the previous code and now the new code is is letting us capture what we need to i appreciate that that i thank you for that i appreciate the detailed question um maybe it's just something for us to think about as we move forward for other code issues going forward is just how you know if we're already dealing with renters how do we keep the barrier of entry low so that we're not either creating hurdles or creating undue expense passed on to renters in terms of moving to a new transformer just

[81:00] simplifying it because i think you bring up a great point bill so i just want to smooth the the tracks so that we can maximize the ev charging once once that infrastructure is in place and we want to expand it so but i appreciate those details thank you all right well it looks like that's what we got so congratulations to the team and look forward to seeing this come out of the ground thank you to everybody it was a really collaborative process with council and planning board over the last year so thanks to all of you for all the help again okay elise you want to take us through our other call-ups please yes sir next we have item 4b which is vacations of two sanitary sewer easements and a utility easement at 11 55 and 1205 pleasant street that is referenced under adr 2021-00235 interest in calling this one up

[82:01] not seeing any so what's our next one next is 4c our lambac landmark alteration certificate to construct a wall at the east property line of 841 spruce street a contributing property in the mapleton hill historic district lauren's got a question yeah i was just hoping that um i could get maybe james could provide some clarification it to me when i was reading through the guidelines for the mableton historic district it says that a solid fences are not appropriate and so i was just interested in how this is seen to align with that rule hi yes james hewitt historic preservation planner again thanks for the question um you know it is um the landmarks

[83:02] board's decision was really based upon and it was a split decision it was based upon i think the fact that 9th street um has become a very busy thoroughfare and that there are issues with sound and so the guidelines are guidelines um and not hard and fast rules so that's really um that was the basis of the landmark sports decision but there was quite a bit of discussion about it is that helpful yes thank you okay thank you rachel since someone else brought it up that did um jump out to me too and and one thing i wondered because i think the alternative or the old one was uh just the wood fence um like i think i've heard that those are not the best for fire resiliency wood fences whereas the the

[84:01] enclosure that's going up seems like it will be more resilient so my question is do we have a lot of situations where we would be compelling people to put up like um a fire uh unwise structure due to landmarking and do we need to look at any of that like i don't know if this is specific just like maple mapleton uh internal or if there are city ways to impact that right well you know you're right in identifying a lot of the historic districts are on that you know wildland urban interface um and certainly as um you know we become more vulnerable these issues are coming up it wasn't a point of discussion in terms of this fence um and i haven't actually heard it in terms of you know masonry versus wood or something else as a as a you know fire retardant or or a way to to help protect but um it's a good point and i think something that perhaps the landmarks

[85:00] board um might discuss and we establish i don't know we need to give give any go ahead but you know if we if we have a choice between an accelerant and you know a fire retardant seems like we would want to be um opting for the other and and the the images looked perfectly wonderfully historic to me even if not perhaps within the current character still you know i don't know they looked it looked great so hopefully we can move in that direction and i don't know if council would like to give any encouragement for landmarks board to consider that question thanks so much james thank you uh nicole james um i just had a question about the um guidelines and sort of what what the criteria are for when we're moving outside of um guidelines so are there objective criteria or is it sort of subjective what is it that would say um lead people to uh approve something that's against the guidelines in one

[86:01] case but maybe not in another i'm just i'm wondering about how subjective versus objective the process is yeah um well i mean i think there's there's always a there's a certain amount of subject subjectivity but i think the guidelines are actually written in a way that they're very um there's there's a lot of logic to why they're being the recommendations are being made and um the guidelines have been written in the way that they are when it comes to fences um there was and there there is still sort of a recognition that in mapleton hill fences were very rare and there were almost never masonry walls and so for that reason the the guidelines were written to say you know you rarely saw privacy fences or stockade fences and that masonry fences were very very unusual so but that doesn't mean they're always going to be that way and there may be

[87:01] instances where it's appropriate and and i think you know balancing the modern use and the modern um sort of conditions that we experience uh whether it's fire safety or noise or you know those are taken into consideration so that's where i guess more suc not subjectivity i would say but i i think maybe more an evolution in the way that those guidelines are interpreted um change over time okay good questions everyone uh can we get a decision here anybody want to call this one up i'm not seeing any thumbs or nodding heads so looks like we are not interested in calling it out thanks for the info james we got one more leash i think there's a presentation associated with this i do believe that is correct sir it is item 4d the proposed redevelopment of a

[88:02] 5.17 acre property located at 3825 and 3675 walnut street into a two-story life sciences facility the proposed development is a 112 423 square foot building in the industrial general ig zoning district it is referenced under case number lur zero 2022-000 six charles i believe you're taking that out yeah i'd be happy to thank so much maria good evening uh mayor members of council charles farrell planning and development services um i'm pleased to introduce shabnam bista this evening she's a newer planner in our office and um tonight is her first appearance before the city council um so she'll be presenting staff nice everyone she'll be presenting staff's analysis this evening and i would also note um that this particular item has a key issue associated with a transportation connection uh so edward stafford is here

[89:01] on hand to respond to questions about that so with that i will turn it over to you shadmill thanks charles um i will go ahead and share my screen please let me know when you are able to see it excuse me all right we've got that great so good evening council members i'll provide a quick overview for the call up consideration of 3825 walnut street concept plan um and provide a summary of the planning board discussion and key issue regarding the transportation the proposal is to demo the existing manufacturing and warehouse building and redevelop the property with a two-story building up to 55 feet in height and the building is for life sciences use multiple tenants anticipated the purpose of the concept plan is to determine the general development plan for a particular site and to help identify any

[90:01] key issues before the site review submitted city council may call the concept plan application for hearing um and then council also has the authority to refer the concept plan review proposals to [Music] dab and tab for their respective opinions the planning report held a public hearing for this concept plan on april 28th and at the hearing the board discussed two main topics the first is the compliance with the transit village area plan transportation connections plan and the benefits and difficulties that the applicant faces on meeting that specific connection plan and i'll go into more detail later in the presentation and then the second one was just the height modification requested by the applicant the building is proposed to be 55 feet in height and the board asked the applicant to provide additional explanation and details on the necessity of the height during site review

[91:02] the buy right height for the ig zone district is 40 feet the 5.17 acre property is located west of foothills parkway and south of the railroad tracks and the general characteristics is industrial with manufacturing and warehouse uses as well as a commercial center the project is zoned industrial general consistent with the boulder valley comprehensive plan land use designation of light industrial the ig's opening is intended for manufacturing and light industrial uses the concept plan proposes a building at 55 feet in height and two stories tall the tenants will be the light in the life sciences industry which refers to all of the organizations and companies whose work is focused and centered around research and development and the building design is contemporary with high quality materials the set of

[92:00] openings on the east and west corner create transparency at the corner and along walnut street which contributes to the pedestrian experience and engages the public realm the development is also proposed to be net zero and pv panels are proposed over a portion of the surface parking the properties located in 100-year flood zone um so the building is required to be elevated above the base flood elevation in compliance with flood regulations in terms of the project stats um 112 423 square feet of floor area is proposed um the applicant has requested a 20 parking reduction as well so there will be 226 parking spaces provided the type of uses fall under a technical office like industrial manufacturing research and development

[93:02] and some examples of tenants would be academic research biomedical biotech uses climate change research and other high-tech industries as well as presented at planning board a major key issue is the transit village area plan transportation connections plan the parcel itself is not located within tbap however it is impacted by this connections plan the proposed road down here we'll connect frontier avenue to walnut street and then include an underpass at the railroad tracks um in the plan the connection is explained um as it was suggested by property owners at the time with the understanding that they would be responsible for the entire cost of the street and the underpass

[94:00] it's staff's understanding that the connection was not discussed with the state's public utilities commission upon adoption and nor was any preliminary engineering done to identify how the street connection would impact adjacent private properties it's uncertain and unlikely that the pcc would approve the new underpass across the railroad right-of-way additionally the construction of an underpass would significantly increase the cost of the construction of this street connection at planning board um the board was in general agreement that the building that building the connection for the tvap transportation connections plan poses a hardship on the applicant brought on by external factors they were generally supportive of amending and removing the connection from the connections plan but they did note that some connectivity in the area would help promote multimodal transit in the area

[95:02] and they've asked the applicant and staff to work together to see if there's a feasible path forward that's the end of my brief presentation uh [Music] but we have staff here to answer any questions and as charles said we have edward available to speak on the transportation key issue thank you thanks so much that was very informative and we're thrilled to have you here in front of us tonight so thanks thanks for being here um any questions or comments i've got mark and nicole and then i'll call him myself welcome chad that was that was a terrific uh first performance thank you um the request for the the height amendment um if the building is two-story we're looking at 27-foot ceiling heights for the two floors did the applicant give any explanation as to the purpose of those kinds of ceiling

[96:01] heights yeah we also have the applicant that um you know can expand on the answer if necessary um per the um the applicants oops sorry pull it up so a lot of the tenants um for this type of use would require kind of higher ceilings for their lab functions or some research functions so that was part of the um explanation from the applicant additionally this height i believe allows the mechanical to be within the building and not on top of the the roof as you see in most of the industrial areas thank you you've answered that question entirely and completely thank you nicole lord and then myself thank you chapman for the presentation um the question i have is about the transportation the connection um uh in that area and i'm i'm just

[97:01] i'm trying to understand are we thinking about other ways to create that connection like an overpass or something like that or are we um kind of thinking about not having it at all um edward i will good evening again edward stafford planning development services so generally trying to do a connection in that area and further review and understanding actually what it would take for approval from the railroad the public utilities commission the rules behind it and some of the actual physical limitations becomes what i would call technically infeasible what we have recommended they're looking at is that there is future proposed connections uh to cross the railroad on the existing bridge for foothills parkway and to include a new multi-use trail system on the west side of foothills which this could then tie into from the walnut side um and could be tied into on the north side from frontier or from pearl so the alternative will not be uh most ideal in terms of out of direction travel or longer path that would be the recommendation we would have and that

[98:01] this particular connection and crossing of the railroad would be eliminated from the plan as something that's infeasible to be constructed okay thanks um i i absolutely hear the infeasibility and as somebody who um is kind of over in that area frequently and is longing for that connection i'm i'm heartbroken but i understand what you're saying lauren myself and rachel thank you yeah um this is going to be kind of along the same lines but did we look at having a multi just the multi-use path potentially cross the railroad tracks there um worry about the west side of foothill i mean just foothills has substantial height and getting up there and around really does lengthen i've personally drug my bike across those train tracks multiple times i would prefer

[99:00] another option and so yes i mean all three things are considered an underpass the railroad generally has said no they don't want additional crossings under their tracks any kind of crossing grade separated or not generally requires approval both the railroad and the public utility commission in my previous life of dealing with those typically they say if you want one new one you need to close two existing ones which we're not really in place to do and at grade crossing again getting that permitted would be likely totally impossible from a safety standpoint it would be a concern from the city on a vision zero standpoint and i also have concerns on whether or not it could invalidate the quiet zone that's been established through there by putting a bike and pet crossing which would be harder to manage and control and i suspect both the railroad and the federal railroad administration may look at and say that means a quiet zone could no longer be enabled because they'd expect their train to use its uh or the locomotive horn to be used through there the applicant did look at whether or not there was an option to go over there are some pretty significant

[100:00] clearance requirements for the railroad but looking at that it becomes very steep at best not ada compliant in order to touch down before you hit walnut it gives us some concern also because you're really at that point going to create a fairly tall wall between that property and the property next to it in order to go up and the property itself likely wouldn't be able to tie in to that particular crossing then um and again as i said could not be done meeting ada respond requirements and touchdown before we ended up impacting the roadway on either side walnut or frontier so yes unfortunately all three options have been considered and are uh we don't have a great plan that comes out of any of those thank you i'll call myself and then rachel um so appreciate all the answers about that connection the thing i'd like to see us maybe consider is this moves towards site review is the possibility of having the multimodal pathway along the west side of the project without

[101:01] attempting to cross the railroad tracks at this time and leaving it open that potentially let's say in in [Music] in development on the other side of the tracks it maybe the circumstances will change or there might be enough money to put in an underpass or an overpass from that side but if we have that connection there at least it could tie into that or potentially i know at some point we'd like to have some um multi-use path along the train tracks as well in our long-term connections plan so it seems like it might be pretty easy and a low-cost thing to do to to have that connection along the west side in anticipation of possible future connections um over the the years and the decades so just something to to consider as we move towards site review and then the one other comment that um i want to make is i did notice that uh planning board was uh suggested potentially a larger parking reduction and i thought that was a reasonable proposal that's an awfully large parking lot along the east side and if they can get away with a little

[102:00] bit less than that i think that could be all to the benefit with additional green space or additional build space instead so those are my two comments i don't have any interest in calling it up i just want to get those out there uh rachel thanks mayor brackett um i might want to call it up i i want to understand the process better just if i if um council wanted tab to look at it there's so much of this as transportation related i know that i always ask for things to go to tab um at this stage but i think this is an especially prime one if it is at the right stage so my question is is this the right stage to do a tab referral and if so what does that process compel in terms of a call up sure yeah it's it's a fine time in the process to ask tab to take a look at it um so we'll go ahead and get it scheduled um get it on their agenda as soon as possible if that was the will of counsel okay and do do we have to call it up technically to do that no great okay you just have to do a vote yeah you would have no i i understand

[103:01] um so i'm i just just for um mayor brockett's understanding where i'm coming from since i mentioned the possibility of calling up not going to call it up not going to ask or vote that way but would like to request that we get this over to tab not opposed to it also going to dab thanks and if i could clarify in terms of the tab because it's helpful to have specifics in terms of what you're looking for input so i presume it's regarding that connection but i probably shouldn't make a presumption well yeah i don't you know we're all sort of coming up with ideas and questions about you know can't planning is not working in terms of the connection what are the the other good ideas and i think we we saw that there was a email from community cycles that they wanted that looked at harder too so it would be um that specific connection um and and sort of as as aaron suggested you know the things we can do to sort of future proof it and make it potentially better while we're at this um and

[104:00] i guess they would not want to exclude other feedback that they think is important for us though but it is that connection primarily that i'm thinking of thanks so much thank you okay lauren and then maybe we'll have a motion on there rachel thanks um i also am not interested in calling it up but wanted to second some of the comments that aaron you had made um i would also like to see a larger parking reduction and especially as you know we look at this 55-foot height i think it might be nice to see some of that parking reduction become green space as sort of a balancing out potentially of um that height for maybe some more trees and things sounds good thanks for that one so i i believe procedurally to refer to tabs would require a motion like um is that correct to have that right teresa

[105:00] okay i see an nod so rachel if you'd like to put that forward i would like to make a motion to refer this to tab um and and probably add in there to look at the parking reduction as well that lauren and aaron have brought up um as well as the connections um and and other attendant issues that may be relevant on this project thanks do you have a second yes okay our second step uh i don't know if we have to talk this over a lot we could just vote on it but nicole see your hands up yeah i just wanted to ask um for just a little bit more specificity around what it is that we're asking tab to kind of look at because where i see you know being helpful kind of outside this project is just thinking about how how to create that connection right what is the best sort of way to do that um given that we can't kind of go over we can't go under we can't go through right where else can we put it so that that to me feels like the bulk of what um what i

[106:02] feel like tab could provide um to that and it's just uh some some ideas and thinking around how we could build out west foothills or something like that to create a better connection but i don't know if that's is that kind of where we're going with this i think we're going wherever we want but yeah it's sort of the the ideas around the connection that that i think need to be explored is and and they seem to have the best expertise to invest that with i'm not particular about the language and fine with narrowing it down if that's helpful i think there's probably enough guidance for tab i think they can review it and and come up with ideas and recommendations as the project moves towards site review so nicole does that answer your question i think so yeah i just um i yeah yeah i just i like giving people specific asks and things you know as as we're

[107:01] going to groups and asking for their time good point uh so why don't we go for a vote on the motion except tara's got our hand up i just want to quickly say that i agree with nicole on that that we should uh be specific with tab so uh they know exactly where to um work on exactly what to work on very good so rachel had offered some comments on what she'd like to have to look at without either you like to narrow those so that there's something more specific yeah i think i'm oh sorry yeah you go okay yeah no i'm just wondering if it is that thinking about that way of getting you know across the tracks what path we're going to take to do that that that kind of thing i heard parking reductions mentioned um then just sort of thinking about this area in general and so

[108:00] my question is is it the is it the path across the connection parking and if it's more general can we can we scope that out a little bit more too so rachel to your motion do you want to just speak to that a little bit i heard the connection on the west look at that and about the potential parking reduction those are the two areas folks i heard you mentioned but did you want to clarify further no i think those are the primary things we'd be asking them to do i guess i'm i probably look at it a little bit differently and that i think it's great to have specificity also if they have like a great idea that we didn't specifically ask them for and they want to lift it up i wouldn't want to rule that out so i made it probably more intentionally vague than nicole and tara would like and so i'll leave the motion and understand that somebody can can um make a another motion if it's i'm open to however we lift it up and i don't even know if we

[109:00] have maybe we want to do a straw poll before we spend much more time on it to see if there's even interest in having you know how about just an old-fashioned vote on the motion on the table okay so are people all right with that and tear your hands up did you have something else okay uh so we got a motion and a second uh that rachel made and seconded by mark uh we're all in favor do the show of hands first i'm getting unanimous i believe so looks like that's going to tap they may come back suggesting a gondola you know so you never know bob gives the thumbs up still waiting on that rail i hope for you bob that that's exactly what happens good well i think that's that's enough on that we're not calling it up we are referring it to tab we made a few comments here and i think we can move past our call-ups or first public hearing

[110:00] all right sir that is item five on tonight's agenda the public hearings and 5a is a second reading and consideration of emotion to adopt ordinance 8516 first adjustment to base for the 2022 budget and setting forth related details and in connection with the supplemental appropriations to the 2022 budget there is a consideration of a motion to adjourn as a city as the boulder city council and convene as the central area general improvement district board of directors and then there will be a consideration of a motion to adopt resolution 304 approving a supplemental appropriation to the 2022 downtown commercial district fund formerly cages budget and after that a consideration of a motion to adjourn as the central area general improvement district board of directors and reconvene as the boater city council and as these items are listed together

[111:00] they can be voted on together and i see mark is trying to get us started so promptly get away mark there we go good evening council uh happy to be with you tonight uh we'll have a little brief presentation for you uh related to the first adjustment to base uh our first regularly scheduled adjustment to base uh which is ordinance 8516 and we'll jump into it so i talked a little bit about this um back in our special adjustment uh but i did want to uh point out that we have um regularly scheduled uh budget adjustments typically in may and november of every year uh and then there are other circumstances where we would amend our budget you're familiar with special adjustments that we've done for arpa uh we did one earlier this year

[112:05] there are a few different types of budget adjustments we have clarified these from previous memos for those that have been around a while but just to make clear the most common uh form of a budget adjustment is the supplemental appropriation from fund balance um that is the the undesignated currently undesignated funds uh in this adjustment it's a little about 23.8 million across all funds 6.2 million in the general fund from fund balance the others are supplemental appropriation from non-grant revenue so this is revenue that we did not budget for that we expect uh to come in during the year and that is the source of uh funding that we're using to appropriate uh and spend for for the year that's about 3.4 million across all funds and then last is grant revenue so grant

[113:01] revenue that we either did not appropriate the expenditure during the budget uh but we're anticipating or grant funds that we were not anticipating that's about 9.9 million in this adjustment so some highlights i'll go through these fairly uh quickly uh i'll talk in a moment about capacity building across the organization a theme that we've talked a lot with you about over the last several months since the pandemic internal staffing adjustments uh investments to meet demand uh prioritize retention and i've talked a little bit about that already this evening increased unanticipated costs we've seen um some inflationary especially as it relates to construction uh we have uh also seen uh the the cost of our premium our insurance and property and general liability go up pretty significantly so those are within the adjustment and then we have some new investments to

[114:00] meet uh community council priorities that i'll touch on and then the bulk of which uh the largest amount that you'll see within the adjustment are standard carryovers for the continuation of programs and services largely these are grants or participation in projects such as affordable housing that we typically roll over on an annual basis just for your information we are looking to do this a bit differently in the 23 budget so that we don't have to do such a large adjustment in the first adjustment of the year so stay tuned on that so some more specifics on some of the investments that you see starting with housing and human services uh the adjustment calls for the creation of a homeless respite center this would be a rehabilitation of an existing facility uh the bulk of that is that rehabilitation of 375. and then there's some several smaller investments that relate to advancing uh certain community or council goals including uh beginning the process for middle-income down payment assistance pilot inclusionary housing strategic plan

