December 11, 2025 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[1:45] and welcome to tonight's special joint meeting with the planning board on Thursday, December 11th. We're so pleased to have our planning board colleagues joining us and especially pleased to have our community assembly colleagues joining us as well. We're

[2:00] very excited about this. My name is Aaron Brockett. I'm the mayor and I appreciate you all being here. And then I just in this configuration I always have to apologize to the people who are staring at my bald spot for the next few hours. Um we do have two items on tonight's agenda. First, we will hear information on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Community Assembly recommendations and looking forward to hearing from the representatives that are here with us this evening. And then our second item is the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Preliminary Policy and Land use direction. So, thanks again to the planning board members for joining us um to hear the recommendations from the community assembly and the staff presentation on proposed policy direction and land use framework. As a reminder, tonight's meeting is our best opportunity to provide feedback on any um issues or gaps in the policy and land use concepts before staff moves on to writing the draft plan. So, there will be future opportunities for refinements and minor adjustments, but tonight, if we do have any ideas about significant changes, we

[3:01] do need to identify them for staff to consider this evening. So, the first agenda item tonight will include interpretation into Spanish for those who need it to help with high quality interpretation. We remind everyone who is speaking during that item to speak just a bit slower. Uh, in other words, slower than I have been speaking. Um, and take a breath after each sentence. Um, so but before we get into the first item, I would like to outline how the meeting will be conducted. So, staff will make a presentation. we will review that presentation and then once the presentation has been concluded we will then have time for questions. So at the end of each presentation after our questions we will then conduct our council and planning board discussion with staff. Um and as I mentioned we will hold all questions until the end of each presentation. So I will now turn to our city manager Nuria Rivera Vandermide to introduce our first item. Take it away please Nuria.

[4:00] Thanks so much, mayor. And I I will say as we introduce this item that there are there are lots of projects that we have in the city that are extraordinary. They're great projects that um do great things that improve um our city infrastructure, that do great things for community, but there are certain projects that at least for me remind me of why I got into public service. Um and this is one of those projects. Uh, I think the the work that staff has done to create this community assembly, the tremendous heart and work and effort that our community assembly participants have put into this has been extraordinary and reminds me of what um can be possible with community voice. And so I'm so proud um to hear from our community assembly participants today. I think KJ, you're going to kick us off as we think about that, but just wanted to give an extraordinary uh thank you to everyone who participated in this. >> Great. Thank you, Nura. Good evening,

[5:01] planning board and city council members. Great to see all of you uh again this evening. My name is Christopher Johnson. I'm the comprehensive planning manager. Uh use he him pronouns and I'm honored to be introducing tonight's first agenda item. Uh my comments will be short so you have the greatest opportunity to hear directly from the assembly members themselves. But as you know we committed to making this Boulder Valley comprehensive plan update the most inclusive process to date. Uh so far we have offered 58 different opportunities to listen to our community and gather their input to inform the vision and the policy direction that we'll be speaking about tonight. This includes the most innovative experiment in engagement uh to date which is the community assembly. So a quick note of gratitude to begin. I want to build on Nura's thank you and say that tonight's presentation and the recommendations you will hear would not have been possible without all of the assembly members that dedicated their time, their minds, and their hearts to

[6:00] an entirely new process for Boulder. This was hard work. They entered into difficult conversations. They built bridges and then they crossed them to see each other's perspectives. They ultimately found shared understanding for what they believe will make the Boulder Valley a better community for everyone. There were also many staff and partners, consultants, subject matter experts, and others that committed themselves along the way to this process and supported what is truly an extraordinary outcome. We gave the assembly the following mandate. how and where can we implement 15minute neighborhoods. We ask them to define what a 15-minute neighborhood means in the Boulder Valley. We ask them to consider the opportunities and challenges of that and then ultimately make recommendations to you, the policy makers, about how and where they should be implemented. Tonight, you will hear those recommendations presented directly to you by three assembly members that were selected by the group to represent them. We ask that we keep your questions