[115:02] uh adu survey and expanding a successful hoa assessment on the minds of uh the community uh just recently uh for very good reason is our preparedness and resilience as it relates to wildfire and other disasters for several investments reflected in this adjustment including uh purchasing additional wildland fire equipment to increase uh redundancy for our for our team uh expansion of the wildland fire home assessments uh that includes a a a new position uh re-establishing a position loss during the pandemic reinvesting uh funds uh in open space uh this is a fema reimbursement that we are reallocating this year and then accelerating other general climate resilience efforts through through our cap tax funds

[116:02] and again just a moment on staffing on capacity investments this adjustment calls for an additional 22 and a half full-time positions uh we'll note here that we typically don't like to do ongoing increases during our adjustment process those are typically considered with the annual budget cycle but recognizing that we're still recovering as an organization and trying to meet the man uh we have proposed uh that will implicate uh ongoing funding into 23 and so you'll hear us talk about that next week with you and talk about that throughout the budget process for 23. there are some specific investments staffing investments include a housing senior project manager homeless outreach coordinator and support for the the cert and epress programs uh human resources staffing increases our hr department has not been immune to the demand and certainly in an

[117:01] environment where we need to be competitive as an employer and retaining our staff some staffing increases will help there and in our transition to some new technology and then a few other miscellaneous ads including some additional capacity to our communication engagement team team when you're ready and after the public hearing i have the complicated motion language for you uh we are available for questions as always thanks so much mark uh questions for marker city south mark not really just two the first was a forty thousand dollar line item for down payment assistance um is that just for setup of the program i mean it's probably not enough to assist one purchaser um yeah my understanding is that is to hire

[118:01] a consultant to help do the the pricing and some of the pre-work um i see kurt popping up if he wants to expand on that uh good evening council kirk foreign director of housing human services um yes you're correct mark we couldn't help one individual with that amount that will be going towards setting up the program there's unique financing aspects which need to be implemented according to this program which staff do not have the expertise in and so we'll be hiring a consultant to help uh guide and set up that program thank you that that that answers that my second question the final question is um there's an adjustment to assist the eviction protection program is that not collecting funds yet from the the charge we're imposing upon

[119:00] uh landlords is it not self-funding at this point uh we we have begun to collect revenue uh this year uh the eepris fund was funded through a loan from the general fund in 2021 um the amount you see and the adjustment is pulling from some of that fund balance that we were able to carry over into 22. is there is there a point in time when when we're fully collecting funds for the program where the the loan will be repaid to the city where's that uh i believe that's 2025 is when he press will pay the city back we've spread that out over a few years okay that's good thank you got it okay i'm sorry if i should know this and i don't can you explain i guess that would be kurt what is the homeless respite center i assume that's different than the day shelter uh it is and i'll let curt fill you in on the details

[120:02] um yeah thank you for that so this is a uh uh initiative that we've been working on in particularly in the closure of the covid recovery center as well as a need that's been in our community for some time for unhoused individuals who are released from the hospital or uh and have various medical conditions which do not make it um effective for them to either live on the street or in a shelter and it's a specific population that um we haven't been able to support well and um so this is uh an initiative that we're in the midst of exploring in partnership with boulder county um but it's it's uh it's it's not far enough along yet we're still working on um uh assessing the the facility to see if

[121:01] that will work and we're working with the hospitals to see what support we can get from them as well but it's the reason it's in this budget adjustment is we're still hopeful that's a an initiative that we could get started in this year okay thanks ginny just to have a follow-up to kurt um to tara's comment so this would be just a one-time fund uh that's correct so this would be um to actually bring the building um up to the code requirements necessary to run that type of um [Music] service and use in a building and where we would be looking for other sources of funding um to provide the service thank you aaron

[122:00] i'm not seeing any other questions so let's go to the public hearing we have one person signed up uh so lynn siegel you'll get three minutes we can get lynn on please you should be able to unmute now anytime you're doing any budget management i like to have something to say about it hmm my goodness there's a shadow over the time interesting yes we're having an eclipse um yeah um budget issues you know what when there's a discussion during the public comment earlier today about we can't open spruce cool because we haven't we're charging people to learn life saving

[123:00] and then there's not enough people to staff and then we have to have this diagonal plaza issue here and we can't let the poor people swim with the rich people because they have a free rec center pass but guess what there's nobody to fund the rec centers and then we've got all these people from boulder mental or from boulder housing partners commuting to north boulder rec center since they can't swim in the rich people's pool then i think there's problems with the budget because it's increasing wealth disparity and that's not helping the long-term security of boulder so i like to speak up when you're proving something associated with the budget

[124:00] because it demonstrates for me the hypocrisy that's going on within the city of boulder for how you're distributing your funds and it seems like they're poorly distributed and it seems like before you approve any budget matters you ought to think about how funds are being distributed evenly to the population for the benefit of the common good and how that's enriching your general community and how doing height subsidies and parking reductions and all of those things are affecting the bottom line of what's

[125:01] going on in boulder with regards to developers being stimulated with things like the opportunity zone where they're able to hold their property for 10 years and pay no capital gains and then you're approving budgets that are supporting all of those things because the budget is the bottom line thanks thank you all right well that brings our public hearing to a close so i'll come back to council for comments or perhaps emotion except mary would like to say something about your muted though when you have the right people who know the answers it's super helpful and um i think it's so fitting that ali wasn't here earlier because she was coaching little league um for our parts and rec director be doing that but we have something and we will correct it on the website but it turns out we do

[126:01] not require payment for training the city uh does that um and we will pay for cert and their time in the training so just wanted to clear that up good to hear all right council members somebody could just dive in maybe we could get the suggested motion up on the screen because it's a little complicated and somebody could just say i'll move what's on the screen if they wanted to i will move on a second give it to bob please and then give give the second and a call on a motion by bob in a second by nicole uh did you don't want to speak to that at all no great job mark yeah i would just want to thank um staff

[127:00] and i i just i really appreciate some of the innovative ideas that are coming through on some of this as well and uh kurt especially thank you for working on this recovery center i think this will be such a needed resource for um our community so thank you well said okay so let's do a vote here elise what kind of vote do we have we have a role call sir all right all right we will start this vote with councilmember falkards yes mayor pro tem friend yes member joseph yes spear yes wallach weiner yes yates

[128:00] yes benjamin yes and mayor brockett yes the motion on the screen associated with the items for ordinance 8515 are hereby adopted and passed unanimously including resolution 304. wonderful okay thanks for all your excellent work on this is very professionally done really appreciate that from all city staff who worked on that and mark especially for presenting it to us and leading the effort there so all right at least you're going to take us to our next public hearing please yes sir item 5b on tonight's agenda is the consideration of a motion to approve the proposed list of projects for submittal to the denver regional council of governments for the 2022 through 2025 transportation improvement program sub-regional process and we have gene sandson lady leading us

[129:00] in that conversation hi gene hi good evening council can you hear me yes okay wonderful hi members of city council and thank you for having me this evening my name is gene sanson and i'm a principal transportation planner with the city's department of transportation and mobility and i'm joined this evening by my colleague garrett slater our principal engineer on transportation capital projects sorry i've got some flying in front of me this evening i'll be sharing information on the proposed project submittals um sorry emily would you mind um pulling up our slides oh wonderful thank you um so to reiterate this evening i'll be sharing information on the proposed project submittals for the 2022-2025 regional council of governments or dr cog sub-regional transportation improvement program also known as the tip i will start with an overview of the tip program then share the city's approach to identifying the proposed project

[130:00] applications including our community engagement process and i'll also provide a brief description of each project and will conclude with a request to council for a motion to approve the submittal of project applications so let's get started next slide please looks like we got a little delay and now we might be having some technical difficulties i'll just give emily a second thanks gene we seem to have some technology gremlins afoot it goes with the territory these days just don't feed them after midnight emily if you need help and need somebody to take over please feel free

[131:10] noria i am trying to get that up but it is frozen here okay well maybe if you're not able to maybe alicia in the background can get that up for us let me share my ask to request to share my screen and i can find it thanks everyone for your patience thanks alicia computers are not our friends today there are times you should be able to share elisha yes ma'am thank you looking for the tip sub regional process presentation i have it to the rescue appreciate you

[132:01] oh of course we are a team takes the team work to make the dream work indeed it's as long as my computer doesn't freeze up [Laughter] all righty slideshow i'm coming i'm coming oh wonderful alicia thank you just gotta get my computer i might even start we're running them parallel since we seem to have the kremlins that want to take over [Music] all right it is up let me find the appropriate screen can everyone see it we can yes please

[133:00] thank oh no again nobody's hero just here to lend my hand okay gene you want me to advance yes to the next slide please thank you okay and if i have boxes or something up there everyone please let me know i'm still working through that whole boxes thing all right wonderful okay so picking up where we left off the city of boulder is um proposing to submit transportation project funding applications to dr cogg as part of the 2022-2025 tip and um you know the tip is really the primary mechanism by which federal transportation funds flow to local governments for the types of transportation system improvements we're looking at this evening and the dr cog project selection process splits available funding into two shares so they're regional projects which comprise approximately 20 of all available tip funding and then

[134:00] there are sub-regional projects which comprise approximately 80 80 and while this is typically done in one cycle each this year dr cogg is programming projects in four tip cycles or the four calls for projects as you see here and they're doing this to meet spending time frames associated with federal arpa funds and state multimodal and mitigation option funds under colorado's new transportation funding bill and i'd also note that each tip cycle also include includes total current and future anticipated funding available under the federal infrastructure investment and jobs act so starting with the first call the call 1 regional project selection process is nearing completion as you see here in the orange next in fact the dr cog board of directors on which council member spear is our city's representative will be asked at their meeting tomorrow night to vote on funding for six projects and two of those projects will directly benefit the

[135:01] city of boulder the first is 14.9 million dollars for two colorado 119 or diagonal highway projects to construct bus rapid transit mobility and safety improvements as well as segments of the commuter bikeway on this corridor between j road and 63rd street street the other regional funding recommendation that will be brought to the board tomorrow evening is approximately 11.2 million dollars for pre-construction design on colorado 7 to advance regional multimodal improvements including bus rapid transit and a commuter bikeway and what's really exciting is that within the city of boulder this funny includes approximately three million dollars for final design of east arapaho between 28th street and foothills parkway so moving to the call two phase of the tip shown here in red the 2022-25 tip call for sub-regional projects applications was issued or opened on may 2nd of this year and

[136:00] applications are due june 24th the second call for projects is the topic of this meeting's presentation i'd also note that this call will be followed by another regional and sub-regional tip call for project applications later this year next slide alicia please so how do we hear the city of boulder select sub-regional projects to submit for funding well we started with a long list of projects selected from the city's transportation master plan and with a great deal of input from our transportation advisory board over the last five months we narrowed down the list to those projects that won further the city's adopted tmp two would be competitive in terms of the tip application scoring criteria and three and very importantly advanced safety improvements to the boulder core arterial network or can as well as regional multi-metal corridors that meet the city's priority objectives for things like reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector

[137:02] meeting our city's vision zero goals and ensuring projects deliver benefits to our equity populations i'd also note that we looked for those projects that would leverage partner funds where they were available so next slide please so based on this approach we identified four projects that were deemed to meet this criteria and we went out to our community and our transportation advisory board for their input on these projects and they range in scope from the preliminary design of a complete street on 30th street north of arapahoe to the extension of the 28th street west side multi-use path north of the four mile creek bridge which was where it terminates today to the implementation of transit priority intersections along broadway to the construction of more permanent protected bike lanes and enhanced transit stops along baseline line next slide please several outreach efforts were

[138:00] implemented to notify adjacent property owners and the community about the tip submittal process and the projects being considered for the tip there's a project web page and a mailing was sent to approximately 3 300 property owners residents and businesses adjacent to potential tip projects um and other interested stakeholders in the community were notified about the grant application process community members were invited to review project fact sheets and informational videos provide online feedback and schedule virtual office hours with our staff and we've gotten what we consider pretty good traction from these engagement tools with each video we received about 50 views and 58 people have provided verbal or written feedback online or via virtual office hours and the most common topics were congestion concerns feedback on the types of facilities we're planning on installing questions about expanding the project scope and safety particularly for bicyclists and pedestrians

[139:00] and as i mentioned we concluded with a tab public hearing this month on main night night so as i walk through each of the four projects in this next set of slides i'll summarize the themes that we've heard related to each project application from our community alicia next slide please so in no particular order i'm going to start with a project to conduct preliminary design for protected bicycle facilities and transit stop improvements on 30th street between arapaho and iris this is about a two and a half mile stretch of roadway and it really is an opportunity to create a continuous walkable bikeable border rich with destinations and access to local and regional transit the quarter is lined with multi-family housing thousands of jobs and a considerable share of the city's retailers it's also an essential quarter for active transportation and importantly it would extend the 30th street protected bike facilities that are going to be constructed south of arapaho in 2023

[140:01] this project was taken to what they what we call the doctor cog um sub regional forum staff group for review and um the reception that we received was a good one from this group they particularly like the strength of the multimodal components and committee members offered that they think this will be a competitive project for funding so keep in mind this is the group that will be scoring these applications when they're submitted in late june we also receive the most public comments about this project with community members expressing concern about conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists and to share with you one comment i think a public comment that reflects much of what we heard i quote living along this corner i'm very excited about the project of safer bicycle accommodations currently the vehicle's speeds and volumes make for a pretty uncomfortable biking environment and i fully support this project and i'm excited to see the design options and look forward to being involved so that's just a sample of the type of comments we

[141:00] received related to this particular project next slide please alicia so moving on to the next project the broadway corridor improvements these product uh court improvements were identified in a 2014 northwest area mobility study to improve travel time and reliability for rtd's flatiron flyer service along with other regional transit routes future arterial research bus rapid transit or bus or brt service and local transit um so just to give you an idea about the usage of this quarter um pre-pandemic northbound broadway carried about 37 buses per hour in the am peak period but this corridor also experiences significant traffic congestion in the peak periods which would impact transit travel times and reliability and this project is intended to address this issue it would include intersection improvements to provide transit priority

[142:00] at broadway and table mesa and broadway and region intersections as well as an analysis of general purpose lane conversions to business access transit lanes between table mesa and 18th street with lane re-striping and signage is feasible the project will also consider operational improvements at each of the corridor intersections between region and table mesa drive um what's neat about this project is that um it's putting its packaging funding from different sources so with this application we're hoping to use 1.5 million dollars in cdoc pre-construction or collar department transportation pre-construction funds and limited local funds and with the dr cog tip match as you see here for full design and construction of the project community feedback for this project ranged from skepticism about the need for bus lanes to enthusiasm for a project that will speed up buses to concern over lane capacity available for private automobiles and um you know like

[143:02] each of the proposed tip projects i'm describing this evening the city will provide an opportunity for robust community dialogue as design options are developed and evaluated next slide please this next project the baseline enhanced transit stops and protected bike lanes project um will construct multimodal enhancements to the baseline quarter to include as i mentioned protected bike lanes potentially floating bus stops and safety improvements at key intersections and crossings this project was also well received by the boulder county sub regional forum staff committee they particularly like the multimodal components and connections to communities further east and community commons have really emphasized the need for improved crossing and separation for bicyclists should we be successful in securing tip funding we would leverage our local funding for resurfacing baseline as part of our planned pavement management

[144:00] program with these grant dollars to create more permanent physical protections that address like bus conflicts and pedestrian safety so next slide please alicia thank you so um this fourth project would construct a 10 foot wide bi-directional concrete multi-use path for bicyclists and pedestrians on the west side of us 36 from four mile canyon creek bridge which you see in the in the photo here to j road um this project was presented to our community for feedback um and when it was presented for feedback it had a longer extent with the northern end terminating at violet based on what's called for in our transportation master plan um but given the feedback that we received from the sub regional forum staff committee who were generally supportive of the project but suggested that we scale the project to a shorter extent by truncating the northern section and j road to be mindful of the project cost

[145:01] many of the comments we received from the community were those expressing excitement for extending the multi-use path north to accommodate off street users and frankly questions of how soon can this be done and why doesn't it extend further north into the neighborhoods after sharing this community feedback and with careful deliberation our tab determined that this project did not represent improvements to all modes of travel and due to the relatively high cost of the project as compared to the other three projects should not be recommended to city council for approval so staff weighed feedback from the community and the vote by tab members and it is our recommendation that while the project cannot be submitted for this call to regional submittal at this time we strongly recommend this project be considered for future submittals in the next 2024-2027 tip call for sub regional projects which will happen later this year next slide please

[146:00] so as mentioned earlier at the may 9th tab meeting the board held a public hearing to consider the list of four projects we just reviewed as mentioned tap determined that three of the four proposed projects shown on this list best address safety issues improvements for all modes of travel and would advance improvements to the core arterial network tab therefore made a unanimous recommendation to city council to prove to approve the proposed middle of these projects next slide please based on this community feedback and tab recommendations staff is asking council this evening to consider a motion to approve the proposed list of projects for submittal to the dr cog 2022-2025 tip subregional process with the projects included on the screen here next slide please so based on council's motion between now and june 24th staff will prepare these project applications the sub regional

[147:01] forum will then score project applications and make recommendations to the dr cog board for approval in late summer early fall and parallel to this staff will also begin to identify a second set of city projects for consideration in the next sub regional call later this year next slide so with that um we thank you for considering this request and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have thank you thank you so much for that uh gene and all the hard work by you and your department on this process um i just i'll turn real quickly to nicole as our doctor cog wrap nicole did you want to say anything about these before you go on the questions um i would just say that i've been really impressed uh by the way that staff and and tab and others have really kind of come together on these projects and just really want to thank everybody for um involvement and um dean especially thank you for all you've done to bring this forward

[148:01] i will say just for the community and for folks who may be like me and not having known too much about transportation before getting here um one of the things that constraints that i hadn't completely been aware of is how when we're working with state regional highways we don't have full control and so one of the things that i really appreciated watching our transportation staff work through this is the way that everybody takes into account all these different constraints at the city level at the regional level at the state level to bring together projects that benefit our community and so just again want to recognize the immense work that has gone into bringing this forward i think these are really wonderful proposals thanks nicole all right we've got questions from tara and matt um gene can you explain what a floating bus stop is yeah that's a great question tara so a floating bus stop um you might have seen them like in downtown denver

[149:00] but essentially um and garrett might be able to describe it a little bit differently but if you can imagine like um in you know but in front of the curve right so you've got the curb and then the roadway there would be a bike lane and then next to that bike lane would be an area a passenger waiting area um to to board um and debark the uh the bus so essentially the bus stays in the lane as opposed to pulling off to the curb and the passengers get on and off and that really reduces the conflict between the bicyclists and the pedestrians and garrett you probably have a better way of describing a floating bus stop but maybe a picture's worth a thousand words and i didn't have a picture for you this evening good evening garrett slater principal transportation projects engineer and i would say that you might think of an example that would be analogous to a floating bus stop is the way we sometimes place pedestrian medians in the middle of a street to uh to make it safer for crossing and that's to uh to

[150:00] to separate people and cars what a floating bus island is is essentially the same thing it separates buses and people who want to get on and off of buses from both bike lanes and from cars plus they also hover three feet off the ground using an anti-gravity drive right so just kidding that's next year's technology uh matt sort of like a jetsons reference there uh ironically george jetson based on the show would be born in 2022 just for reference so put that put that in your head for a minute um anyway um so my question centers around what's our general track record uh with some of these uh tips and dr cog uh proposals um you know are we we batten 300 uh are we you know just what what's our what how do we do how are we competitive and um how do we do on these typically

[151:02] yeah i'm going to refer that question to garrett since he has a longer history of these tip application processes so i can say that over the last three cycles we've averaged about a 50 to 60 percent success rate and the the process for award was changed considerably in the last cycle and mayor brockett was a part of that that change and we were concerned at that time that it might reduce funding opportunities for our community but the the cycle played out such that we really have been able to maintain the the the success rate and we're hopeful that the same will hold true in this cycle thank you i'll just add we actually we do better than your average community in the denver metro area our uh our staff is extremely good at designing projects that are well received and match their criteria really really well so

[152:00] because of the quality work by city staff we get funded at higher percentage levels than most communities so um sorry please sorry councilmember spear go ahead i was just going to add that watching you all i see why we're so successful because um there's so much you do to talk to all the different groups involved and really build support and energy for these proposals and kind of work out all the kinks before they go in and really pick the proposals that are going to have the best chance of success so i just wanted to call that out and gene you were gonna say yeah i was just going to piggyback um on on what garrett said um in answer to to councilman um benjamin's uh question relating to related to our success rate just to give you a little bit of context about this particular tip cycle so for the boulder county sub region there is 16 million dollars available for all jurisdictions within boulder county in this particular call for projects

[153:01] we with these three projects are asking for approximately 9.4 million dollars of tip funding so that's 9.4 of 16 million we will have the opportunity to if we are not successful in securing funding for all three projects to resubmit in that later call later in this year and it's also oftentimes an option to reduce the scale and the cost of these projects for funding based on availability so just a little bit more context related to what's available and what our ask is any other questions all right seeing none let's go to our public hearing we have one person signed up which is lynn sequel so then you get three minutes and if we can bring lynn on trees yeppers well i'm sure it's really great the way um oh i'm just

[154:00] looking at my name on the screen yeah thanks yeah back to this um the the issue here is folks are doing great jobs on getting different transportation changes implemented but what are we trying to do to start with transporting people to different places and and that's the issue is we need a self-sustaining community that that we pay people enough to live here and work here and they can afford to live here and projects like bill holockies in coburn with diagonal plaza that housing does not help the housing demand in boulder as folks said tonight

[155:00] that is a high-end housing project for every high-end and and it's also not owned it's rental so how does that help housing in boulder it doesn't and in fact every unit there that has a place for one bicycle talk about transportation one bike so the family has to stuff all their bikes into the apartment which is reduced in size already for a high rent and how is that benefiting boulder each one of those high-end departments has an impact of all the services that those people demand with service industry folks that are not paid enough to also live in boulder so then they have to transport out and

[156:00] then you have these discussions about transportation amendments and additions which are great like nicole says everyone's doing such a good job but they're doing such a good job to move people around people that want to live and work in their own communities and that need to live and work in their own communities to have a cohesive community so how do you do that you do that in a much bigger master plan and you make transportation a smaller part of that than the bigger part that it is here and the big expensive part that it is here and what see you south if god forbid that thing ever happens will really destroy the jobs housing imbalance in this community and really drive up our transportation mitigation issues like were brought up tonight in this transportation plan thanks night thanks lynn

[157:00] all right uh well that's it for the public hearings we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion and potentially emotion who would like to kick us off i'm matt well uh i'd i'd like to make a motion uh if you don't mind um i'd like to make a motion to approve the proposed list of projects for submittal to the denver regional council of governments for the 2022-2025 transportation improvement program sub-regional process well second email i'm seconding i never get to second your second all right matt has a motion tara gets the second okay uh would you all like to speak to the the motion uh you know uh for one i would like to say that i just received my tip mailer today with a wonderful qr

[158:01] code qr code so clearly we're putting out the outreach so thank you staff for getting that out there it's nice to see this in the mail um but more importantly i think it's it's wonderful to see the can proposal really gain uh substantive momentum by the application to dr cog for these projects i think it for part of the analogy but it really puts you know you know the rubber to the road in in terms of really getting us where we need to go so um i i just think this is this is great work and i uh love the track record i love the work the staff's doing and i'm excited to see where we go from this um and subsequent cycles going forward as we really try to focus on uh reducing vision zero um and getting it to zero um and so great work and and this is just fantastic that we're already making uh these strides and getting this work headed in the right direction i would like to say that we're lucky to have jean and garrett

[159:00] absolutely well i'll just add in uh totally agree with what what you all said and appreciate the seeing the the can network going into action here with these proposals all of which are really excellent proposals and i appreciate the tabs vetting of them and the community feedback and look forward to seeing some of these uh getting approved at the sub regional forum level so anybody else yes sir thank you we will start this vote with mayor pro tim friend yes councilmember joseph yes spear yes wallach yes weiner yes yates yes

[160:00] benjamin yes the item to approve the proposed list of projects is hereby approved unanimously okay very good thanks again gene and garrett and everyone else appreciate all your work on this thank you okay that moves us to our last public hearing of the evening if you could take this yes sir thank you item 5c is the consideration of a motion to approve the proposed annexation agreement amendment for the property at 1422 55th street to modify the affordable housing requirements and facilitate the development of the site with four-cell homes this is referenced under case number lur 2021-0045 i see sloan popping up it's all yours

[161:00] [Music] all right great um so i'm sloane wahlberg i am a planner in the planning and development services department and the item the purpose of this item is for city council to consider an application to amend an annexation agreement from 1999 which applies to the property located at 1422 55th street the request was considered on the consent agenda at the march 15th meeting and at that meeting council voted to hold a public hearing on the application so in this presentation i'll cover the background review process and history of the annexation and then the proposed amendment to the affordable housing provisions i'd also note that kurt fernheiber from the housing division is here to answer any questions you have regarding those

[162:00] affordable housing provisions so in terms of process annexation agreement amendments are reviewed consistent with the process is and standards for annexation under section 9217 of the land use code annexation must also be consistent with the policies of the boulder valley comprehensive plan in particular policy 1.17 which is annexation specifically 1.17 emphasizes that annexation of land with redevelopment potential must provide a special opportunity or benefit to the city in this case that would be done through provisions such as the creation of permanently affordable housing and then lastly the amendment must be found to be consistent with the intent of the original approval applications for amendments to existing annexations require a decision by city council following a recommendation by planning board the planning board considered the

[163:00] amendment at a public hearing on february 17th as part of the deliberation some board members voiced support finding that it would be an acceptable proposal to allow the site to be developed and that the amendment would provide for an equivalent benefit as the original amendment um some board members felt that the proposal was premature and that additional information or additional conditions would be necessary for their support so ultimately in order to allow the proposal to move forward the planning board incorporated these concerns in the motion to city council and voted to recommend a portal um just wanted to note that noticing of application was done consistent with land use code staff did receive a few inquiries from neighboring property owners however no formal public comment was received the one acre property is located in east boulder on the east side of 55th street

[164:01] between arapaho avenue and baseline road the site contains an approximately two thousand square foot home and some accessory structures the property is bordered to the north and south by single-family residences and the municipal golf course is immediately to the east the site is zoned residential medium one which is described as shown on the screen the allowable intensity of residential development in the rm1 district is determined by the provision of 3 000 square feet of usable open space for a dwelling unit unit the site was annexed to the city in 1999 as i mentioned along with six surrounding properties on the east side of 55th street and also along smithview court which is immediately to the north and at the time of annexation the site was zoned rm1 and the intent of the medium density zoning designation was to provide future development potential on the subject properties and in turn opportunities for affordable housing

[165:01] the existing annexation agreement creates several requirements for the applicant some of them are triggered by events defined as redevelopments such as issuance of a building permit for additional square footage all good we've gotten used to also he would do that right when i'm presenting the applicant approached the city last year with a proposal to develop the property and when the applicant approached the city to discuss the affordable housing requirements it became apparent to both the applicant and to staff that there were difficulties in implementing the requirements on such a relatively small site and since the requirements are prohibitive to the development of housing and no longer desirable from a community benefit perspective the applicant has worked with the housing divisions to propose an appropriate amendment and no additional under the current

[166:01] agreement no additional dwelling units would be approved unless the requirements on the screen have been met um so the agreement under consideration tonight is the same as what was considered by planning board um the requirement to develop at the maximum permissible density would remain however the agreement would be amended to require 25 000 contribution to the city's affordable housing fund for any additional units and that would be within five years of the recording of the amendment and then after five years the developer would just be required to pay the standard cash and luffy and then lastly a provision has been added to require that all dwelling units be constructed and sold as for sale units so the key issue is whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the original annexation package and also boulder valley comprehensive plan policies on annexation the current housing market in the city

[167:00] is driving the construction of almost entirely rental housing and the city has identified the need for more ownership opportunities appropriate for middle-income households staff finds that the amendment would enable the development of the site with market rate units for sale which is consistent with the middle income housing strategy and also adds to the housing inventory of the city in addition the cash and low contributions would be used to leverage state and federal funds to create additional permanently affordable housing elsewhere in the city and staff finds that the development would provide at a minimum and equivalent affordable housing community benefits as part of the annexation so on that note staff recommends approval of the amendment as it is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the bbcp as well as the intent of the original annexation package and i have a motion shown on the screen and as always we're happy to answer any

[168:00] questions thanks so much questions okay um you might stop screen sharing now with that presentation i'm sorry about that i'm having a hard time ending it thank you did not want to end i thought that was that was my problem um when you when you say that this is going to create middle income housing how do you define the price categories appropriate for middle-income purchasers kurt i'm going to ask you to answer that one please uh good evening again council kirkford howard director of housing and human services so

[169:00] typically we as far as pricing we assume that middle income households can afford a price at 120 percent of the area median income with incomes as high as 150 uh of the area median income so um i can't define that as a price because that you know that changes by interest rate and that sort of thing as well um but if you can imagine a family of three making up to 160 000 a year um what you know what what could they afford for for house payments uh being a third of their income um so this this particular property um as the um annexation agreement in front of you um doesn't define what those prices would be it's more defined as a housing type

[170:02] as a market housing type which is um uh smaller and certainly home ownership and um so that's as is i responded to your hotline part of our middle income housing strategy when we can't or or for market rate housing that is not deed restricted is to create a housing type um that is both ownership and smaller in um well before i ask my next question i do want to give a shout out to you kurt um for promptly responding to my hotline questions they were not the easiest questions in the world and the fact that you did so so quickly and so thoroughly i i just want to thank you for that my second question is do we have any assurance that we will get

[171:01] smaller types of housing in this transaction are there any uh guardrails here so i i will move that question back to sloan or someone from planning who would be able to answer that better than myself so under the currents while current and proposed amendment they are required to develop at the maximum density there are a variety of housing types that are allowed in this zone so i think if they were proposing single-family homes for instance they would have to show that they're developing at the maximum density for that housing type and as i mentioned this is based on open space so they'd have to provide the maximum amount of open space on the site under the proposal the current proposal

[172:00] so do we have a sense of how many homes and what kind of square footage that would entail um as i mentioned it's driven by open space so it's very site specific it would be based on their site plan how they're they're developing but i think we propose that um they could probably accommodate something like 14 dwelling units would that be the same if he wanted to do town houses it again depends on how you're designing the development to provide that open space but yes hypothetically it'd be around that regardless of the housing type am i correct that the developer has previously previously expressed an interest in townhouses that was their initial proposal was for 14 townhouses i believe it was in two two buildings was sort of a central access lane but my understanding is that may not be um the final proposal based on the outcome of this amendment

[173:01] okay i will have a number of comments on this but i will hold those until questions are done so thank you i could just add that the uh the applicant is on the line tonight as well so you there there may be questions that you would want to say for the applicant such as that well in that case i would ask the applicant what are his intentions i wonder if we might do staff questions first and then shift to the to the applicant after that that's right done thank you okay great um we'll come back to you bob uh thanks eric i just want to continue the line that mark started and maybe some more questions for kurt um so i'm just kind of doing some rough math here kurt yeah four four and a half percent interest rate it looks like a the family that you type of family you described in that 120 to 150 percent of ami range could probably afford a mortgage of about six seven or eight hundred thousand

[174:00] dollars does that sound about right to you just wanna get directly correct uh in that range yes i mean obviously the amount that they have for a down payment has a huge impact on that but that range is probably correct yeah okay thanks if we made some assumptions about down payment and interest rates but yeah and um so to to get a house that's kind of you know supporting a called seven or eight hundred thousand dollar mortgage um you know my my understands is houses are going for about four to six hundred dollars a square foot here in boulder if you were to kind of suggest to us a size or maximum size you think that would kind of keep these houses in that price range what like what zip code would you kind of recommend to us i mean what what size of house if we were to talk about a maximum size to ensure affordability to middle income families what would you suggest so for townhomes what i have seen is that townhomes that are two or three bedrooms

[175:02] um on the smaller size are typically around 1200 square feet on the larger size sort of in that target population that we're trying to trying to serve are probably 16 to 1700 square feet [Music] and i think a a 1400 square foot townhome [Music] 3 three-bedroom is a very comfortable size um looking at the types of units we've seen developed in the city as well as some of our affordable units many of our affordable units are sort of in that size range as well are there um i'm not super familiar with that neighborhood are the precedents in that neighborhood are there are there typical house sizes that are either in the neighborhood to the north or any of it to the west yes so the um uh three parcels to the north of this

[176:01] property uh is a parcel which i believe is um either the same size or very equivalent in total size to this property um same or similar annexation agreements um that was done uh that that development um created eight small single-family homes in addition to the home that was already there those homes are in the 13 to 1400 square foot range and that development was built by uh thistle properties the city put additional funds into that um uh development to create some affordable units there okay that's that's helpful kind of slightly different questions i don't know if this is for sloane or for for kurt sloan on on i think with slide seven of what you put up there you said that um the the cash and luffy would be capped at twenty five thousand dollars

[177:00] for the first five years and then it would go to whatever whatever cash and blue level happened to be current at the time what would the cash and loot level be if it were um if this wasn't a special deal if this was just somebody building something along the lines what we're talking about 25 000 is kind of a little artificially low is isn't it uh it is um so the um the the cash and lieu um approach um changed uh pretty significantly um about five years ago when the inclusionary housing ordinance was updated and i'm sure you'll remember that bob but you were on council at that time and for um for sale products like this if you don't provide any affordable housing on site you actually pay 1.5 times the cash and lieu amount that was there to encourage developers to create some

[178:01] on-site affordable homeownership units um so the it depends on the types of units whether they're townhome single families but but a range that i would give um which i believe is also in the hotline typically in the 65 to 75 000 per unit range is what i recall for different housing types that are similar to what the the applicants had put forward okay so if this was coming if this was coming forward now fresh project talking about the types of housing that we're talking about 14 15 1600 square foot town homes two or three bedrooms you said it would be about 60 to 70 000 and this would be this would be it'd be about seven in the seventy thousand dollar range um per per units okay and so this this would be log units this would be locked in kind of like it

[179:03] was one of the advertisements you know all-time prices the these are these 19.99 prices or where did 25 000 come from so the uh the 25 000 came from uh negotiations um between ourselves and the developer they didn't come from a particular metric um but what we did however do uh we did an exercise after the planning board meeting because they asked similar questions uh within that meeting we we then looked back at we had to do a bit of research to find out what the cash flow amounts would be in the year 2000 the year after when um inclusionary housing cash and blue actually came into place and then we we used our inflationary amount since then as it relates to how cash and lieu has increased

[180:01] and we came to an amount of about 35 000 um per lot using using that metric okay so just play it back to you if if this was a new project now it would be seventy thousand if we applied the two thousand numbers and had an inflationary factor to bring up 2022 be 35 000 but kind of the negotiated deal subject to what council thinks tonight is 25 000 is that right that's correct okay uh like mark i probably have a few comments later on but i'll that's the end of my questions for now thank you um lauren thank you um i'm kind of going to follow up on that same line of questioning so it would be 70 about 70 000 in cash and low payments to develop this within the city of boulder today but when if we were to look at this as an annexation today don't we typically charge twice the

[181:00] amount of cap cash in low we we typically charge um about one and a half times uh cash and lieu um we haven't really applied it in this way um [Music] uh i mean the the the cash and loot penalty is already at 1.5 um for for not creating um affordable units so um i'm not exactly sure i can answer your question correctly but theoretically yes it could probably go up as high as 100 000 or slightly higher than that in equivalency okay thank you all right uh looks like that's it for questions for staff so i wonder if we might bring the applicant online because i believe mark had a question for him

[182:06] ice don you should be there you go excellent great dawn maybe you could just introduce yourself hi i'm don altman and i am the applicant thanks for being here tonight go ahead mike okay don mike my question is what are your intentions for the development of this property our intentions if the annexation agreement is amended is to to build as many homes as possible we don't know attached or single family yet um haven't gone that far um but we would want we want to build as many as we can and as mentioned before we have the uh three thousand square feet of open space per

[183:01] per unit requirement but an acre is forty four thousand so that should give you a fair number of homes or town homes even with 3 000 square feet i would think correct we've our most dense plan we've come up with so far is 14 units okay all right thank you and and what size on those units we don't know and it's in the it's in the it's in the flood plain so we we can't do a basement so that'll factor into our final design as well but you don't know the size i mean i assume you've done a zoning analysis and then we we put together a 14 unit project that didn't work under the old or the existing annexation agreement and that's when we put everything on hold and started working on

[184:02] amending the annexation agreement to to make a viable project we did design we did spend a hundred thousand dollars designing the 14 units um then we got estimates to build them um and it it didn't work so we spent about a year doing that well i guess my question is if you're building 14 units then and you've found it not to be feasible then what are you proposing now i i'm just not trying to understand what it is that you're asking us to approve uh for us to pay cash in lieu and um then that would relieve the units of and then we could sell the units at a market rate and how do you see that market rate i i don't know but we would we would want to sell them for

[185:01] as much as people were willing to pay for them all right i don't want to belabor this any further thank you okay lauren you have a question for don i do thank you so i saw in the proposal that was previously applied for for the 14 units it looked like you were applying for 20 300 square feet of residential floor area [Music] and you just mentioned that the flood uh a flood issue do you think you would still be able to build that 20 000 square feet or um does is the flood level impacting that residential square footage the floodplain which is all over boulder the 100 year floodplain there's thousands of homes in it all that that

[186:01] means to us as developers is that we we cannot build basements which does which is a little bit which is less expensive to build a basement than than above grade so that's a little bit unfortunate it looked like in that proposal you were discussing two stories of residential above parking so it didn't seem like the floodplain would impact that but perhaps i'm misunderstanding something um well my understanding of the floodplain is just an elevation that you know if you are below it you cannot build a basement and any structures that you do build have to be above that line yes okay thank you got a couple more here nicole and matt yeah um i just have a question don um and hi thanks for being with us tonight um this may also be a question for kurt

[187:02] um so just sorry if if i'm opening opening up bringing kurt back in um but john my question was just around as i understand it um we're also buying the property on 30th street that we're going to be using the or for the fire station um from you and i was just um i think as i'm understanding it um the 55th straight spot was a better place for you to build what it was that you were interested in building we the city were really interested in having that 30th straight spot for a fire station and i'm just wondering if i'm understanding that correctly that um because as i sort of see this um council just to lay this out for for you all my colleagues um i see the fire station as being a big benefit for our community and having it in that location that we put a lot of time and energy and effort into um um planning for it there so i know it's not technically the way that we

[188:00] think about a community benefit um but this feels like a good thing for us for me could i maybe jump in uh nicole before don does just to give a little more background and then don can answer that um so the the 30th street um property that you're referring to is adjacent to the uh the fire station which has already gone through its uh entitlement process what it requires though is for this property to work in collaboration in creating a street that would be shared by by both properties as well housing human services invested 2.2 million dollars in this property uh i think it was about five years ago now uh to create affordable housing so um we currently have had a a sales contract

[189:00] um that's expired and gone back into place um two or three times over the last nine months um to purchase that property uh from don for those two purposes um to create affordable housing on the site as well as to work in collaboration with the fire station um we currently have that property under contract and are hopeful um that it doesn't get moved again um and that we would be able to close by the end of this month but i'll let don talk about how the if the two are linked or how they're linked as far as a development um approach so so you mentioned that one site was better than the other for us to develop they're actually both great sites to develop um but kurt and i've been talking for a few years now and i've been asked to

[190:01] accommodate what the city wants to do there which is a different plan than we originally made also with the city the fire station came in the fire station project came in after we purchased the 30th street property and again i was asked to accommodate what was happening there and that's you know what we've been what we've been negotiating and i hope to come to an agreement on on both of these properties great thank you both so much for helping um clarify i think you're muted aaron i see your mouth move all right matt and then mark sorry about that no worries uh thanks aaron um i just wanted to follow a little bit up on cole's point um kind of

[191:02] regarding the fire station i know these are separate properties but they certainly are linked perhaps a little bit transactionally and and also in terms of outcomes of housing and i i wouldn't i wanted to sort of ask the question of of you don about your maybe openness to having perhaps an amendment on this annexation that gives the city a little bit more of certainty with regards to how the outcome of that is with the fire station um at 26 91 30th because it is of community benefit it is of public safety and so i was curious if you'd be open to an amendment that um that that property is sort of conveyed to the city pursuant the terms of the executed sales agreement and authorizing perhaps our city manager to do the ex to do the annexation agreement um and really making sure that it is you know the conveyance of that property is really consistent with the terms of all these agreements i want to make sure that if we're doing this annexation and

[192:00] and creating this this uh means for you to develop this in a much more free way that we also make sure that we can guarantee that this fire station um has some certainty for us and our community uh for the sake of public safety as kurtz mentioned we've already put a lot of money and effort um we've got a master planning process that's clearly defined that we need to expand some of our our our capacity in regards to our firefighting so i wanted to sort of ask if you're if you're open to that to sort of allow us to have some some certainty with regards to the outcomes of that fire station site yes i'm very open to that thank you so much i really appreciate that it's good to know thanks mark i guess this question is for kurt but if it's if it's not a question that's appropriate to answer at this time that's fine what are the specific issues that are preventing our closing since we have a an executed contract that's obviously been around for a bit if we're not closing and we're prepared