[7:01] this evening related to the recommendations and the outcomes of the assembly rather than the process as an engagement tool. We are working through an independent evaluation that'll be completed early next year and staff would welcome the opportunity to come back to you and talk about the process itself and the lessons learned. So I want to introduce at the end of the table Leah Sprain. She's the director of CU's Center for Communication and Democratic Engagement. she uh coordinated the assembly lead facilitation team and then she and Brenda Rittenau sitting behind me uh one of our city of community engagement managers uh who also served as the assembly man will both now as they're getting themselves I pause should I pause it is my privilege Alejandra

[8:01] first. I just lost audio. Oh, there we go. I'll get one with you today womanly about Helloender. woman.

[9:00] This slideshows and I want engagement also remains remain include the if Boulder is serious about equity then engagement alone is not enough. We also need conditions where more diverse families can afford to live here and feel a sense of belonging or our community will continue to reflect the same gaps we see today. All right. Well, creating the definition, right? Words carry weight and creating a definition that reflected our values to careful discussion. We focused especially on mobility and how different ages and abilities. Our guiding question was what does this

[10:00] language who might weude like seems simple. We explored how to challenge we were concerned. Some participants We might spark discussion for every so we question whether that

[11:05] next slide. All right. So after discuss this is a 15 services and transit hub centers. also felt it was a common theme that came up to for example talking about community.

[12:00] We talked about connection, safety, child care, recreation, and space where neighbors can show up for one another. One community member said it, "We need like the mother for the city." Community gardens where we grow ingredients that are culturally relevant and promotes food accessibility and bring people together. Grocery stores should have produce, spices, and herbs that reflect the diverse cusine of the community so people don't have to travel all the way to Aurora or Longmont to get their their ingredients. Public art spaces. We want to experience more color, identity, and visuals that reflect the community stories. We want restaurants to to be supported for their authentic food without watering down flavor, changing recipes to appeal to the majority of the population or erasing cultural roots. >> Next slide. >> Thank you, Alejandra. One of the first things that we did as an assembly was to

[13:02] name the values that would guide us through this process of fulfilling our mandate. One of the biggest most central values that we all recognized was equity. It was at the core of so many of our conversations and discussions and every discussion that we had, every topic that came up in the assembly always had at least one person at the table bringing up how does this relate back to our values? How does this relate back to equity? How are we making sure that we're being inclusive? How are we foster fostering this connected and open community? Next slide. Thank you, Lily. The assembly determined that in order for people to have easy and equitable access to amenities and services, they need local businesses that serve their neighborhood. This led us to one of our focus areas, the inclusive local economy. This focus area was defined by

[14:01] our values, especially inclusion, sustainability, and a bolder economy. We understand that bolstering a local economy involves not just city council action, but also support from business owners and buyin from local entrepreneurs. And this is the framework that led us to the following recommendations. Next slide, please. As the assembly met with local business owners, a significant challenge they faced was the cost to rent or lease spaces to operate their business. This overhead creates a barrier to entry for new entrepreneurs and poses significant risk to existing local businesses, introducing exclusion into our economy. The high cost of business space was con contrasted by the vacant commercial space that members of the assembly see in their daily lives. And we believe that these unused supply of business space in Boulder keeps prices high and makes starting or maintaining local businesses unattainable for some. >> The assembly discussed a few ways to address this issue, particularly a

[15:01] vacancy tax, but we were unable to reach a consensus on this recommendation. These the discussion on these topics were long and engaging, but they did not exhaust every option or consideration. While we did not come together on an exact solution, we had unanimous support that something needed to be done. So, the assembly is asking the city council to explore innovative ways to incentivize the use of commercial space rather than let it remain vacant. Next slide, please. Another recommendation that the city had to lower the barrier of entry for entrepreneurs in Boulder would be to reduce regulations to allow for in-home businesses. Allowing people to operate businesses out of homes and in residential areas creates more availability and flexibility to start a business. It creates the opportunity for hyper local and micro businesses to meet the needs of and provide for the services and amenities of a 15-minute neighborhood. It may also reduce the overhead and infrastructure needed to transform a strictly residential