[193:00] to close there have to be specific issues that are preventing a closing and we know what they are um so i believe on on two previous occasions um don has had to um either delay um the closing or pull it out um i believe from correct the end of last year um there was a period where we weren't under contract and then we had to come under contract again um so there's it's it's been an on and off um two or three times well i i mean i assume we're looking to close uh we are prepared to close and is what stands in the way now of that closing i would ask the same question of don is there a reason we haven't or not closing next tuesday

[194:03] it's not it's not that simple the the contract um allows me to choose whether i would like to close or not so it's an option agreement it looks it reads is combination of an option agreement and a purchase contract you could call it that yeah and on what is there any basis on which you you may elect not to close or simply is that a timing issue or a situation where you can simply elect not to close ever i i don't have to close okay and i don't i don't think the spirit of the last two years of kurt and i talking would be

[195:00] um you know to close one and not the other all right thank you don all right now again tara hey don um so this council has been dedicated we it is in our mind that we want to make more middle-class housing and i know that if um the square footage is too large then we won't be able to do that that is really our focus and we haven't been able to do that we have rarely done that yet so we would like to know if you can um i know you said that you are not able to but i'm going to ask you anyway if you can hold the square footage to i don't know um 14 15. i think the only way that that would work because if we could get upwards of 20 25 units and then that would require open space

[196:01] reduction which would be we're not i mean i would love that but i wouldn't like to go through the process that would take a couple more years we've already spent a few years in one design that didn't work so we're just we're kind of out of gas on that if if you all knew a quick way to reduce the open space requirement so that we could get more units you know we could keep pushing the square footage all the way down to 500 square feet per unit if i mean if we got 50 units but i don't i don't know there's other things in the code preventing us from that i believe and to to be fair um always you know i'm being asked to give up another property i'm being asked to shrink the homes raise the cash in lieu fees

[197:02] keep the prices at middle income like it's all stuff that just doesn't work it doesn't work for any affordable project um in boulder unless the city is um injecting significant funds and i haven't asked that and i don't think kurt's interested in that because of the small nature of this project thanks uh tears that finish your question okay lauren and then maybe we'll go to the public hearing except pop um sorry i'm just back on this uh previous submittal it at 20 000 a little over 20 000 square feet for 14 units it seems like you would be at just over 1400 square feet per unit um so i guess i'm not understanding

[198:02] why like the underlying zoning seems to allow something in that range already and so you know if you were capped at 15 or 100 square feet it doesn't seem like you would even be capable of doing that with the current zoning so it almost seems like a non non-issue um and so maybe you could just explain a little bit more of your thinking about why that number seems problematic to you it may be a non-issue i don't know we don't know how many units we're ultimately going to fit we don't know once you know engineering gives us their input once the fire department decides on the fire truck turn around we don't we don't actually know we we very well may fall into a square footage that that you all like but it's more i guess it's more of the fear of the

[199:00] unknown and so i don't think anybody in boulder wants to um well i'm sure some people do but most people don't wouldn't want to purposely limit the square footage that anything on their property could be built and so we're just being cautious um again we want to build as many units as we can and that'll by nature make it make them smaller and less expand less expensive thank you uh see nicole's back something that i hope will clarify our discussion um don i'm just wondering you just listed five or six different things right that we're kind of asking you for here i'm wondering are there some of them you know would you be willing to take like a subset of those things um or because you listed um [Music] that we're asking for limiting the square footage um more cash in lieu um

[200:02] the 30th street property um i think there were there were one or two things in there as well and i'm just wondering if there are some of those that um rather than thinking about all of them are there some of them that if you were going to pick one or two things um does that make sense yeah i'm i'm i'm okay um handing over 30th street and i'm okay paying some cash in lieu um you know that's that's two things um but that's probably that's probably the extent and again i want to do more units if i didn't want to do more units i would just build one big house there and i i don't this is that's the opposite of what we want to do so i really think we want the same thing thank you

[201:01] all right here we go bob two questions one is probably for staff probably for use loan if we didn't approve this this amendment tonight because it sounds like don's got some more work to do doesn't know what he wants to build there which is fine um if we didn't so maybe it's premature for us to take on this amendment if we didn't approve this amendment what would happen i mean does it just kind of sit out there under the old 1999 terms and he either builds or doesn't is that how that works yeah that's correct um i think there's some implications from a housing perspective on if they did a rental project how exactly we would administer that um i think that's that's part of the issue but they could build a single family home it wouldn't as long as they're not adding any dwell units they wouldn't have to meet any of the housing provisions in the agreement with the annexation agreement okay that's fine um and then um

[202:03] i'm just just trying to understand don what getting back to mark's questions i mean it seems like it sounds like you don't know what you want to build there which is fine and and maybe this is premature we would like to kind of get going on our fire station and you know i think there's a contract i think i read in the memos like 4.7 million so it's not like given to us we've given you a fair amount of money for it and i wonder if we just put that behind us close that deal and if you need more time to think about what you're going to build there i like lauren's math it sounds like 1400 is kind of what you were thinking if you know i think i did the same math as one did if you divide 14 units into 14 um to 20 000 it comes out to be about the 1400 that that tara mentioned so it sounds like we're kind of pretty similar there but if you need some more time to think about it we can't we unite nicely going on the fire station um and so i don't know what you're thinking on all that is if you need more

[203:01] more time um if you need relief on um we need relief on the open space that's something we can certainly talk about as well because i think you know tara was on the right path with the 1400 feet that just doing the math and that that starts to feel like a middle income affordable housing i'm sorry to say that because it used to be quite a bit larger here in boulder but unfortunately we're down to 1400 feet but that's where we are we are and and we did do when we just talked about this like two hours ago we did provide open space relief on the diagonal plaza so it's within our power i think unless death corrects me through an ordinance to give some open space relief is that a lengthy process it seems to me that diagonal plaza we just kind of did a lickity split am i remembering correctly song well annexations a negotiated outcome so you would be able to do it through the annexation agreement if that was desired right charlie saw charles come up trump can you give us some guidance yeah i was going to say the exact same thing i think it's something that we get drafted to the agreement if that was the world council sure so it's not a it's not a lengthy or time-consuming process

[204:01] if don said hey listen i can live with 1400 feet but i need a little relief on hope on open space requirements i need to be a little less than 3 000. that's something we could just build right into is that right right it's not a supplemental process okay great that's that's kind of what i thought i thought too okay um that's that's it for for now so six six hundred feet per unit down from 3 000 is how you get to 25 units yeah i wasn't talking about 25 i was i was using tara's number and lauren's number of of 1400 divided into 20 000 which is what your plan was and like they can't got it to they got to 14 units um i don't know if they're looking to take it down to 600 that's that that doesn't feel like middle-income family housing anymore that feels like a single person's uh studio apartment okay let's let's go to the public hearing and then let's have discussion

[205:00] and uh we can we can see where this leads so uh let's go ahead and open the public hearing we've got one person signed up lynn siegel is up with uh three minutes of testimony so no annexation no open space timer coming up yeah no no no no no don at it again after 3 11 on the open space where the fire is going to come in where a fire happened care of michael bosma on the property of 311 with seven countif subsidies up at 311. that is the crime of the century in boulder he's not going to pull it again no way now i don't know what's happening with the fire station i've watched the planning board issue on the fire station i don't know exactly how the housing's working there i'm sure i'll see that in the future as time goes by but there should be no open space agreements with these developers that want to make the maximum buck let him build his freaking

[206:01] house a big house you know good for him hope he gets enough out of it but he wants what he wants is 1400 1500 square foot places units in this place um i mean what he wants that's what that's what we want what he wants is 800 square feet with 25 units and he wants an open space forgiveness and he wants our agreement on annexation what can you be thinking city council what can you be thinking this is another developer giveaway and it's so ironic that it's in any way connected with fire station now there's gonna have to be more fire provisions up at 311 on his previous development because that's where the big one's coming in the big fire and you know what with that marshall fire if we were off just a little tiny bit on the um

[207:01] this atmospheric condition that that could have happened that day we would have had ola boulder taken out easily now it's coming in the future and it's coming in through a senior center on the open space at the urban wildlife interface that is not a funny thing you know we've got to deal with that and there's one way out for all of those people on oxygen tanks full full spectrum nursing on that site and now this guy is trying to get free open space now what do we do when we have people in in these little units and with given up open space guess what what do they want to do they want to get the heck out of their little tiny units and use our open space that were 300 million dollars in deficit on in maintenance and operations and capital improvements funds with the open space board of trustees just ask them

[208:01] how much open space are we buying for these people to use in these little tiny units like i always say my dad moved from new york city not to you new york city okay absolutely no no judah don altman and michael bosma no way thank you lynn appreciate that all right let's close the public hearing that's all of our speakers so let's come back to city council and see if anybody has a proposal for how they'd like to move forward mark well first i i've got to say that um and this is not the fault of staff in any respect um they've been talking for a long time with this particular developer and i'm doing their absolute best to create a good product for the city but this is in my two and a half years on council the most problematic transaction

[209:00] i have ever had to review this is an individual who wants to pay 1999 um cash and loot prices and sell homes at 2022 prices um he does not want to cap the size of them um so we have no idea whether they will be i don't think they'll be truly middle income but they'll be close enough uh to make a real contribution to our housing stock um and his tradeoff for that is we'll give me 40 or 50 units and uh uh you know i'll be happy to to comply um i i find that to be terribly problematic in addition well before i say that i i would say that i'm always interested in discussing a compromise and i'm prepared to compromise a bit on the cash and move that we ought to be receiving if we can get more than we're getting uh

[210:02] and in exchange for that getting a some degree of cap on the size of the unit so that we can make them uh within reach of a greater percentage of our population and at the same time i am very concerned about his behavior with respect to the fire station site um and the sort of implied leveraging of that with respect to this and i i don't like that at all um if this is a transaction that's going to close i want to see it close and i want to see whatever we do on a 55th street in effect to be subject to that closing uh and if not let's consider our other alternatives um this to me is is a substantial overreach in any number of respects um there's not another developer in town who would have the expectation of twenty five thousand dollars a unit for cash and lieu not one and we have a pretty large development community here so this is this is not a

[211:01] transaction in its present form that i could uh support i could get behind a certain um compromise to up the cash remove a bit maybe not as much as i'd like to get a cap on the unit size and i'd appreciate that and i want to see a closing on 30th street and i want them in effect tied together um or or build according to the um build according to the annexation agreement obligations you undertook and committed to in 1999 uh that's as far as i would be prepared to go thanks thanks got lauren here thanks um i appreciate the work that staff has done trying to get get us somewhere on this proposal um i think for me i'm i'm also concerned about the cash and low being fairly low and that

[212:01] in combination with the fact that this whatever is agreed to well i appreciate the five-year sort of sun setting on this but the fact that it could be developed at relatively low density of single-family housing and have a low cash and low value together those things make me feel like the city would not be getting the benefits we're looking for out of this out of this agreement and i think one of the ways that i'd like to see that addressed is by looking at the development potential and setting the cash in lieu as a fixed fee based on what we think the possible development potential is so i would like to see a slightly higher cash and low rate maybe the adjusted 35 000

[213:00] that kurt brought up that would be sort of you know accounting for inflation and then look at that you know multiplying that out times the 14 units that it seems like it's potentially feasible to have on this site so that even if only 12 units were developed or something like that that we would get the cash in lieu of so that we're incentivizing um smaller units through charging a higher cash and low rate and i also would approve of tying the agreement to the approval of the fire station yeah i'm where where lauren and mark are as well lauren i really like your idea of effectively um backing into a fixed fee you know if if this can accommodate 14 units we can do 14 times the 35 number that kurt put on the table and figure

[214:00] out what that is and if if the 15th unit can be squeezed in there then that's great um no no cash in blue on that one so i like that approach lauren that makes a lot of sense i do like the 1400 number that tara and lauren calculated um if um if there's some relief needed on on open space and staff and don can tell us that if it's instilled 3000 feet it needs to be 2900 or 2800 to make 14 units fit in there that's fine it feels like 3 000 into forty four thousand makes fourteen but if uh we need to nudge that number a little bit we did it on diagonal plaza we can certainly do it here it sounds like it's pretty much just a line a sentence of the amendment uh so i'd provide relief if that's needed i don't know if it will be and then like lauren and mark said this absolutely has to be tied to the closing of the fire station in good faith um we can bundle all this together in a grand bargain and uh and be done with it so i'm going to call myself and then i see matt popped up um but but i wonder if we might if we might be able to put together a package that

[215:01] that looks like something bob was just describing building on lauren's thing of saying okay let's um let's have an an increased cash in lieu maybe it may be a total amount rather than a per unit amount of a moderate increase some kind of cap on square footage but also a relief on the open space requirements so it would be possible to build some additional units and then add in a um you know a contingency on the the closing of the 30th street so so so then we're getting there's some additional community benefit that we're asking for but we would also be granting some relief on the open space requirement i wonder if we had something that had those four items in it i wonder if there's there's a possible path forward on that so throw that out there um matt and then rachel i i won't repeat what's been said i i kind of like the direction that we're headed you know between everybody's comments with lauren mark and bob and and stuff so i'm just going to say i i

[216:00] support that sort of package that aaron was sort of succinctly trying to lay out i think that's a good direction for us to go um so hopefully um hopefully don is amenable to that and and we can turn that around and get and move the ball forward rachel i would say that the main thing would for me would be to tether it to the you know tether the annexation amendment to what we need at the fire station um that's a health and safety need for the city um and and so that's the only one that i think is is really kind of critical um i think like if i step back i think what we're talking about is is the um the fee being up from 25 000 to 35 000 for 10 and maybe some change units it's it's in the scheme of things of what we do as a city it's not really a lot of money um so i'm i'm

[217:00] you know great if we can get it but i i would be cautious about overplaying our hand when i i think the alternative is we could kind of lose what we need at the fireplace and a massive single-family house gets put there instead of some some needed multi-family unit so um it this doesn't quite sound fully baked to me for for us to be looking at it right now to be honest i appreciate the work that everyone's done going into it um i think that again it if if what we're trying to get out of it as a city is the fire station needs then then that needs to be part of the agreement directly and concretely and conditionally in in the annexation but outside of that i would trust staff um to negotiate for for something that's fair keeping in mind that um you know we we do have wants and needs out of this agreement it's not entirely one-sided thanks um mark maybe we can give junior a chance

[218:00] and then come back to you so genie uh you're needed thank you aaron um i agree with the increase in cash and lieu um but i think what i heard earlier there was an issue a possible issue with timing and i think right now may not be i just think it goes back to something that rachel said maybe we should let staff and don figure that out as opposed to just us trying to figure it out on the fly making up an amount and then if it doesn't work it seems like we're creating the process for for don and cd staff and i just don't think if this is the right time to do it right then um so maybe sending this back to staff and don to work it out and then bring it back you know to an amount that is amenable

[219:00] for both staff and us because staff has our interests and also done because again he's the developer so um i agree with rachel thank you mr um mark and then i'll see if we have a next step yeah of course i guess i i i would take a little have a little bit of disagreement with with juni on this um we've been talking to this developer for a couple of years and so i think it is important that council lays out without necessarily see setting it in stone but lays out certain parameters that they require in order to move forward here and you know i think there's been a suggestion of a 1400 square foot cap on unit size i think that's really really important i am not entirely happy with with the 35 000 per unit cash in lieu but as part of a larger transaction and bargain that's something i can live with um

[220:00] you know if uh if necessary um uh and as others have said it really must be tied together with the um uh the fire station parcel um if don wants to um simply not proceed on that that that's his right to do so and then as i said we'll have to look up at our other alternatives but there's no reason for us not to be closing on something where we're prepared to write the check now and either we're gonna do it or we're not and um so tying it into this larger grand bargain i think is is a very very important component of it because i want to know whether we're going to get there and if we're not going to get there i'm a little less happy about giving up 65 000 potentially 65 000 per unit of cash and low um there's no real rationale for doing that other than that something the developer likes because

[221:00] less is better um if we're getting something for it in terms of a closing on the firehouse parcel then it's easier to live with otherwise as i said i i'm really not very interested in having somebody pay 1999 cash and loop prices to sell product at 2022 market prices that doesn't make any sense we don't we don't do that for anyone else i understood okay thanks mark um well so maybe what i want to do is turn to kurt we we've talked about maybe four potential levers you know to pull here on this and then maybe we can go to mr altman kurt do you feel like we have potentially a framework that we could work with to to move this to completion uh i think thank you aaron yes i i think we we do um however an annexation agreement is an agreement between two parties um i think we've

[222:01] heard you uh loud and clear and give and given very helpful guidance um i would want to understand how don uh understands that as well um so we're not back to where we started from um [Music] also if i could maybe um before we close out the discussion for clarity purposes um call on teresa and maybe someone from planning to give their interpretation i think teresa probably has some ideas about how 30th street would be connected and i believe someone in planning may have some ideas about the discussion just to make sure we close it out and have the clarity that we need very good teresa you want to chime in um well we certainly can propose as a term to the annexation amendment uh that it be conditioned upon the closing of the 30th street property

[223:02] and that's that would be uh an acceptable condition from from our perspective certainly um the applicant you know would have to agree to that as well um and that's the same with any change in the amount of cash in lieu understood yeah it's it's a negotiation very good well so maybe i can call on on don altman john do you feel like this is a structure that you're willing to converse about with city staff and potentially come to an agreement if we have these four levers that we're looking at shifting around so the the levers i'm okay with and again i haven't gone on and on about what we're giving up by selling 30th um it's not 1999 prices but it's no profit to us and it is 2017 prices

[224:01] which we all know where prices were in 2017. so i do want a little bit of credit for walking away from all the efforts that we put into that partners we brought into it plans we made to do that a lot of upside over the years and so i think that's being forgotten um and mostly because i'm not mentioning it that much but um so i'm totally i'm okay with linking it to 30th and selling it um as part of this and um i'm okay to the 35 000 the increase from 25 to 35 thousand dollars um and that's that's the extent i just i can't i can't limit the square footage if you were would potentially sum cap on square footage maybe it's not exactly 1400 but some cap on square footage if it were

[225:01] accompanied by lower open space requirements so that you would be able to build additional units would that be something you'd consider discussing i just i think i could say yeah right now and everybody would be happy but i think when we when we got to it it would end up being more units and then the open space reduction would become a larger issue and i really don't want to really don't want to delay the process anymore i mean i would love to just be done with this i know it's new to everyone on this call but it has been two years five years five six years if you count what we've been doing working on 30th street um and so we're just we're just tired well we've heard that from kurt as well i know it's been a long process um i'll just say i don't know that there's uh the will of counsel would be to just

[226:02] do the 30th and the the cash loop but we can we can check so i think if you're willing to look at all four we can move forward but with just the two i don't know if this would be successful or not um jenny you have a thought i just have a question maybe for council or probably kurt because i think i heard from don part of the i guess maybe the hesitation is the fact that the process might be prolonged further is there a way that maybe counsel as part of or requirement or request to expedite the process to make it not take as long well and junipedo might not build on that because i mean i think these are just a couple of variables that could be written into the annexation agreement so i mean it seems like if people were able to come to an agreement we could revise it and have it back in front of council and prove it in the space of a month say

[227:02] um i'm seeing some knotting heads from kurt and teresa so you wouldn't necessarily have to involve a long delay mark you want to throw in an extra thought you know i want to support what juni said and really what you have said um uh if we can come to an agreement on this i would be more than happy to have this project expedited um so that there's no undue delay and we're not going back into a two-year development cycle but i'm also very reluctant to give up um the elements of this project um and i i think they're all important and uh so that's a that's a probably a conversation for uh staff and the developer but i i think we've laid down some very productive guidelines and you know at some point the developer will have to decide how he wants to proceed okay lauren

[228:03] i think so if i look at 35 000 times 14 units for you know basically half a million dollars in cash in lieu i think for me i could be okay with that um coupled with the time if we say like that's the amount of cash in lieu for however many units you can manage to under the current zoning build on this property so that creates an incentive to to do in some ways smaller units so that you can get more onto the onto the property as we've seen in a previous development agreement 14 units is about 1400 square feet per unit for me i would be okay going forward with that coupled with the um guarantee on the fire station and having

[229:01] a five-year sunset on the reduced cash and loot payment because i think that you know having housing now also has it a certain um benefit to it as well so that's where i'm at that's that one okay i'm going to go ahead and make a suggestion people can disagree with me if you want but i feel like um we have some different ideas out there i think that if people sharpen their pencils with some of these variables there might be an outcome that that might be mutually excess acceptable maybe not but but maybe there would be and so what if we continued the hearing tonight gave um staff and mr altman a chance to to talk this through one or two more times and then we could come back with the continued hearing say in a in time frame of roughly a month and see what we've got and then either vote it up or down at that time based on

[230:00] those discussions and kurt i want to look to you to see if you feel like that's a reasonable approach to to take next steps yes uh thank you aaron and the rest of council i think that's that's very helpful um and i'll just give one clarification on the way out as well um the current uh agreement that we have for 30th street was based on an appraisal that was done i think about seven months ago or eight months ago um so at that time at least when the room was put together it was based on an actual amount relative to market um and then i also believe according to the comp plan um you can do 14 units per acre there and um so you know 14 seems like a really good number to make the assumptions that lauren is putting forward uh you were cutting out a little bit kurt were you saying that the appraisal on the 30th street property was just seven months old is that what she said yes it was done i think it was last end

[231:01] of last summer or last fall something like that that's correct okay great well so if you feel like that's a reasonable path forward if no one council feels like that's reasonable maybe somebody could i mean i'll just go ahead and do it i'll make a motion that we continue this uh this hearing uh to a date hopefully in approximately a month uh at which point we would revisit um uh potential amendments further events the annexation agreement second okay any uh any last comments or thoughts before i called for a vote on that bob yeah i i i think i heard don say yes to two things um in hesitancy on a third one and i just want to make sure that kurt heard i think at least the majority of us if not all of us say that we would very much like a cap we talked about 1400 i mean you can come back with a slightly different number kurt but what i would hate to do is have this come back in a month with no cap um because i'm sensing

[232:01] that there's a majority on council would like to see a cap you do the best you can but i think if it was no cap i'm not sure that you'd get five votes to support that i'm just stating what i heard yeah we didn't do a straw poll but it would be tenuous i think it was a fair statement um nicole yeah i was actually just not not sure if it was a majority there or not so i was i was wondering could we do a straw poll is that going to affect anything if we just see you know how much of us are wedded to the the square foot requirement i've just i heard the developer say multiple times that that's not something that he would be interested in and so it just feels like a lot to send kurt and staff and everyone back from another month of conversations if that's not going to be an outcome we can achieve i guess i'll just say that that for me personally i

[233:00] maybe there are other ideas that people come back with or you know maybe there's a a different package that doesn't look exactly like a cat but maybe has something else so to me would be a little bit dependent on what we get so i'd say like i probably wouldn't support something that was just um the the annexation the 30th street plus um plus ten thousand more in cash in lube but if other things came into the picture i'm willing to consider it so i'm a little va i'm interested in seeing how the discussions go i'll just say um i'm a little less black and white but tara i'm gonna agree with you aaron i think we should wait and not do a straw poll and see what people can come back with i'm confident that we can um find some way to make everybody relatively satisfied let's wait i don't need to do a straw poll either

[234:00] but i i did not indicate that i was led to that and i am not went to that so now it's on the record so nicole with your forgiveness i i i think maybe having um the discussions continue somewhat without a firm position um might work out okay thank you for your flexibility uh can i go ahead and call for a vote then uh on the motion on the table i believe alicia this would be a show of hands am i correct about that i believe it can be sorry yes okay all in favor of continuing the hearing for the motion on the table i got looks like everybody that's unanimous so we'll we'll continue this i i know curt and john i know you all are exhausted from this process um i know it's been going on for a long time but appreciate your flexibility and hopefully we can

[235:00] get to a successful outcome here in a month or so okay um someone do a time check i think we could all use a five-minute break um uh but are we good to uh to tackle the east boulder sub-community plan once we come back from a short break unseen muted enthusiasm um okay good all right yes teresa um if i might suggest so under the code if if you take up a new substantive item um that is going to go past 10 30 that requires a two-thirds majority vote uh looking at the time that's allocated for this it looks like that would go beyond 10 30 so i would recommend that you call for a vote somebody want to make a motion i moved to this meeting no motion needed second all in favor okay thanks for making us daughterize and

[236:00] cross our teas teresa uh very good oh let's let's go for seven minutes how about we'll come back at 9 55. thanks [Music]

[237:16] [Music] [Music]

[238:17] [Music] [Music]

[239:03] [Music] do [Music] do [Music] do [Music]

[240:29] do [Music]

[241:10] [Music] so [Music] do [Music]

[242:54] i'm sorry cut your mid bite it's strawberries with whipped cream [Music]

[243:02] i hope you brought enough to share with everybody i wish i could guys you know i want to be in real life badly my kindergarten teacher always told me only only bring only eat in class if you can share with everybody you're all good i hope you all have wonderful snacks too i'd like to make a dessert request for when we do get to come back in real life strawberries and whipped cream i'm all about that it's really good alicia's like no [Laughter] they were nicely sliced and everything looks like nicole needs to get uh promoted back as a panelist she she got kicked out i was just teasing miss teresa you can have whatever you like i might just bring them in a little bowl for you i'm eating crunch and much with peanuts right so i do have a lot of eating my tea stuck

[244:01] now though theresa that's all right we got everybody back so um if we can move into the eastbourne sub community and i'll just before we get started i'll just say obviously this is a very important plan we want to give it the attention it deserves but also it's getting late so if we can be concise with our thoughts and our points that would be much appreciated so let's see if we can be thorough but but but concise and efficient that's my challenge to you all all right alicia you take us into it all right sir thank you item 5d on tonight's agenda is our continued public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt the east boulder sub-community plan the planning board just for the note deliberated and considered a motion for adoption on may 5th and city council will deliberate and consider a motion for adoption they did at the may 10th council meeting so this is council

[245:01] deliberation only and no further public testimony will be received and we've got kathleen poised and ready to go miraculously my computer almost exploded so i'm glad that i made it back hi everyone thanks so much for having me tonight kathleen king planner and comprehensive planning we have a brief presentation to just go through some of the planning board amendments that were proposed on may 5th and so emily if you could pull up the slides i'll just walk us through those hopefully she's not having still having trouble i can pull those up

[246:01] okay that'd be great at least all sorts of issues yes we are oh she's got it that's my girl all right great so um as alicia just described and as a reminder tonight's meeting is the third session in a series of meetings to consider the plan for adoption there was a joint meeting held on may 3rd with planning board and city council holding the public hearing the hearing was continued on thursday may 5th a planning board made a motion to adopt the plan and tonight council is also considering adoption of the sub-community plan both planning board and city council must adopt the same plan to finalize adoption planning board voted 5-0 with two board members absent to adopt the east boulder sub-community plan including the 55th and arapahoe stationary plan with 11 amendments and we'll go through these together

[247:01] shortly next slide so council has some options for next steps on the adoption process council may move to adopt the plan with the amendments included in the planning board motion and this would finalize adoption of the plan council could alternatively move to adopt the plan without accepting the planning board's recommended amendments and we would then take the plan back to planning board to reconsider a third option is that council may move to adopt a plan with different amendments than planning board and in that case we would also take um that motion and the plan back to planning board and then finally council may choose to deny adoption of the plan next slide please could you move to the next line

[248:06] i'm wondering if it froze we are checking looks like a dude my screen is graying out mhm gremlin issues it's been a day yes with computers all right let me go ahead and share this screen and get that taken care of and that way we won't continue to have those issues how about that great thank you we're on number four all right let me get to that of course there's other screens that i'm trying to work right here right i am so not the person perfect thank you

[249:01] thank you for your patience so last week staff provided some background information and feedback on planning board's recommended amendments for council's consideration we thought it'd be valuable to dive deeper into two of the proposed amendments which we consider to be substantive and look for council's direction on these items in particular next slide i'm sorry kathleen i'm seeing it in and maybe it's just me are you seeing the right screen uh i i see yes the right um slide is it in presentation mode yes that's what i that's what so the the first substantive amendment is related to project m16 and this can be found on page 73 of the sub-community plan the project was added to the plan in

[250:00] recent weeks after discussion and collaboration with airport users and boulder muniz boulder municipal airport staff airport users describe a concern for an increase in complaints about airport use after new residential and mixed use development in east boulder takes place project m16 directs city staff to study noise impacts as part of a part 150 study and consider whether to expand the existing airport influence zone to the south the airport influence zone is described in the boulder revised code section 9310 and expanding the airport influence zone would offer tools such as navigation easements as a method to notify prospective home buyers in the area that are that the airport uses airspace in east boulder so um when we met with planning board uh there was a concern that an expansion of airport influence zones one and two would

[251:02] prohibit the development of new structures in east boulder and therefore negatively impact the plan's housing goals and vision for mixed-use neighborhoods the proposed amendment um that planning board put forward is intended to prevent this conflict could you go to the next slide please so this is a map of the current airport influence zone which is referenced in the code and zone one applies to the runway and immediate adjacencies zone two extends to the east and west of the runway an airspace where aircraft generally take off our land so the federal aviation administration has prescribed standards for the height of objects near airports in the code of federal regulations title 14 part 77 which is called objects affecting navigable airspace

[252:00] the regulation defines a system of imaginary surfaces around an airport through which no fixed object or structure should penetrate so this is designed to protect critical air space and allow for safe operation of aircraft and this limits development of any structures in zones one and two zones three and four generally cover some um residentially zoned land within city limits and land designated by the bvcp land use map as either open space or very low residential outside of city limits these zones may experience noise impacts from airport use the part 150 study referenced in the sub-community plan um project m16 would study noise impacts from the airport and consider whether there is a need to expand zones three or four or create a new zone five so could you go to the next slide please

[253:06] so staff this might be a older version of the presentation but the um language is um similar um staff recommends that the language and the plan not identify the specific zones as we will depend on the results of the part 150 study to determine whether there is a need to expand the airport influence zones whether there should be any new zones created such as a zone 5 and where those zones might be applied so we believe that um planning board's concerned with the expansion of zones one or two is um unlikely as potential buildings in the proposed areas of change in the east boulder sub community plan would not impact navigable aerospace so next slide please

[254:10] and the next slide just describes you know related to this proposed amendment we have two key issues and then we also have the city's airport manager john kinney available to answer questions on this topic but i'll move to the next substance substantive amendment if you could go to the next slide so the next amendment proposed by planning board is related to project d9 on page 83 of the sub-community plan the amendment describes the development and testing of options or tools such as the creation of an far limit in flatiron business park next slide please so um the amendment references the area

[255:02] of flatiron business park if folks are familiar it's along 55th street and then east to south boulder creek which you can see the blue squiggly line over to the east there the plan is actually just or the proposed amendment is just referencing that area that's in dark blue next slide so staff concern is that the amendment as proposed ties an outcome or regularly regulatory tool such as an far limit to a projected number of jobs for a specific area of the city time outcomes or tools to be used to a specific number of jobs may not be appropriate to include in the sub-community plan in general the city

[256:00] doesn't regulate numbers of jobs employment fluctuates over time and workspace design and the dynamics postcovid are are really changing about how many jobs can be accommodated in different size spaces and then additionally bvcp bvcp policy on the jobs to housing balance does not offer a strategy that would cap a number of jobs so because of this we're offering this recommendation to describe that staff will study and model options but not limit that outcome to an assumption-based number next slide please so similarly we're asking council to consider whether this project should be amended and what their preferred language might be should you find a need to amend this project and then if you go um to the the next slide it's just highlighting the rest of the

[257:00] amendments proposed by planning board which offer additional detail um clarification or reprioritization of the recommendations in the plan and staff is available to answer questions about any of the other proposed amendments so if you go to the next one the the final key issue that we have is just whether council wants to make changes to any of the um amendments we've classified as clarifying which have been proposed by planning board um and that's that's really it um if you go to the next slide i'm not sure if it's alicia or emily um just want to put up a reminder about the the actions um that you could consider tonight and then the final slide outlines all of the the key issues and that's that's it for me thank you thanks so much for that

[258:01] so let's see do folks have any follow-up questions for staff based on on this or if there are any lingering issues from before that we need to address in order to get the plan passed or emotion made so bob and then lauren thanks kathleen that was very helpful i just want to make sure i'm clear there were a number of amendments from the playing board should i assume or should we understand that other than d9 and and i think it's m16 the slide's gone already um other than those two which i think will probably have lengthier conversations about um the staff is generally fine with the playing board amendments is that right that's correct great thank you do you mind if i just follow up on that um because i i recall from the the analysis that the very last one was about a homeownership incentive study and i thought i'd seen in the staff analysis that we're essentially already doing things like that right now um but does it from your statement doesn't mean like that staff is still comfortable with it because we're essentially already doing

[259:01] things like that so adding it into this plan is fine because it's kind of covered by our intentions already yeah i think it's um reiterating programs that we're already working on it's not necessarily i would say additive um okay so you're comfortable with having it in there thanks for clarifying lauren rachel i had a question about the airport and um how would that study fit it i know that we're discussing evaluating the airport as part of the work plan items that we're looking at as a council and so i just wanted to see how that policy item would fit in or interact with what council is already planning to do um if you're talking about the upcoming airport master plan the part

[260:02] 150 study would occur before the airport master plan but i might just check with um john kinney if he is still available i was going to chime in i didn't see john but i'll say this i know council um had discussed putting placing an evaluation of the airport as part of the in part of the retreat that did not advance and move forward i will say that despite that as staff has i shouldn't say despite but in addition to as staff has moved forward their continued work with the airport they have just recently owned there's john they have recently um suggested to me that the master plan for the airport that was scheduled for 2025 actually begin earlier unrelated to the conversations that council was having related to the future of the airport but

[261:00] more really because staff needs that to happen and they've been talking to the faa about that so john maybe you can elaborate on that but i would separate them a bit because i want to make sure that we're honoring the fact that council discussed it it did not move forward but yet staff is bringing forward a request to bring that master plan forward in a different way hey john thanks nuria uh mayor brockett members of the city council my name is john kinney i've been the airport manager now for a whopping six months so thank you for the opportunity nice to meet you all um as uh was just discussed the master plan apartment 50 study actually would be going simultaneous uh the uh with the same consultant and for the economies of scale would take about an 18-month process to get through both of those so and as nuria said um we've already had initial conversations with the faa to move that up from originally 2025 to do consultant

[262:00] selection this year and start the master planning process sometime next year based on a few other loose ends yet to be quantified it's good to know john and welcome i think this is your first council meeting you spoke that's good good to have you here it is mayor brockett thank you did that answer your question wait rachel nicole thanks aaron and i agree good to meet you john my first question is um steph in the or kathleen in the presentation did you capture junie's hotline post there was sort of a a lingering question i feel like around conestoga and western just trying to make that was in there somewhere um no we did not address that in the hotline post and um it is that amendment is not in that list that was included with the planning board motion okay well

[263:02] i'll just flag i think that's probably something we also i was interested in hearing more about that um and then a process question um it you know you gave four options like we can say yes we can amend we can straight say no what happens if there's like a a game of chicken i just haven't done this before so what if you know we don't like what the planning board did and the planning board doesn't like what we do so is it like the equal rights amendment does it just sit out there until one side you know one side picks up enough votes or what what is what's the like the worst case scenario here i'm just wanting to understand that out front i see david just came online so i might direct the question to him thank you david gear interim planning director planning and development services so you know when we have there have been times when typically we resolve it and we bring the planning board and the council into alignment there have been a few times where we haven't been able to in the context of our comprehensive plan

[264:02] and in those cases we just deemed like that little section is not approved and we had the rest of the document approved so like if we don't come to agreement on one one part everything gets approved what happens at one part is it just rejected or or is it like the era where some where the other side could come back to it at some point rejection rejected is such a hard word but it it is certainly deemed as not approved okay thanks so much yeah thank you don't the certain point the mayor and the chair of the playing board thumb wrestle to see who wins i thought i remember that yeah heard that too thanks rachel uh nicole and mark yeah i just had a question um around the engagement for um some of the airport this m16 component that seems like it was added relatively recently um you know one of the things that i really appreciated about this entire process is

[265:00] how much engagement there's been how diverse the sub community planning group was and how much feedback they provided and i was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about that because it seemed like the engagement process for this m16 component was just different from the way that the rest of this has unfolded yeah you're right um this project was added after the release of the 90 draft and we have over the course of the project um met with and had meetings out at the airport to engage airport users as well um and learned you know i think in the last couple of months that they really were feeling that their concerns were not reflected in the plan and so we worked back and forth with that group to incorporate this new project and language but it did not go through maybe the rigor of

[266:02] community review that other parts of the plan um experienced and with that did the sub community group have a chance to discuss some of that feedback that you got in everything or was this really just sort of outside of that group as well so the last time that the east boulder working group provided feedback on the draft was that 90 draft so this project in particular they have not weighed in on okay thank you mark then i'll call myself yeah just very briefly i i was supportive of the proposed change judy made in our hotline post and i'd like to have a little more conversation about that or understanding as to why it was not incorporated i thought it was a well-taken suggestion can i actually piggyback on that mark do you mind because i because i had i was going to ask a similar question but with

[267:01] a little bit more directed um because kathleen i was i was wondering if uh possibly to address the the potential incompatibility of uh of housing along the north side of western avenue across the street or across the railroad tracks recording pharma if we could add like a line in the plan to say that uh that uh that section should not be re-zoned to allow housing until or unless incompatible incompatible heavy industrial uses across the train tracks uh went away something to that effect do you think like that would be an approach that they could work out to deal with that issue yeah i think if um council wanted to propose that as an amendment um that would offer um a solution that i think maintains the vision the long-term vision for that area and the plan without

[268:01] putting some of the conflicting use concerns um in the near term very good thanks chad so i'll bring that up under comments but mark did you did you want to go further and i i actually think that's a great suggestion aaron and my only other question is how good are you with thumb wrestling i you know i i was semi-pro back in my 20s so you carry a big burden so good uh that was my question any other questions from council members all right well we do not have a public hearing on this again we've already taken our public testimony so here's what i'm going to suggest is to to group in into three buckets and in our discussion and one is the non-substantive planning board suggestions the next is the specific two substantive ones to see how people feel about those and then invite if any council member want to make additional

[269:00] amendments after that we could tackle those if so if that's a minimal default we can we can tackle things in that order we've seen some nod in heads here so uh is it possible to get the presentation back up so that we can see that list of the planning board amendments please so let's start here so what i'll start with okay they have 2 through 4 and 6 through 11 which were classified as non-substantive by city staff does anyone have any objections to those or want to discuss any of those non-substantive ones yes i have one and i apologize i'm not um able i can't read this well enough to find it but let me tell you what i'm talking about um it's the part that was related to the um considering culture um and i think doing a pilot study um of the community industry use

[270:02] is that one in here it's number two okay thank you um so yeah and i i just what i wanted to raise is that um i think maybe there wasn't um complete understanding of what it was that emma was raising with this point and so i wanted to flag it because in my mind it's um it is actually a really um interesting and powerful idea i think as we're thinking about development um so i think um what lml was getting at is that um there's a space in the west belmont park that's going to lose a vibrant community and a creative culture and losing some of this in community industrial space this culture has really evolved over decades um lauren and i went and visited some of the spaces last fall and were able to talk to a bunch of creators there and it wasn't just really a space for people to build electric bikes or paint or make jewelry it was a space where people found community and i think what what this culture piece

[271:01] is asking for is how we can acknowledge this culture as we're changing and ensure that it remains by giving it the opportunity to evolve as this area changes and i think this is the pilot that ml was talking about that it's not a pilot of community industry needs but rather a pilot that looks at how we can sustain these kind of microcosms in our community these sub-communities that are really creating community as we're moving forward with development um you've heard me talk about resiliency before and the importance of social infrastructure um and i think it's really getting at that if we have these spaces that create these really um powerful sub-communities and microcosms where people are able to come together in a way that they're not not really able to in other places of our community how can we not just erase those when we're developing but really work with them to evolve the community that exists there uh when lauren and i

[272:00] visited this group of creators one of the things they said was you know we really don't don't mind moving as long as there's a space to move to and so it's sort of thinking about how how are we nurturing these these really microcosms of the spaces um as we move forward because that small community that exists in west belmont is exactly the type of culture that we can really experiment with and and think about how we as a city can support the the evolution of that community through a big massive change i know that wasn't concise i apologize but i think it's a really important point that she was getting at and um that idea of a pilot to look at that kind of thing how we're supporting and helping microcosmic communities evolve is really critical to me to me that's really well spoken nicole and actually i think number two inserts the word culture as is part of a study and the number three calls out using belmont park west as a pilot for

[273:01] community collaboration so those are great statements did you have a specific amendment you were thinking of making to the plan to support those comments yeah well i think in the in the staff um summary and response there there was this thinking that um this pilot could be done um it didn't need to it didn't need to be a pilot there it could just be a study of community industry and so i don't know that i need clear need changes to the language but i just want to make sure we're all sharing the same understanding of what that pilot entails so that it's not just a say a city-wide study of community industry space that we need because we're really what the proposal was was really to look at how we can support this one community um as we're developing you know within and around them um and then kind of adapt that model to other places in the city that are changing does that make sense