[16:01] neighborhood into a 15-minute neighborhood. Micro businesses are an important aspect of a 15-minute city as they thrive locally rather than relying on large customer bases and repeat patronage from these local from these locals fosters a sense of community. Next slide, please. The assembly also heard from local business owners on the complex natures of codes and regulations that exist when trying to start a business in Boulder. We recognize that these codes and regulations serve an important purpose in protecting public safety and protecting the environment among other things, but they have become hard to understand and navigate, especially for first-time entrepreneurs. Because of this, the assembly recommends the creation of neighborhood level economic navigator programs. These programs would support would provide support for wouldbe entrepreneurs in preparing for and navigating the regulations that exist to start a business. But they would also act as a way to connect entrepreneurs to the community to understand the needs of the

[17:01] neighborhood and cultivate actions between business owners and community members to build the sense of belonging. In tandem with this, the assembly believes that the city should create economic development structures and programs within 15-minute neighborhoods. We recognize the effort that is going into creating economic support for hightraic areas such as the downtown development authority and think that those efforts should also apply to certain communities to facilitate their transformation into 15-minute neighborhoods. These de developmental structures could connect to Boulder's existing support infrastructure like the Boulder Small Business Development Center to communities to foster the growth of neighborhood focused economies. Thank you. Next slide please. Now one of our main was housing choices. Uh so mixing density and income was part

[18:02] of housing to improve quality. designing sort of household global scale neighborhoods. out and force a move away. We wanted to process this neighborhood

[19:08] belonging. It's just can be accessed by a friend or family member. Additional recommendation was a topic already come up in this presentation. Accessibility touches four of our six. It is to our vision of 15-minute neighborhoods. Um, anyone involved with planning knows that there are no easy answers when trying to account for accessibility. But we found that even

[20:02] when we thought that we had a nuanced solution, uh it was riddled with shortcomings when we actually heard the perspectives of people who were living with various disabilities. A special thank you to uh the center for people with disabilities and the community members who provided their perspectives to us in this process. We need to aim for development that doesn't just allow for minimum functioning, but does actually encourage every member of our community to be able to partake in the life and lifestyle that Boulder offers. Next slide, please. So, one of the biggest challenges was um we discussed that a vibrant 15-minute neighborhood have the potential to invite gentrification that undermines the city and county's equity goals. That is something to keep in mind. However, an opportunity here is 15minute neighborhoods provide opportunities to

[21:01] increase density in ways that foster community connections and make Boulder a better place to live for a wider range of people. Next slide, please. To close, we want to highlight this specific challenge. We've heard a lot of very difficult sounding uh goals and objectives and one of the big things that we recognize as a matter of fact this was a challenge that we unanimously recognized as an assembly was that this process is not strictly a policy and government process. This process of making our neighborhoods more accessible and more connected and easier to live in for as many people as possible is going to require changes in efforts from individuals, developers, neighborhoods themselves, and business

[22:02] owners within Boulder. With that, I would like to thank you all for giving us the opportunity to share a snapshot of the community assembly's work. And I'd like to turn it back to Mayor Brockett to facilitate questions. >> Well, thank you. Thanks to all three of you. That was phenomenal. Uh phenomenal uh presentation and a great description of the work that you're doing and uh a testament to the extraordinary work that the whole group has been doing. So really grateful to all of you for this. So I will now look to my planning board and city council colleagues to see what questions we might have for the community assembly representatives. And if I can have some help in locating hands. There's a lot of you so I may miss you. So poke me if I miss a hand. Tina, >> hi. Um thank you so much and thank you

[23:03] communityly community assembly members for being here. It's great that you're here. Um, and I appreciate the feedback. One question I had is was whether there was any kind of theme about um, housing type that had to do with ownership versus rental opportunities for community and whether that would create a sense of place or if it didn't really matter. It was definitely something that came up a lot. The difference between not only just owning and renting, but also the complexities that come with uh affordable housing and how some on one hand it can be a incredibly valuable asset. And on the other hand, it doesn't allow for the building of generational wealth that is typically associated with home ownership. So, it's something that is uh thought about in the report, but uh part of mixed density and income housing really focuses in on the idea

[24:01] that we want a as diverse of a set of housing opportunity as possible within these neighborhoods. >> I'll pop in with one. Um, so I was in intrigued by your recommendation about encouraging homebased businesses and I wonder did you get any testimonies? Did you get a sense of what maybe some of the existing barriers are and ways that we might be able to do better as a city in that area? >> Uh, regarding inhome businesses, >> that's right. Um, I think the understanding was just zoning laws and regulations that prevented um most residential spaces from allowing uh businesses to operate from from homes. >> Makes sense. Thanks. >> Thanks. Um I thank you so much for all this work and for being here and presenting to us tonight. Um, I had kind of a a follow-up question and you know, something that I think people sometimes

[25:00] get concerned about with the idea of neighborhood level businesses is that it's taking the place of existing businesses, existing commercial centers like our downtown, that kind of thing. Um, food trucks potentially taking the place of some of our um, uh, inside a building, restaurants. Is that something that came up and what were some of your conversations around it? You want to take it? >> I can take. Okay. >> Excellent question. It did come up. Uh the biggest thing that we uh saw a concern with wasn't necessarily the competition between small business and small business. It was ensuring that more Boulderites had this opportunity to engage in the marketplace surrounding Boulder, to engage in this economy. and to do so uh without having to surmount as many barriers as a lot of the bigger businesses that come into the area and

[26:00] that operate in this area have to face >> great >> great thank you so much for your presentation that was um very insightful So my question is you ended with the challenge of this being needing to be an inclusive process uh the making of the 15 neighborhoods to get the people involved. Did any suggestions come as a result of that um awareness? Because I think that's spot on. Yeah, I think um a lot of discussions were had about um having um engagement opportunities for communities from the city to come in and and discuss and uh teach about 15minute um neighborhoods. I think that can be found in the report as

[27:00] well. Um, but we also, you know, things like a navigator program, those things are talking about bringing members of the community together um to be informed and to have input on decisions around um businesses and and 15-minute neighborhoods. Does that answer your question? >> Okay. I'll uh if I could just add on to that. I think that one of the big goals is that as we start making these changes, there's there there isn't a lot of specificity on timeline, but one could imagine that with this challenge in mind, perhaps we aim towards uh the recommendations that focus on building this community and getting the buyin from local uh individuals and residents and really just kind of helping this process along in the ways that policy can without fully relying on policy. Our next two questions are from MarkX. We'll start with planning board. Mark,

[28:01] >> yeah, thank you for uh that great presentation. I I did um want to ask you about your suggestion of a vacancy tax. uh planning board. We struggle with uh lack of activation in ground level spaces and and what that means for the community and and the success of smaller neighborhoods. Were you able to actually sus out are there real incentives to keep space vacant? because I don't know of any. But were you able to find any or or we did you determine that it was just uh the way the market is trending now and it will correct? What are your thoughts on why these spaces are vacant? Is it market or is there some incentive that we don't know about? >> Um I'm sure there are a lot of experts that would be better equipped to answer this question. Um I'm sure it's very complex. Um, I think there were, you

[29:01] know, we had a lot of theories and a lot of thoughts. I think a lot of it's market driven by, you know, the the supply keeps the ability to keep a rent at a certain level. Um, and you might not want to lower that, but um, you know, we're not experts on on those things, but we are just seeing the reality of what it is. Um, and that's kind of where the charge comes um to council to kind of look more into these things and kind of come back to the community with a solution. >> Thank you. >> Does anyone want to add Okay. Now, uh >> Mark, I'll jump in and add this. Uh Brenda Rittenau, community engagement. I'm up here supporting from the from the um Spanish slide deck zone. Uh but just wanted to clarify that. Um I heard you say the assembly's suggestion of a vacancy tax and that was not included in the recommendations. It was an idea that they discussed in a number of conversations. um did not land on consensus level support to put it in the recommendations, but instead kicked it