[274:00] absolutely so i just turned to kathleen and say that kathleen do you feel like the the language and the plan accommodates what nicole is talking about and that the spirit of her remarks are can be accommodated within what's anticipated yeah i do think that um that clarification was very helpful to better understand what the intention of the pilot um was i do think that planning board has covered that um with the language that they use but i i definitely understand it better now nicole seth's fishing yep that was awesome to make sure we're all talking about the same thing great lauren so i i'm glad you brought more clarity to that that's an issue that i also care about deeply um and i would like to see maybe the language

[275:00] clarified a little bit more to reflect that because when i read those two items that's not the takeaway that i have and given that this document needs to sort of live past you know into future councils and as staff changes i think i would like to see a little bit more clarity around that and what the intention is there do you have a specific language story by talking i don't at this moment for this one i'm sorry can we come back to that and think about yeah maybe a little later about specific language that might help clarify that okay very good so hold on to that thought we'll come back to it any other comments on the less substantive thing amendments okay not seeing any then i'll i'll say looks like we're okay with those

[276:00] so um kevin or could we move the presentation to the item number one that talks about the proposed language change there so go back one more step please to get to this one okay so we've got this is the suggested um planing board language here and then if we go forward two slides we've got proposed language from from staff and so maybe folks could weigh in briefly on which approach they would prefer or if instead people would like to purchase oh sorry kathleen do you want to make the clarifying yes i think um we had updated this slide later um this afternoon with some additional language to try to get

[277:01] get a little bit closer to planning board's intention so i will let's see i will post the updated language in the chat and i might just read that out loud to make sure everybody has that so the updated recommended language from staff is changes to the airport influence zone must consider and should seek to minimize adverse impacts to the goals of the east boulder sub community plan to establish the planned residential and mixed land uses identified in the plan sorry about that that's very helpful so it's a little bit the language is a little more stronger no stronger there that's helpful um nicole your head went down but did you want to talk yeah i just i wanted to ask i mean do we have to kind of include the m16 part i just i'm i'm concerned that it really didn't go through the engagement process

[278:00] that um everything else did and so i think it's just a clarification question um you know at this point are we limited to um just making changes on what's been proposed or the the field is wide open you can go for planning boards staffs or something entirely different which could be nothing okay yeah so i think i think that the um something entirely different for me would be um not including um things about the airport in here and really just including that in uh part of the airport master plan that we're going to be working on anyway um just because they're i don't i don't feel like there was um the degree of engagement here that there was for other areas thanks matt and rachel thanks aaron um i i think we're i i mean i i appreciate where staff's trying to reconcile the comments and so it was posted in the chat i appreciate that being a little

[279:00] stronger i i'm not comfortable going like with that type of strength because i get the the goal here is housing and i worry that some of these zones create restrictions to perhaps the type and flexibility of the housing we wish to achieve and that's the primary function of what we're doing and so i'm a little worried that that may lead us to a more restrictive housing outcomes in some of these areas which is antithetical to really what our core purpose has been in this general area so i i'm i'm much more comfortable with actually the iteration of being more flexible not saying must but maybe that we will consider these things um but i want to make sure we're maximizing the housing in this area um and not creating limitations to that based on how we're considering the airport's influence in there well i think and man i'd say i think the updated language tried to get in i think was trying to move in

[280:00] that direction with saying minimize adverse impacts to the goals of including housing and mixed use so i don't know if you like that one better or if you prefer no language like nicole was talking about do you what's your preferred purge uh i don't know i i i'm just like the the must consider part i think is is is the hard part that we must do it i i'm not sure that we need to and i think the master plan might solve that or get us where we need to go so i'm i i'd say nothing or something on a much lighter note okay there rachel terra mark i'm sorry i'm moving backwards um we went so fast through a slide that was so small i didn't read it very well but i think that a couple of those seven eight and nine were about like re-prioritizing from priority two to priority one so rachel do you mind if i interrupt you here because i think we're deep into the airport thing now so do you mind if you finish this one out and then go back to those yeah

[281:00] okay thank you um tara and then mark you know we have a lot of complaints about airport noise and so i'm concerned and and i assume that there's reason for those complaints i don't think people are being cry babies so i think we need to be careful and so i'm not this is all new to me this is new language and it's a new field so how can we be sure that people who move there are going to be aware that there's noise so we don't continue to have community members that have high expectations and then get there and it's too noisy for them i think we need to protect community members from noise so does this have anything to do although housing is important it's also not great for people to not be happy in their house so what does that have to do with this or am i completely talking about something different

[282:00] um well i think that this this language here the first part of it is about conducting a level of noise study that would try to look at that so i think that as i understand that that's the intention of the first part of this language yeah i think that that's correct and um i would ask john kenny to fire up his microphone if he wants to follow up but you know i don't know that this is a really big deal and i say that because really pretty much what's in this statement is kind of what's on the work plan so we're kind of restating the work plan and we're also trying to also say and in continuing our work through our work plan we're going to try to make sure and prioritize um housing as an important feature of the plan so that there is step one and then step two when you get into

[283:00] like the regulatory approach to the airport influence zones once you get away from the runway area and the takeoff and landing zones which are already regulated pursuant to faa standards um those those subsequent provisions are mostly about notice to property owners so i think it kind of gets to that issue how effective that notice is we could probably debate but but i think that that's the intent behind the regulatory requirements once you get into three and four and some communities have created an air for port influence zone five which is you know presumably even less regulatory on uses of lands than even three and four that's helpful thank you david uh mark yeah matt it seemed to me that you were looking at the proposed staff

[284:01] recommendation as somehow limiting housing when it seems to me that it's intended to ensure that proper consideration is given to the sub community plan in terms of making any changes to the airport influence zone so it seemed to me that was addressing your concern um and its language i think is is a useful balance to you know for for purposes of taking a look at the noise conditions there and how we respond to them but doing so uh with an eye towards carrying out the goals of the sub-community plan i'm not i'm not sure this is this language is going to create any barrier uh of substance to to creating housing market and it may not create barriers of just you know changing the influence zone based on the housing we hope to achieve for people who are in the future going to move next to an airport full well

[285:01] knowing so i just don't want those things to be a limiter to it so if if the outcome is not then i'm okay with it i think it's more of a qualitative uh prerequisite that we aren't limiting housing okay thanks oh thanks mark i'll go ahead and call on myself um i i don't feel really strongly about this i think david's point about this isn't a huge deal it is a fairly i think it's a good one in terms of like i think the the airport master plan i think is where the real work around this issue will happen so i i'm i'm comfortable with nicole's approach of not adding in anything because it didn't give it as much engagement but i'm also fine with the staff recommendation which seems to balance out the different issues as well so either one of those is acceptable to me um the the plain board one i appreciate their intention that is a little too specific um for my taste so

[286:00] i wonder if we might do a straw poll at this point um if that's a right with folks i'm hearing maybe three three things one would be no language changes and then another one no one's spoken up for both without the planning board language and the third would be the staff's recommended language with the update and that they put in the chat and read it out loud um do you want to say further before we move into that mark and then rachel here's the question um is the staff recommendation in lieu of the underlying language or is it an additive to the underlying language in other words a paragraph that starts one conductive noise level study a level of noise study or does the staff recommendations simply contain the language changes to the airport influence zone must be considered i'm not sure it's additive okay then all right then

[287:00] i will express my support for the for the full paragraph i think it's a reasonable balance i had a question to aaron which is just um is option number one rejecting the planning board and staff's language and just not adding anything is that what that one means striking that's correct and kathleen can be clear about exactly if we didn't take this up on this what would the exact language of m16 then b yes let me um give me a second to pull it up i lost all my my files when my computer shut down but i'll have it in just a moment i think that's an important clarification question someone would just hold on a moment that's aaron may i clarify what i was asking for though please

[288:00] um so what i was basically saying was that whole m16 part um not not including that because that that is the piece to me that feels like just didn't go through the engagement process that everything else um in there went through and the airport is a huge area and it just this this is i think one of the concerns i was bringing up a couple weeks ago when we were talking about this is how can we make sure that the any amendments and changes go through a really thoughtful and thorough engagement process and this to me is sort of an example of exactly what i was hoping we could try to avoid where things are just kind of getting input from a specific set of the community where it's not um as as involved and so um for me for my what i would love is just to strike out that m16 part well nicole to be clear there's already an m16 in the plan i believe you mean all the revisions to item m16 oh i i'm

[289:02] sorry i thought m16 was added between the 90 and 100 i thought this was new it's not yes that's right it is new and so i think you're proposing um your amendment would be that we would remove m16 entirely from the platform yeah and i will share um [Music] let's see i wonder if it's possible um for me to share my screen and i can show the full project in the document so you could see all the language related to that project great thank you yeah sorry nicole i misunderstood what you were proposing before that's true that's okay i'm i'm yeah so um planning board proposed language just to this key

[290:04] the gremlins are bad oh sorry uh zoom quit unexpected and i don't know kathleen if you've got other stuff opened it could be closing some other stuff might help sorry um kathleen it looks like your midshare but it's not sharing i'm gonna stop what's sharing on your screen now and then you can try it again oh or not there we go

[291:01] all right now you have a clean slate to try sharing again although we've also lost your camera so your computer might just be fighting with zoom maybe we could listen to junie's question while we wait yeah i keep hoping that it'll just come right around but yeah it's juni would you like to to chime in while we're waiting no i think i wanna i want to wait to see um the full language i had a question about the comment made by nicole

[292:01] um because when i was looking at the proposed change by staff and the language proposed by the um planning board they're practically the same there's no real differences except for the should seek to minimize adverse impact so i didn't see any difference between that um so um there's kathleen i will just say when we get the language back up we'll look at it but the playing board also said the specifics around zone one two three and four and the staff recommendation didn't call out those zone numbers specifically so that was one one other thing i think yay all right can you zoom it because i can't see that yes i can i hope i can't see

[293:03] okay okay so um i'm not sure when i got kicked off but what i was trying to describe earlier is um planning board the planning board amendment was just to this key steps section um but there are you know other descriptions and let me know if i'm making you dizzy for this project got it so so it's a question the key steps not those first two poems but to nicole's point when when was this item m16 included after the 90 draft um between the 90 and the latest draft version of the plan so it was not this project was not

[294:00] included um when the 90 draft was posted for community feedback okay so nicole is proposing to strike m16 entirely good to understand that and then can can we please to junior's point uh get up the two language versions again of the potential amendments to the key steps and then we can move forward with a let's see if i can actually do it so we don't have to go back and forth so [Music] so this is the um planning board proposal it's not coming up oh it's not gosh

[295:00] you try again there we go okay so plain word was proposing amending key steps to this updated language so that you can see in in bold um you need to your point that it talks about allowing expansions of zone three and four but not zone one or two and then kathleen if we can get the staff recommendation so it replaces what was in bold for planing board with language that doesn't call out specific zones and then it's been further modified the proposal um kathleen can you can you

[296:02] read the updated language one more time please yes so so the updated language is changes to the airport influence zone must consider and should seek to minimize adverse impacts to the goals of the east boulder sub-community plan to establish the planned residential and mixed land uses identified in the plan if i i just want to clarify the only as i see it the only additional add to this is the and should seek to minimize adverse impacts is that right kathleen because everything's right anything same as what's in the text thanks so jenny did did you did that address your question do you have an additional question no i i think it did i think maria summed

[297:01] it up exactly how i thought i saw it but i think maybe my question to um nicole i'm trying to understand why i think i did hear you but i just want to understand it better why would you want to strike the entire thing and from my understanding is that you're saying that it doesn't reflect the community outreach and input that we want so i'm wondering is there a way instead of striking it because i am i i'm thinking that might be something that is necessary this type of level of noise study um especially knowing that community members have been really upset a lot of times when it comes to um you know the noise around the airport so i'm wondering instead of striking it is there a way we can find a balance where we can actually add the stuff that you would like as opposed to striking it

[298:02] well and i think junior you're kind of getting to the heart of of why this is a little problematic for me um you know the people who show up in our council in boxes and i do not mean to dismiss anybody's opinion who's taking time to write us i genuinely appreciate that you do that um this is just for the folks that are not writing to us right we're not hearing from anybody else and that's what i've so appreciated about this engagement process is that um it has been so inclusive there have been so much outreach to groups that it may not we may not typically hear from in our inboxes and that's for me what's missing with this component and i don't know if where we are is still a place where any more engagement can be done at this moment and that's that's where i'm coming from it seems like that ship has sailed and so given that we haven't heard from um other people i don't i don't know if the san lazaro people were asked about airport

[299:00] noise or you know the folks who were living um over by the airport now or anything like that right i hear that there was a group of um airport users who were involved which is wonderful and there are more people that i think are are potentially involved here and and that's that's where my concern is and i think what planning board was was raising was a direct concern that um if uh if the um airport sorry um airport influence zone is changing right then that might limit future residential development that's planned and so i think a way to kind of get it that that's in line with planning board would be to say something like um expansion of the airport influenza and will not curtail future residential development or something like that i think that would capture the spirit of what what they're trying to get to but my fundamental issue is just who wasn't there for that conversation

[300:02] it just feels categorically different from the way that many of these other projects and things unfolded it's nicole uh mark and i'll call myself yeah i i just think that the language we've got with the staff recommendation does not prohibit or govern anything it simply sets out that if we conduct an analytical study of noise and it compels us to make a change to the influence zones um we have to do it by being mindful of the goals and objectives of the sub community plan it doesn't it doesn't predetermine any particular outcome if we're going to suggest that there are no conditions of any kind that would lead us to [Music] amend a an influence zone no matter what the level of noise or disruption might might be involved

[301:00] i don't think that that's a very sound approach and in terms of engagement i mean we we kind of know that there are two groups of people um we have airport users who have one view we have neighbors who have another view i i doubt that there's a hidden majority of people living near the airport who are delighted to have noise i'm not sure there's another group out there that are advocates for more noise um so i'm pretty sure we've we've seen what's there there are concerned neighbors people who are very concerned with the operation of the airport and its noise um there are users who are not and you know i i think we've gotten a full sample of of where people stand on this and nothing we're doing tonight is going to fundamentally change anything so i would go with the staff language as it creates a real balance between various constituencies and and various

[302:01] interests what's that mark i'm calling on myself when i got other people um i'm just going to speak again just because um i had misunderstood nicole's proposal before and nicole your point about engagement is is a good one um in in general i do feel like there's a value to having uh the 716 bullet point and so i think airport noise is a universal irritant how much it irritates who varies person to person depending on your life circumstances but um feel like a noise study could be helpful so i i i'll go with the staff recommendation um but i also uh we got a lot more to talk about here folks so i'd love to get us to straw polls so we could can figure out how we're moving forward but uh tara lauren and rachel i was just gonna agree with mark so i will agree with mark that noise is really annoying annoying and i can't imagine who close to an airport would not feel that way especially people that don't mention it that don't

[303:02] write to council they're probably super aggravated so i'm going to agree with mark and aaron on this uh lauren and then rachel um i was thinking that maybe while i think a zone a noise study you know it's always good to have more information the thing that this to me says is that we'll look at restrictions on buildings it doesn't say that we might also look at restrictions on the airport and so maybe there's a way to make it more even by saying it could you know we might increase the airport influence zone or take this into account in our airport master plan you can always direct it to the master plan this is another um another possible option there that might boot it to a separate process that might be where this fundamentally belongs

[304:01] rachel um i don't want to belabor the point i appreciate nicole's point i do think we're going to get engagement on this through the master plan so i'm not as worried about that component i did really like nicole's sort of uh last minute add-on about like just having some concrete language in there what we're not trying to do which is to inhibit housing here so i might propose that we adopt whenever she had some good language there that was a sentence of you know nothing in here is going to limit the amount of amount of housing through this noise study or i don't know you said it better i would i would propose maybe we counted a planning board with and attack that onto staff's language okay because a planning board was very specific in terms of zone numbers but you know saying instead have language that said that um zones should not be changed to eliminate housing potential is that where

[305:01] nicole said it better than i'm remembering it um and i i mean to add it to staffs language i thought staff's language was just fine that is in the staff language already well it doesn't specifically say that we wouldn't allow the reduction development housing potential it doesn't say that specifically it does yeah well i guess the one issue that's a little difficult is you know my understanding of what you do with when you do a part 150 study is you're doing something that's regulated by federal law and there's a way of doing it under federal law and anything that we do that is inconsistent with federal law is going to get preempted um so i so like stating an outcome is probably not a great idea when you're going into a process but from what i understand about um kind of the locations that we're talking about

[306:00] looking at in terms of if there would be an expansion of the airport influence zone it's it's i don't think it's going to be regulatory in in any significant way um and if john kenny disagrees with what i just said i i i ask you to correct any anything that i just dave i don't i don't disagree with anything you just said i would just amplify that doing a part 150 study or having an airport influenced zone you have two components one is restriction of heights in the immediate corridor of arrivals and departures so off the ends of your runway potentially off the side if it's a corridor for helicopters that's one aspect and the other is disclosure it doesn't preclude residential components yeah yeah and we and we've already we're done regulating the runway and we're done regulating the takeoff and landing zones that's already done those won't be expanded

[307:00] so alls we're really talking about is disclosure zones [Music] so you know it when i kind of started it's like this isn't a super regulatory thing we're talking about it's more about using the process appropriately that the federal government has laid out about how you look at these topics so well it's really helpful to see here that we're both constrained by federal law but also that there's not really a danger of this inhibiting residential development it's just not i i don't think it will so let me just john we're talking about tying this to the airport master plan if we if we added language to the key steps to say something like as part of the uh adoption of an updated airport master plan conduct the noise study or what have you do you feel like that would be a reasonable route to take to shunt it kind of identify as part of that effort

[308:00] to conduct them simultaneously yes and we'll just inhabit to be under the umbrella of the updated master plan correct two separate studies and often they're just described as a master plan part 150 so one is more of a inventory development and the second part is the noise and compatibility with the community okay nicole and then i got a proposal yeah i think i'm just not understanding why this isn't just part of the airport master plan why is it in the east boulder subcommunity plan and why not just right i mean why are we putting it in here versus you know i think really all it is as we were just describing the next steps in the airport and i think that through the community feedback with the pilot community they were kind of saying why aren't you saying what's going to happen with our community as well so so it was from that feedback that led to this if you guys took it out it's part of our work plan all of this

[309:01] is part of our work plan and we'll continue to do it so if you were to say take it out or use the language that staff has proposed i think that both transportation and mobility and planning and development services would be fine with either outcome very good so maybe i think we're going to be okay kind of whatever path we take here so and i think sort of two approaches either one can work fine so i'm going to ask for a straw poll and the um we don't have the exact language here but i think item i think option number one would be deleting m16 from the plan entirely and um we'll call option two playing boards exact language and option three will be the staff recommended language but i'll propose adding in at the beginning of that

[310:00] to say as part of the airport master plan process conduct the noise study etc so are people okay with those three options for a straw poll okay i'm seeing some scene on heads so we'll start with um removing m16 entirely from the plan we get show fans all right i got i got a couple three we got three three hands here uh second we got um planning board's exact language not seen any takers for that and then option three would be stats recommend language with the addition of the language to say as part of the airport master plan process i got one two three four [Music] there's bob five okay did we get every did somebody vote

[311:01] okay so that looks like that got the majority there so so we'll move forward with that for this item kathleen was that clear enough in terms of what that'll look like yes i think i've got the updated language for the key steps ready based on your feedback great okay thanks everybody rachel i know you're all excited go back let's go backwards to go backwards but i just want to understand something that i i see so under i think it was seven eight and nine there were requests to change things from priority two to priority one and the staff feedback was consistent with the intent of the plan and then there's language similar in all of these to prioritize prioritization of this program will require in the program's community benefit like revisiting i think expansion of community benefit will require staff

[312:00] resourcing in the next five years so i wanted to understand that better because we're always hearing about how we don't have enough really specifically planning board staff and resources so if we say yes to planning boards changes here on 789 reprioritizing will we hear say in a future retreat well you already said in the east boulder sub community plan do community benefits and then maybe we want to look at um you know middle income housing or something and we've really locked ourselves in so i just wanted to understand what that language exactly means sure so um the way that the projects are prioritized in the plan a priority number one means we will work on addressing that in the next five years and so um by adding to that priority number one list we need more resources to be able to take on um all of the the the longer list of priority projects

[313:00] as far as how that works with how you might consider work plan when it comes to retreat i might look to nuria um to talk through that i mean and i'm open to i appreciate that kathleen i think it will depend right i wish i had a better answer but if we are staffed up if we continue to get more by the time that sort of first five year comes up we may be in a different place with some of the projects and i think it'll be conversations that we have continuously with what does that look like right now it is on the work plan if at the next uh council retreat council says you know what we have completely different priorities and we want to prioritize that then we will bring it back to council and say but you had prioritized this and this is what we have we'll have that candid conversation with you all however we do but it's hard to say what that's going to do

[314:01] unless we know concretely what what are the other asks that may infringe on this particular commitment david am i right in that or yeah no i i agree completely with that area and just one thing that you know the staff does look in terms of work planning it looks at its sub-community plans and area plans quite closely and we do use them to both guide our work planning efforts budgetary efforts regulatory efforts all of those things so to some extent it is important um on the other side plans are advisory in nature and the council's in charge of the budget so you ultimately um you know have the final say in how things will continue to be prioritized in future years okay thanks for that i guess i'm a little bit worried um and if if i'm file if i'm understanding even what we're

[315:00] talking about here like community benefit being the same thing we tried and failed on for the last two years is what we're talking about re-lifting up and prioritizing is that right yeah that's so i guess i'm probably not i probably don't want to do these three recommendations by the planning board because i'm not i don't feel like we've had a robust conversation about like this is a super top priority within this um even just within this this um sub community plan let alone the context of our whole work plan so i i probably reject reject seven eight nine thanks can you just rachel call up real quick what the specific initiatives are they're seven eight nine yeah i don't i don't even know if any of us are looking at the same documents today that i think what i'm looking at is change program h9 from a priority two to priority one that was number seven in the um i guess email that kathleen sent out sorry

[316:00] um number eight change program b6 from a priority tutor priority one number nine was change program r8 from a priority two to a priority one and those would be program those programs all i think and i hope kathleen's going to correct me if i'm just getting this all wrong but um our describing updates to community benefit program and planning board members prefer to prioritize these programs in the near term okay a perfectly reasonable proposal i'll i can i just put that to a straw poll to see if people agree with you do you want to say that right rachel i'm sorry i didn't know that was to me yes drop straw pull away okay all right so rachel's ready sorry not accepting those three to keep them in priority two for work plan compatibility reasons so uh lauren did you want to speak to that yeah i guess my only i mean i agree with the concerns that rachel brought up but

[317:00] my sort of counter argument is also the community benefit for the i think for the commercial space is largely about trying to keep existing businesses and to a certain extent if that's not done you know like that has to be done with a certain on a certain timeline before redevelopment or else there's not a lot of point in doing it um because once you lose the businesses then but so i don't know that's just my two cents on that and follow-up question to kathleen is is the second priority what's the timeline for that one so it would be anticipated for the next five to ten years so we'd be looking at kind of 2027. all right uh so all in favor of rachel's proposal to keep those as priority two

[318:01] rather movement party one yeah three so looks like rachel there's not a consensus on that one so we'll stick with the playing board recommendation there erin i just mine is a neutral like i really don't i don't know it could go either way got it well i guess we i'm going to look at it as we need i'm an affirmative majority to not take plain board up on the recommendation that's right do you want to change your vote though nicole would you because yeah i don't think it matters but i i really i just don't know yeah fair point well nicole while we're talking to you um do you have uh proposed language on the other one of those other um non-substantive thing the one that you and lauren were addressing yeah let me find it okay sorry i put it in the chat let me find it um

[319:01] use the west belmont park area as a pilot study for how the city can work with communities in the midst of change helping them evolve such that the social infrastructure that has developed around unique place types can be sustained and thrive in the midst of change lovely language kathleen do you think that that could work for that item so i think um you know really the intention behind the projects that's described as the industrial land study was really about inventorying our industrial lands understanding how they're being used and what the trends are and how that's changing because we've gotten a lot of questions about that throughout this east boulder sub-community planning process and even beyond when we look to areas that are zoned or have land use designations for industrial so i think that this um

[320:01] idea of a pilot project might be a a separate project so you may propose an amendment that this is a new project to the plan okay that makes sense so yeah i think then i would propose this as an amendment um just to reflect what i think planning board was kind of getting at in their discussion and would you um send me that language either in the chat or via email just so i can make sure i have the exact stuff so then i i think what what you're proposing in the co-op understand is currently item number three from planning board was project d15 key steps should be edited as follows develop scope and schedule for a pilot project using belmont park west and i think instead you'd be saying add a new io project d17 with the language that you proposed is is that correct yes well i i think so i because i

[321:00] it sounds like um kathleen what you're saying is that others have talked about um doing a city-wide study of this industrial space use and then what i think planning board was trying to elevate was doing a pilot study on how to maintain culture like the language that i just sent you so yes i think it would have to be a separate thing okay uh sorry if i call for a straw poll on that one nicole proposal okay so uh all in favor of um shifting planning board's recommendation to a new d17 project with language that nicole proposed all in favor raise your hand like we got six on that one so that's clears the threshold um to make that change okay great all right um i think we got one more planning board

[322:01] change to talk over here um all right let's let's move on to that we got one more about the job cap concept um they're item number five so kathleen could we get that language up on there please the plain word proposal in the staff proposal yes let me are you able to see the screen yes so this is the playing board proposal and the staff recommended language here all right and propose staff language so i don't have a long discussion or if people kind

[323:01] of know what which direction they want to go in we could move pretty quickly to a straw poll on this um does anybody want to comment or shall we go to a straw poll but don't go to a straw poll yet can somebody just explain the two things so in layman's language possibly so that would be helpful kathleen you want to give a quick summary of the differences yes so um what planning board is proposing is that um we study and offer a tool a regulatory tool that would potentially not potentially that would limit job growth in flatiron business parks specifically to a total of 5 000 jobs and they came to that number because our overall projection for jobs

[324:04] in east boulder is a little over 20 000. today um the flatiron business park exact number of jobs makes up 24 of the total number of jobs in east boulder and so 5 000 is approximately um 24 of the projected number of jobs so um the reason that staff is proposing alternative language to that is you know the jobs projections are really assumption based and particularly when we're looking at really large areas like this and um so we don't want to necessarily create a tool that's that's based on this

[325:01] metric that um you know there's a lot of kind of mathematic acrobatics that we do to to get to those jobs numbers and also our policy in the comp plan doesn't about the jobs to housing balance doesn't include strategies for capping job growth and this that the planning board proposal is really indicating a cap for job growth for just the business park and so the language that staff proposed is we will you know of course propose and model um different options for code and zoning changes in that area so that we can understand how any regulatory tools that we may use in the future would impact or affect the jobs to housing balance

[326:00] but that we would not um include a cap in that proposal enough char okay i've got matt and ginny thanks aaron um i i think it's really inconsistent and and borderline and appropriate for us to be creating tools to cap jobs in our community i'll just be pretty clear on that i mean it's we we live on having people have jobs this is what economies are all about um so so i i don't see a need to have anything in there at all to be honest that that even does any of this it doesn't it just doesn't seem to fit with any of what we're doing it it just doesn't seem appropriate um so i would just strike this out altogether um i i could be convinced to put the staff recommendation in but my preference is to leave this out i don't think we need we want to talk about far let's talk about far in its own application

[327:00] uh in zoning in its own areas but i don't think we need to tie it to anything so i'd say just strip it out jenny and rachel thank you aaron i completely agree um matt i just think i i i don't think that's appropriate to have a cap it's not in line with any values that you know is about economic growth or economic vibrancy in a neighborhood or community um but actually i am looking at the document and i'm looking at for the id number when i saw on the screen earlier i thought i saw d9 and i don't is it d9 believe so okay all right um it just yeah and maybe that's part of the inconsistency because i was looking at d9 and i was

[328:00] thinking okay where does this fit in this idea of a cap and it doesn't fit anywhere um in that itself so thank you for that rachel yeah i i would not favor capping jobs like at a job center especially um you know the location that we're talking about makes makes uh really little sense to me but also you know we're at the we're at 100 so for this to get lifted up you know in the last week or two weeks it's also like just uh um i think something that that didn't get well baked in and and um you know i think it's there's a theme for me with some of these recommendations um you know getting at nicole's engagement point but also like what i was just saying um with regard to lifting up community benefits at the last minute again like i think that uh these are not 100 you know plan ideas so i i hope we can

[329:02] do a straw poll pretty soon on this thanks all right see we moved to start ball mark go ahead yeah um i i'm gonna support the staff recommendation on this i mean if we're proceeding with a document that's going to permit 20 000 new jobs and kathleen i believe you suggested to us in a chart that we were going to this could produce 5 000 new housing units how do you proceed without having at least some reference to the jobs housing imbalance we may not want to put a cap on anything but to simply not recognize that situation and to say you know 20 000 jobs 5 000 houses um that's not really going to cut it in terms of the jobs housing imbalance so either we need to abandon that as a principle or at least to give it a little bit of recognition here uh as we proceed forward and again this

[330:01] is the staff proposal is not a cap but it's at least a recognition that we have to keep one eye on a problem that's been plaguing us for quite a long time doesn't say we're going to kind of cap jobs it doesn't say we're going to uh you know restrict jobs but you have to have at least some token acknowledgement that we have a problem here or let's get rid of the the doctrine entirely and then simply say it's leslie fair um let's build every housing unit we can and let's get every job that we can and we'll worry about infrastructure traffic and water at a later date but let's at least be honest about it thanks mark kathleen yeah i just wanted to make a clarifying comment that it's not 20 000 new jobs it's 20 000 jobs overall so that would be a growth of about 3 000 a little over 3 000 jobs

[331:00] okay i think we got three options again one is to not make any edits in this area one is to take the playing boards suggested language and one is to take the staff's suggested language so all right i'll go ahead and call for straw paul on that who would like to make no language changes in this all area we got we got five six six on that i just make sure i'm following it's no we're rejecting planning board with that one no language changes meaning not not playing not changing the planning boards yeah not taking plain board's recommendation just leaving d9 as it is in in the plan uh originally without anything thank you for clarifying that rachel yeah okay let's do that again okay so option one not making any language changes to d9 whatsoever right and now we're up to seven um so that passes i'll just we won't do the

[332:01] other two options if you don't mind so okay so we will not make any changes in this area okay so that gets us through the planning board stuff and now there's a question about whether people want to do extra things and i do have one little one in mind but hopefully we don't have three hours of additional amendments um but uh who who wants to anybody else want to chime in before i go back to my concept you seem excited erin you should do it okay all right uh let me just sorry i've been busy doing other things so this was i believe um each one [Music] okay so so my suggestion is this is about that um um uh this isn't policy h1 uh about the development of new housing in east boulder and this um the last sentence of that is

[333:01] opportunities for the development of housing strategic locations will be supported through land use and zoning updates and my proposal would be to say um however uh the block north of western avenue west of 55th and east of range street should not be rezoned to allow housing until or unless incompatible heavy industrial uses across the railroad tracks uh have are no longer present kathleen did that that was a little quick did that come through okay great uh comments on that we got matt and rachel aaron thanks for bringing this this modification i i brought i brought this up at any subsequent meetings on this issue and i think that's an adequate way to resolve it without while maintaining flexibility

[334:02] which to me is so core to an area plan is that it's flexible we're not locking ourselves in but we do have an incompatibility now but that doesn't then force us into a particular direction 10 20 years from now if there's a change according so so thank you for that amendment i i support that in achieving the goals of flexibility and not forcing incompatibility into the zone right off the bat what's that rachel and nicole i generally like it okay you know i think it's kind of also a last minute lift and you know i feel like we we got this from a particular kind of um side and and i i would i guess i would just be a little bit concerned about like preferential um i don't know treatment or dealings or just you know kind of like nicole said earlier who didn't we hear from on this so and and um so it makes sense but i have concerns about

[335:01] it and and i don't know quite how to reconcile those and it seemed like when we when we toured and looked at the maps like conestoga is you know was really being activated in sort of a highlight street and that's the dead ends into this area so i don't know how much in staffs or the plans or the people who did participate mind's eyes like um housing right there was a big a a great feature i i just i feel like it's last minute i wish i had more information i don't want people living you know right across you know right next to railroad tracks and across from you know industrial waste so i it seems like we shouldn't allow that even without this amendment though so that's maybe just a bigger question like why would we have why would we ever put housing in some of the places that we're trying to protect tonight you know airport noise or next to railroad tracks and you know in line of sight of

[336:00] um 24-hour lighting and and industry so i i don't know how i'm gonna vote yet i i see both sides i guess fair enough uh junior got kicked out and is in the attendee list can we get her promoted back in as a panelist please i'll just get a moment to get through that yep working on that now all right jimmy's back welcome back ginny uh okay we got uh um nicole tara and i'll just throw in one quick comment after that yeah i'm just in a similar spot with rachel this just feels like another thing where we're not hearing from folks i think staff looked into this issue pretty substantially i think there's some design features that are there like

[337:00] trees and setbacks and things like that that should still make it a pretty nice place to live um and and i do expect that people who would be moving into whatever housing is put there know what they're you know moving into um and that it's been designed well enough um that it's um yeah that is something that they would still enjoy that being part of our community overrides uh having a loading dock um i don't i don't even know how far away it is but i know there's trees and stuff in the meantime and now i would just say as just a personal story um my office looks out over a parking lot and the roof of industrial buildings and beyond that is the most spectacular view of the front range that you will find pretty much anywhere in town and when people come into my office the first thing they say is oh my gosh what an extraordinary view you are so lucky to be able to look at this every day and i say oh the parking lot they say no the front range um so i

[338:02] think it's it's without hearing from those people it's really hard for us to make decisions about what people will and will not like um being around as long as there is no safety issue which i don't expect there is given all the time that went into this um it does feel like something uh for me i would prefer not to limit what would go there thanks cole tara and i'll call myself then mark well i have my own little fun anecdote i stayed at um i was at this apartment i won't mention it but it was right next to a parking lot which kept its lights on all night so then i couldn't even i didn't even know if it was day or night and i didn't sleep for like six months i couldn't figure out what time it was not only that but at 4 30 in the morning the truck started coming so what i thought would be a super fun time was the worst six months and what i mean by that is sometimes people say oh yeah it's going to be great it's going to be great but then they get in and they start complaining and they make it you know miserable for

[339:00] the places that are already there and i just want to say that many of us have have had experience on some of the times when the community oh i'll give you another example of people complaining who live near chautauqua that there's music on the weekends okay well shitaku was there before you but that doesn't stop the people from complaining and so in a sense i feel like we're protecting people by having these thai uh by saying no we're not going to build housing over there from yeah saying they're all excited about it and then once they do it they're really not excited about it and then they start writing letters to us so i would say that um until you've experienced the 24-hour lights on in the early morning trucks it's totally a big bummer um but my question is more what if there are other places besides just this particular street where that is happening did are you saying that this is the only place and everybody knows that or could there be another company that has like

[340:00] early morning um trucks and lights on all night and lots of noise or is this surely the only one because i would be worried about that for community members and the last thing i want to say is we all dream about having a soho but it's not that easy to live on top of a factory or nightclub or whatever it is it sounds you know really exotic but it is it isn't really fun once you do it so um that's my thoughts plus i'm also curious if that is the only company that has that issue i think we should it would be good to know that thanks that tara so i'm gonna call myself here sorry to double dip but i just wanted to respond real quickly also i didn't give credit here i started out in a similar place to both where rachel and nicole were articulating and actually was ginny's hotline post that was very eloquently written last week that took me over the line to proposing this and uh about a concern for future residents rather than special treatment

[341:00] for existing uses so that's where that's that's coming from the the uses across the railroad tracks listed 24-hour manufacturing 24-hour safety lighting tanker and delivery trucks throughout the night overhead paging systems so anyway that genius point seemed to be a good one to me that might not be the best place to live next to um while those uses exist but however the will of council is fine um mark and the genie well first i'm supportive of aaron's language uh no we we may not be catching every uh situation that is similar but we have a planning department we have other council meetings to decide how to deal with that uh this one exists i thank judy for picking it up in our hotline and we and we really will address it my second comment is um did it's a procedural one did our prior decision to take on this uh conversation uh earlier obviate the

[342:01] need to extend the meeting after eleven o'clock i hope it did not obviate that mark uh no we we did a we did a motion we had a motion to extend the meeting we already yeah we take care of it okay very good thanks for checking in uh genie and then nicole i was gonna ask mark if you're sleepwalking um but i so here's the thing i think i agree with uh the comments made by tara and you all know i'm a big proponent of housing but nonetheless i'm a proponent of housing affordable housing done right and we know often we hear affordable housing housing for working class people tend to be next to the highway and i understand this idea that we want more housing but we want desirable housing it is undesirable to build a house to build housing next to a

[343:02] pharmaceutical industry um a pharmaceutical um [Music] factory so you know and i don't think any one of you no matter how uh what's the word um goodwill you are you want to live next to a pharma a pharma plant you know so i think the idea too and i think maybe a question for staff as well is that if you don't build housing in that area can you build something else right because i'm sure there's gonna there's going to have there's going to be a need for other type of infrastructure so maybe instead of putting housing there we can consider other things to put there so that it doesn't have to be housing um just to take care of that um i think you know when we think of housing for people or people who are working class people we have to take into consideration these things you know is it truly safe to live next to a

[344:01] 24-hour traffic uh trucks come in and go and and also there are other concerns and these concerns did not come from me i know aaron gave me credit it came from other community members as well so um i think these things are things that we have to take into account when we're creating housing for people thank you thank you so cool uh thanks juni and now nicole and region yeah juni i absolutely um hear hear what you're saying and and i think what i'm thinking of in in this decision is that right now we have people living on the street we have people living out of their cars we have people living in some pretty unsafe situations right now um because we don't have enough housing and so i think what i would ask us to consider is that you know for if we're really opposed to putting housing in this location where are we going to get it back where can we put it back into the plan

[345:02] because not everybody has sort of the ability to to live in a nice neighborhood and i think until our society changes and some of the the raging income inequality that we have goes away people need need roofs they need places to live and if if you are asking me to choose between um living with my kids in my car or living across from a pharma plant i would choose the pharma plant so that they had a stable place to live and so um that's that's what i'm thinking of so i hear we we should not be putting lower income people in the worst housing in our community absolutely and we do we also need more housing to meet the great need that we have here used to call rachel lauren and matt yeah i was just going to share um after uh after junie center hotline post i did ask kathleen for some

[346:00] rough numbers and what she shared with me was you know if we adopted this it would reduce the planned residential square footage by approximately two hundred thousand square feet or about eight one hundred eighty housing units assumption being eleven hundred square foot feet per unit it would increase the overall amount of space available for industrial or office use by the same amount increasing projected job numbers by approximately 600 jobs those are very rough calculations um so i you know i think the goal of our plan again is is is not being uh super well reflected in this change which feels last minute and i appreciate nicole's point what i was thinking about was like commuters and so you know for thinking about you know where somebody has to live if they've got a wall of trees and then railroad tracks and um you know the the pharmacy or the or the industry behind that you know might they just prefer to pull down you know blackout shades at night

[347:01] and and um and walk to work the next morning i think that a lot of people probably would and again we didn't ask them like for me that this feedback came from um uh the the industry side not the people who might benefit from the housing so i i don't feel like we did great outreach i i have lived in a a lot of different housing varieties um and and uh including some that have been loud or bright and um you know mixed use means that there's going to be some of that and some people are going to opt into uh living where there's a more of a pulse and it's not suburban so i think that's you know i remember campaigning and talking about like this you know this could be like a cool meat packing district kind of situation in east boulder and i think that's this is kind of part of that and and it's not it's just not going to be suburbia what we're going for here i think so thanks

[348:01] all right uh lauren matt and mark thanks erin um i've gone back and forth on this one a lot but i think that um [Music] for me while i do think that we want to protect people who might be unaware of a situation that they're getting into i do think that if you are moving into east boulder you at least have some idea of where you're moving to and i also think that um saying that we're not going to have housing in a particular area precludes any ability for creative design solutions that might um mitigate our concerns for instance you know we've talked about having live work units and you know that those are often stacked horizontally but there's nothing to say they couldn't be or sorry those are often stacked vertically but it could be horizontal

[349:02] you know and you could have the work portion be the portion that's um next to this industrial zone and therefore that is protecting the residential unit from the adverse effects but if it's on a shared property it's going to have you know the whole lot is going to be zoned a particular way so i think that i do want to see the flexibility that this plan has laid out and encouraged and i think that it is a unique type of living that we're not seeing in other parts of boulder but it seems like the community engagement has suggested that we want that okay thanks matt mark i mean we can take a vote on this um i'm i'm hearing that there's somehow

[350:01] that based on aaron's amendment proposed amendment that this is a binary that there shall never be housing that's not what it is it's a that it's not compatible now and if the use of that area of court and pharma changes then that becomes a much more applicable environment from which housing can be made and the other real issue is well where do we make it up from well we have issues with height there as well we have areas that are capped at a reasonably surprisingly low height given its location in boulder and its related usage i believe the heights capped around 40 or 44 feet if i'm not mistaken in some of those areas and and so we can gain some of that housing by allowing up to sort of our maximum building height allowed in other areas where we have housing already slated and so i think we have some flexibility there but this isn't a permanent preclusion to housing it's just saying it's not ready for housing now and i think that's okay to maintain flexibility down the road um and and