[30:00] back upstairs to you all to come up with the right solutions for those those challenges. >> That's very helpful. Thank you. >> Now, Council Mark, >> uh I want to be clear, he's the good-looking Mark, but I'm the nice one. >> Um first, uh what a fantastic piece of work. You should all be very, very proud of what you've achieved. Uh it's really first rate. So, thank you. Um, two questions. Um, uh, you did not reach consensus, um, on dealing with commercial vacancies. I'm I'm picking up where where Mark left off. How close did you get and and what other things did you consider? >> I might kick that to Leah or Brenda with results of the voting that took place. Um, so from a process perspective, 15-minute neighborhoods are complicated and they can go in lots of directions. And so part of what we needed to do is as we're going seeing what seemed to

[31:00] have enough interest to keep the conversation going, uh, we required about 15% or 50% support part after full conversations about things. Uh, vacancy tax is something that was suggested a lot in early conversations. Once we had a full deliberative conversation about it, it didn't receive that 50% support. Um, and kind of at the last minute, the assembly came up with this idea that said, "This still really matters to us. Clearly, we don't think vacancy tax works out in terms of the trade-offs, and yet this still feels like something here." and they came up with what they thought was the creative solution of saying, "Can we point to seeing that we all agree this is a problem?" And perhaps piloting things is warranted, even though they recognized that there were significant tradeoffs that were big enough that made them not all support a vacancy tax, but they didn't want to just be quiet on the topic. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh my other question is uh w with respect to the 15minute neighborhoods and creating some diversity of uh housing for different

[32:02] economic uh strata. Um did you discuss at all the the difficulties of actually constructing housing for middle inome? I mean, not affordable because we've got agencies that will do that, but middle- inome housing, given the costs of construction and, you know, just the difficulties of of doing it in a way that um a developer is actually going to make some money. >> That that was that was a very very long conversation. uh we looked at so many different kinds of housing and we had to think through the challenges. We did talk to uh some developers. We did make sure that we were getting the different perspectives of not just uh people who want middle- inome housing. And it's it's one of those things where there

[33:03] there's a huge challenge but also a great opportunity. And it really just kind of has to come back to, as Leo was saying, potentially trying some things out. Uh there's, as far as I remember, there's not a specific uh middle income part of the report. >> So, all of the recommendations on this matter acknowledge that they're going to require support and subsidies in order for it to be possible. And that comes with the awareness that the assembly realized they weren't just generically endorsing something that didn't come at significant costs. That meant um and one of the named challenges is that there probably will never be enough supply to meet demand. And so I think they had pretty uh stark understanding of some of these tradeoffs and is making the endorsement despite that. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And once again, um, terrific job. Thank you,

[34:02] >> Matt. Then Terra. >> Thanks, Aaron. First, I just want to like reflect real quick because it was a couple years ago that I remember sitting at a conference with Brenda and Vivian for the National Civic League and the Center for Democracy when we were kicking this concept around and to see it come to fruition in this way and to see all of you here representing our community, pardon me, it's just really extraordinary. So this is democracy in action and I just think everyone should deserve a big round of applause and congratulate themselves for the participation and the fact that we got here. It's just amazing that something like that can happen in a relative short period of time here. Um so thank you guys for that. Um my question centers around like the the demographics um and so I'm sort of curious did you look at how our democra demographics are sort of forecasted? I think they call it the silver tsunami um is is one phrase but we are getting older faster than we are replenishing our youth in our community. Did you look at the recommendations as how to manage that trend or how to maybe

[35:01] recalibrate things to try to balance our community out in different ways? Um, and so I just was wondering like did you take a track in terms of just sort of dealing with our demographics in the forecast or ways to incentivize different ways to sort of bring another other folks into our community sort of balance those demographics out? Excellent question. Uh, one thing that I do remember hearing in a lot of assembly um, conversations about the general concept of a 15-minute neighborhood, is that it has potential to not only greatly benefit uh, people who are becoming more elderly, people who are going to have maybe some struggles with mobility or who are going to want some form of light employment within a walking distance. But it's also going to be very attractive to young people who are looking to maybe move towards uh move make the decision between Denver, Boulder, Broomfield and maybe lean towards well I really like