[351:02] keeping in mind it's not going to be developed tomorrow it's going to be developed a long time it's a matter of we have to decide two things one what is the maximum flexibility we want to allow councils 20 30 years from now but also dealing with the realities of today and the reality is there that's just not compatible so let's keep that flexibility and just acknowledge that right now is not the right place for housing to get started and we can make up for that in other areas based on some of our other zoning discussions and land use that we have coming up so mark i agree with matt's interpretation you know this this is not forever this is for now it's for um [Music] certainly the near future maybe a longer term into the future but it's not forever um creating maximum housing is is a value but it's not the only value creating um safe clean useful housing uh is is also

[352:01] something that we're responsible for and simply saying that that you know it may be lower cost housing so people will want it um is a slippery slope that ends up with a slum uh and i don't i know we don't want to create slums simply because they're going to be less expensive and therefore more attractive uh to people of lesser income i i just think we we need to set conditions where the housing we create is is good housing for most people and i don't think living across from a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility and and having to you know pull down shades in order to to live there or do triple pane windows because you don't want to hear truck noise um you know i've lived through a lot of that in new york city uh and that's not good housing um

[353:00] and you know my first apartment there first one bedroom apartment my living room looked eight feet into an air shaft the life i couldn't tell what time of the day or what what season it was um and i did that because i could afford that that doesn't mean we should promote that kind of housing um we can do it but i don't think that reflects our values so i think uh aaron's proposed language doesn't cut us off from future possibilities there but simply recognizes that it's inappropriate now to use that space for residential development i'm enjoying this session of the worst housing i've ever lived in from from the city council tonight that's entertaining um rachel then maybe we can wrap up yeah i will try and wrap it up i just want and i mean the part of the point though is is all this all of us were living in houses in the cities we wanted to be in and that's what we're trying to do here as a city as a city council is help people to live in in the city where they work or or exist but i wanted before we

[354:03] um vote i see i'm on the losing side of this already but to invite kathleen who spent more time looking at all these streets and and staff planned this and and like i visited twice so i don't feel like i'm the expert here i just wanted to make sure kathleen doesn't have any thoughts to share that might um influence our or the language or anything so if i could invite kathleen to chime in if she wants sure thank you um yeah you know i i do think that we really tried to plan for and look at this area which is south of the tracks comprehensively and put together a recommendation for future land use that would be flexible but would also [Music] really increase the amount of housing that's in this area and this area in particular is that area that we are

[355:01] proposing to be mixed-use transit-oriented development and so housing is a key component of that um but yes i've i've been out to the site even earlier today and um the cordon pharma campus there is a constant hum that comes from that facility it is um you can hear it but um you know there are other noises and things that go on in industrial neighborhoods that um are maybe different than other neighborhoods in boulder that include residential but um this yeah i think the plan proposes this new type of land use and this new type of living where we're integrating these

[356:01] uses and um looking for um folks who would be interested in in living in in these kind of um differently activated neighborhoods so i'm not sure if that's helpful but i appreciate your thoughts yeah sure okay well i appreciate the discussion i think everybody's made great points um so how whatever the world council is is fine but i'll just go ahead and call for a straw poll here on this uh so i had an amendment that i put out on the table before all those in favor of adding that amendment into the plan just raise your hand we got five let's see yeah one two three four five five okay so uh looks like that was bare majority wait matt what's that six was it six one two three six six was six okay great thanks i'm a little tired i'm losing the

[357:00] ability to count all right appreciate the discussion everybody on that um [Music] does anyone else want to offer any other amendments to the plan nicole yeah i think since we just talked about taking out a couple hundred um housing units i am just wondering if there is uh any place that we could propose a modification um to put in some more housing units you're very welcome to put a proposal on the table kathleen um could i ask you if there are any other spots that you all were eyeing as places that could potentially take some housing um you know i think that through engagement and our work with the working group the areas that have been

[358:00] considered and vetted for appropriate for housing have have gone through a pretty robust process so adding new areas to that was considered after the 60 draft and we brought that out to community and and the working group and proposed some particular locations like south of pearl street and the feedback on kind of expanding the areas of change um from the community was that that there really wasn't support for that they wanted to maintain a significant amount of business and industrial space so um i don't know that i would propose adding an area of change or identifying a new space for housing but we may

[359:01] consider modifying how the place types are applied and look at some of the denser place types for um other for for the for the areas of change that have already kind of gone through that process um that might be an option okay yeah i think the one that i'm um particularly interested in is sterling circle that's in between san lazaro which we would hopefully x and the dog park it feels like that would be a really cool place for housing and might also help bring the san lazaro community in to um other things there but it doesn't sound like that what was that one considered at all or yeah that that's been considered um as part of the process and just was one of the areas that did not move forward as an area of change okay um i know that boulder likes dogs so maybe just as a place to propose i would like

[360:01] to propose that we consider putting housing in that sterling circle area to connect san lazaro and the dog park and the rest of the community i'm certainly open to it nicole did i think we probably need something a little more specific than ad housing um you know we have we have the different sorry asking my brain to work much later than it usually does um and so you would be sorry i can i think i can help a little bit okay thank you you would be proposing a land use change of sterling circle from light industrial to something else so it would be um a mixed use industrial or if you wanted residential um yeah without the use category i think maybe the um the one that we just took away um

[361:00] can we put that back at sterling circle does that work um it's it's not a great um exchange because the one we took away was the um mixed-use transit-oriented development and so it's really connected to that multi-modal hub yeah yep okay okay yeah maybe the mixed-use industrial i'm gonna let some of my colleagues who are more um familiar with land use and zoning chime all in we got matt mark and rachel cued up well the the your segway nicole i am not a land use expert so i i have to pass on being able to provide expertise on which the right prescriptive one for that is um i i'm certainly open to that that recommendation nicole about sterling circle i will also come back to a point i made earlier is we already have very well vetted areas that are ripe for housing that have gone through that process and i would say just giving them and and maybe stating in their way to achieve the housing is that we would encourage or be open something that says

[362:00] we would like we would like to or or be open to getting that height up to 55 feet in some of those areas to accommodate some of that lost housing that was that was sort of on western and that way it's in an area that's already well vetted the place type already has a fair amount of verticality but it's already based on a cap of i believe 40 or 44 feet something like that um i'd refer to kathleen on what those heights are but i do remember it wasn't up to our our cap and it's out east it's not really blocking anybody or anything other than the smoke stacks out of belmont um so at the end of the day i think that might be a way to achieve it without creating a whole new space but i'm certainly open to the sterling idea as well but maybe it's a combination of the two and it's not either or but an end martin and rachel yeah first of all plans can be amended and i i think this is where we're the point where we're trying to rewrite this plan uh which has been fairly well vetted at midnight uh when we're all

[363:01] dying to get to sleep i i just think there's something inherently defective about our efforts to do so at the moment i i voted for aaron's language because it's it's fairly simple and it's not um it doesn't take the land out of residential use forever but trying to now rewrite the plan at this time of night um is the kind of thing we were always complaining about the the inappropriateness and the difficulty because nicole's ideas may be great i don't know um but but trying to do it on the fly at this time of night i would rather come back to this entire subject uh at a later time we're gonna pass the plan in some fashion um we can amend it uh if we if we do enough study and we find that there are height amendments we can we can do in one area or find another area to to develop residentially we can do that this is not the you know tablets from

[364:01] the mount um it's a plan it's a large uh airplane view of what we're gonna do with this this area it's not every last detail and again trying to fix every defect at midnight to me is just highly unproductive rule of council of course will prevail but i i think we're uh we're starting to see the effects of the late night on all of us um i'm actually quite amazed i'm getting out a coherent sentence or two and i may be wrong about that so um those are my those are my comments let's have a quick straw poll on whether that was a coherent sentence or not let's send it no just good uh rachel and then june speak for yourself mark i like i got a little pissed off in that last round and so i've got a good second wins here i'm wide awake don't worry about me um so i i want to just like reiterate this this is a years long process it was

[365:00] methodical it was you know chock full of engagement and it's a lot of different moving parts that all fit together so what i heard from kathleen is like the reason housing worked there is is because it was you know in that spot which is in a transit corridor and being activated and all sorts of good things so we can't just throw a dart and be like let's put some more housing somewhere and we we haven't done engagement we don't know i mean i i i you know i i trust to respect all of you but like we don't know what we're talking about on on we weren't on that work group we are not staff we've been in the weeds on this for years so i think we we ought not to have tinkered the last thing that we just did we took away 180 housing units i think that was full hearty but we did that i don't i think we stopped the bleeding and say we did that that that's a bummer but this plan is all interrelated and and i just don't think we can fix it so perhaps planning board will reject that i don't know but um

[366:01] for now i think for us like i think i think we maybe just stopped the flow and and say that that's a bummer i i appreciate the idea though thanks thanks rachel i i'll just say i there were a couple of other areas that i had hoped to get additional housing in earlier in the process and had requested that that there be engagement and changes about this a few months ago but the they were turned down in terms of staff recommendations so anyway um i i hear everybody's comments and i can just just with withdraw that and it'll be interesting to see what planning board has to say about it since we'll go back and forth a little bit so apologies for the extra um five minutes of sleep that i took from everybody in a desperate attempt to try to recover some lost housing i appreciate the spirit which it was offered nicole okay do we have any other

[367:00] uh items people want to throw out there we got lauren thank you um so i had two fairly i think well start with one minor one um so one of the things that i've been concerned about with this plan is um maintaining sort of affordable industrial space for people um i think that there's a lot of ways and policies that are in place that attempt to do that and i just wanted to strengthen one of them a little bit um and i will copy this into the chat as i read it so you can also read it yourself so policy b1 commercial redevelopment in east is the commercial redevelopment in east boulder should

[368:00] strive to incorporate and this is the part that i added the city will pursue strategies to incentivize um the incorporation of ground floor spaces suited to small businesses shared business space mixing of business uses to cater to customers with a mix of income and the retention of existing industrial space so basically just as we look for zoning i'm as we move forward i just want to make sure that we're not just saying that the commercial um redevelopment should do these things we're also going to try and look at creating policies that help encourage these things thanks for that lauren kathleen do you feel like that language is consistent with uh the outreach we've done in the plan as a whole yes i'm happy to just call for a straw poll

[369:00] on that proposed language unless people would like to offer additional comments tara's raising a physical hand rather than a virtual hand though she just likes it okay um sorry if i just see if call for a vote on whether people like that or not all right uh all in favor of that updated language that's i'm seeing looks like everybody ginny did you vote for it okay so we not genie yeah i'm sorry i didn't fully understand where that was going lauren so can i abstain thank you that's totally fine um okay but it sounds like we got majority support for that change did you have another one i did have one other one um so this one is a little bit more controversial so one of the things we've talked about is um green infrastructure and policy r7 and

[370:00] again i'll copy this in policy r7 talks about kind of green infrastructure particularly around storm water and one of the things that the city in other cities i've seen a lot of different kinds of stormwater management you know in seattle it's really common to use right-of-way area louisville allows underground stormwater retention in a way that the city doesn't so there are different ways that we could be dealing with stormwater and since this is an industrial area with a lot of paved surfaces in a floodplain i think i would like to propose that we um offer a wider or at least sort of hold the door open for the possibility of pilot projects that might do more than what we typically do and i know that

[371:02] the design and construction standards typically don't allow for that but i was hoping maybe i could slide this into the plan and we could kind of like save some space for potential creative solutions on these fronts so the main thing that i've changed here is um the biggest part is the last sentence about um the green infrastructure low impact development projects pilot projects potentially including underground right-of-way or adjacent properties if it provides added benefit that language that could you put in the chat like you did i did it's already there yes how much of that language has changed from the original

[372:01] let's see um [Music] i so there are two words that are sort of changed up higher so the city's design and construction standards require the implementation of green infrastructure where feasible based on the potential to infiltrate storm water runoff i was going to pull out on site and substitute locally because i'm sort of suggesting you might combine properties or do do something creative there or the right of way is not technically on-site the city will support designers and development teams in implementing effective and here i was going to take out sight and just have appropriate storm water control measures for east boulder through the development of local guidelines for design construction and maintenance and collaboration on green infrastructure or

[373:00] slash low impact development pilot projects and then the last from there to the end i've added can you just read that please um potentially including underground right-of-way or adjacent properties if it provides added benefit uh thanks for that one kathleen do you feel like that is consistent with the overall direction plan um i'm looking to see if hella is does look like she's here um i know hello you took a look at um this concept earlier and i just want to make sure you could describe um any concerns that you highlighted about the language well i i i could maybe try a little bit and i know that uh charles farrow is on as well so he might want to add a little bit to this and i'm moving a little bit

[374:00] out towards into engineering but but i can think of a lot of instances where we've done all of the things um that are in this list so to stomach and sometimes we do it through modifications to the design and construction standards and frankly i would if you were to go with this kind of language i would delete that if it provides added benefit because we have done off-site improvements for stormwater stuff where it's just addressing the need for storm water management in a responsible way saying we do it through easements or whatever we've done stuff in the we've done storm water management in the right of way we've done storm scepter systems which are basically underground detention ponds so this is it's what we do now anyway but i i don't have a problem with the language i would i would add that i

[375:01] would delete the provides benefits because um a lot of these it's really about dealing with stormwater in a responsible way and then i guess to make things a little more complicated we have state stormwater discharge permits so we we're also pretty heavy heavily regulated by the state so you have to take that into account as well and i don't know charles if you wanted to add anything no that's very well said david and i appreciate that and i do agree that i'm removing that language about um where it allows for benefit um i think that would be helpful i fully support that change to my amendment great and lauren what you pasted in the chat wasn't exactly what you wrote out so yeah it didn't it took out my cross outwards i'll edit it real quick okay so yeah if you wouldn't mind putting in an

[376:00] updated version [Music] that includes that that change that david just suggested okay um nicole you can comment on that sort of it's more just a question um my brain is so tired right now i'm really having trouble tracking what people are saying and i just want to understand that what lauren is proposing is backed by staff and staff also thinks this would be reasonable and a good thing that we could move forward with i think it's consistent with the plan and consistent with boulder's environmental values and consistent with how we are implementing a lot of these issues around green infrastructure okay and it seems feasible and it doesn't seem like we're adding a bunch of new stuff like adding new housing at sterling circle or something like that no it doesn't okay

[377:00] great thank you i have enough to make a decision thanks for clarifying nicole uh tara david did you i'm very tired did you say consistent or inconsistent it's consistent with i think it's consistent with community values and the intent the intent of the plan i think lauren you put that back in did you put that in chat so i just want staff to take a quick look at that as well yes so lauren put in revised language based on david's feedback yeah i i think that that language is fine from the staff perspective very good okay um so maybe can i call for a struggle on on this updated language that's being proposed here hey or do we need to read the whole thing for community since they can't see the revised chat that's a good idea lauren do you want to go ahead and read that real quick

[378:00] yes policy r7 the city's design and construction standards require the implementation of green infrastructure where feasible based on the potential to infiltrate stormwater runoff locally the city will support designers and development teams in implementing effective and appropriate stormwater control measures for east boulder through the development of local guidelines for design construction and maintenance and collaboration on green infrastructure slash low impact development pilot projects potentially including underground right-of-way or adjacent properties okay it's good to get that on on the record uh so all in favor of using that updated language for policy r7 that's proposed so i got i got eight and a half i think unless junior are you all the way up

[379:03] okay she's all the way up so that's nine yes that's unanimous lauren do you have 17 more of these or no i i cut my four other ones we're good all right well hopefully we can wrap up i but i you know if somebody really had some burning thing in their pocket that they had to bring up you speak now or forever hold your peace okay um seeing none then i think we've worked all the way through planning boards items and council proposed items and so um somebody could make a motion if they would like to uh i i do have a list of what i understand to be will of council on on the various amendments um should can i list those would that work for folks to see if their understanding is the same

[380:01] so all right i gotta i got a thumbs up and kathleen keep me honest here i may have gotten something wrong um but what i heard in um kind of rough chronological order that um there's the change on playing words items number 13 about project d15 key steps to move that from a change to key steps to a new project d17 as nicole suggested that playing board items number one about the airport influence zone that the decision was made to take the staff's recommended language and specifically the updated recommended language they presented here tonight uh that on uh plane board item number five which was uh about the flatiron office park and the number of jobs uh this decision was made to not alter the plain text at all in that area so leave it as the original text of the plan

[381:00] that there was updated language on h1 added about the area north of western avenue west 55th street that policy b1 was updated per lauren's suggestion um uh about come on i'm sorry what's the short summary of that one lauren the um about the commercial areas and reuse and yeah putting a stronger emphasis on creating or maintaining affordable commercial industrial space thanks for that and then lauren's updated language on r7 around uh stormwater detection not necessarily being on site but local did i miss anything there were a couple other proposals that

[382:00] i don't think got majority support except does that all sound right everybody's looking at me blankly i did my best to erin i'm having a hard time um not sort of seeing it i think my brain needs that extra support right now so if you're really asking for us to kind of make sure that everything is there i feel like i would need to see whatever it is that you're reading from but i and i i apologize for that i'm just not able to hold all that information right now yeah i'll second that i didn't i wasn't writing down as we went so i wasn't tracking what what passed and failed and what all we considered so i don't think i'm accountable for basically you know if you if there was something that you proposed

[383:00] that i missed let me know did you say oh you're asking yeah so here's my i mean the notes are in notes they're not um so this this was the list of things that i that i read out uh and who for those that where they were proposed by individual council members has a name on it and for those that were about playing board's items he just mentions so if somebody would like to make a motion i would like to motion to enact the east bowler sub-community plan with the proposed amended changes

[384:04] right and do we actually do we need an intermediate step of the with the planning board recommend changes except as modified by this list of updates that makes sense to me sorry i would like to move that we accept the updated east boulder sub-community plan with planning boards changes except as amended in our list along with the amended changes we discussed during this meeting thank you anybody want a second motion by lauren a second by matt um do anybody want to offer any last thoughts

[385:01] i mean it's still early right we could talk about this for another couple hours where's the water park theresa you popped up i just want to make sure that that passes legal muster you're good i'm good thank you [Music] thanks for checking on that all right uh we have a motion in a second uh i'll just go ahead and call for a vote is this um alicia's that's a show of hands or roll call if we're adopting the east boulder sub community plan sir it needs to be a roll call please just call that all right we will start this with councilmember spear yes wallach weiner yes

[386:00] yates yes benjamin yes mayor brockett yes councilmember falcons yes mayor pro tem friend yes and councilmember joseph yes mayor as amended the vote east boulder's sub-community plan is adopted all right well it was a little grueling here for the last couple hours um but this is a landmark moment this is years of work by the staff and and community to put together i think what is a fantastic plan that's going to serve our community well for decades so huge thanks uh kathleen to the whole team who's worked on this so hard to planning board for all their consideration to the east folder working group i mean so many people have their hands on this and it shows in the quality of the results

[387:01] so huge kudos in google thank you mayor brockett we appreciate the kind words any other final comments on this one all right and i apologize everybody that it's so late and that we didn't uh time manage any better than that i'll i'll take some responsibility there so my apologies speaking of it being late nuria do you think is it possible to maybe get a hotline update on our current coveted situation we can follow up with questions or comments next week as as needed we certainly can and i'll just note that pam has been waiting in the wings and prepared but we know that it's been late and we will do that we will follow up with a hotline post and let you all know what um what we were thinking about on coven thank you aaron yeah i do have a comment i don't know if it's the right time

[388:01] uh we used to get these updates from boulder county public health and it just stopped and i don't remember that we chose to stop it as a council but i'm wondering um is there will we get such an update again now that we are um back online and it seems that cases are rising up i understand you mentioned you all do a hotline post but i'm thinking can we hear from the experts absolutely we did reach out and we'll continue to reach out it was a little last minute as we shifted to medium just last week so we certainly plan to do that i will say though that boulder county public health 2 has shifted a little bit their work as they've been coming as covet has subsided and so we'll just make sure that we um plan with them but i know and i want to acknowledge that pam did reach out to them and we will as they have availability bring them forward to counsel when we need you know when when the

[389:01] circumstances um allow and it seems like shifts like these are some that we would like to hear from them so well deep apologies to pam i hadn't realized you've been waiting this whole time for this but um i think it might be the most merciful thing for all of us to let it go for tonight look forward to your analysis via hotline okay um any other final thoughts here before we finish up the meeting all right everybody's looking so cheerful okay well uh thanks everybody for a very thorough vetting of a lot of important topics and we'll go ahead and gavel the meeting closed at 12 22 a.m take care [Music]

[390:03] do [Music] you