[36:01] this neighborhood and this might be a good choice. So, I think that through the process of creating some of these situations, there's going to be or creating these neighborhoods, we're going to create opportunities for both accommodation of the aging population and also an incentive to bring in a younger population. >> I'm going to um just add a layer to that that the members of the assembly represented folks from the ages from 16 to 88. So, we definitely had all of those demographic perspectives in the room in these conversations. >> Nice. Tina and then Laura, >> Tara, you know, I actually have a phobia of doing that at every single meeting. And there I just did it. Sorry to both of you, Tina and Tara. So my neighborhood had a 15 My neighborhood did have a center and then the flagship store which was a grocery

[37:00] store which was Wild Oats and then Whole Foods. I don't know. We allowed to mention names here or no whatever it left and so that created a lot of instability for our 15-minute neighborhood and it kind of dis We do still have you know a few restaurants but we don't have that really important grocery store. So one thing I don't want to do is create unsuccessful 15-minute neighborhoods and also neighborhoods they start out 15-minute and they go backwards to a point where it's like dreary. So, cuz you need that vibe, right? So, what's your suggestion? >> Well, I we did agree that well, when it was first presented, we grocery stores was a big one. We need to have access to grocery stores, schools, uh recreational spaces. And I think that is something to to think about when creating a 15-minute neighborhood to have all of these uh

[38:01] elements that we need because that I would find it very depressing not to have a grocery store nearby and it is considered an a walking uh 15-minute neighborhood. So yeah, I think that's something that we need to ensure not not having like the the restaurant shut down as well which has happened. It's been vacant for a long time now. So, I'm thinking about if we had a vacancy tax. I'm not saying that's the way to go, but maybe that would have done something to push the uh landlord of that property to do something. >> If if I may just uh add on to hopefully kind of add on to that. A little redundant. Um, but one of the reasons why economic programs and these starter programs are so important is so that if we do have maybe a larger retailer pull out of an area, perhaps we then instead of being faced with this shattering of a community and loss of a center, instead we all of a sudden have an opportunity

[39:01] for people in that neighborhood who say, you know, I've always wanted to start an IG. I don't know if IGAs are as popular around here, but just uh yeah, just inc have these opportunities where these things inter mesh in a way where if one piece gets pulled out, hopefully we're able to encourage things to fill that gap. Whether that's through a city council idea on how to handle vacant property or whether that's just a good encouragement to somebody who has a business uh business mind to finally get out there, occupy that space and fill that need in the community. I'll add one more layer if I may and Leah will um correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like there were also a lot of conversations about um particularly with grocery stores that they can look different ways and access to food and fresh food doesn't have to look like a 3,000 square foot um retail space. It

[40:00] can look like farm stands. It can look like bodeas. It can look like smaller footprints that provide that same grocery store resource. And Lily's nodding at me, so I think I got that right. >> Right. Thanks for that question, Tara. Um, Laura, and then Ryan, >> thank you. Um, so first I want to just echo the the gratitude, the kudos, the appreciation for what you all have done. Thank you to the city for putting this together and thank you to all of you assembly members for answering the call. This is just amazing. I read every word of your report and I loved it. So, thank you. I do have two questions quickly. Um, I know that you did not pinpoint specific neighborhoods or try to geographically pinpoint where these 15 minute neighborhoods should be. Did you talk at all about the extent? Like how many neighborhoods are we talking about? How far apart are they, you know, throughout the city? Uh just to start off on that, I we did

[41:00] look at things like uh maps that took into account equity concerns in certain neighborhoods. We looked at what sort of uh issues and shortcomings certain areas in Boulder faced. And if I remember correctly, we did in fact come up with recommendations regarding priority. and I will punt it to Leah to give more detail on that. >> So, as you know from the report, it has kind of four principles for choosing where. The assembly uh didn't have a model of 15-minute neighborhoods that presumed that every single neighborhood in Boulder would be a 15-minute neighborhood. In fact, uh they thought that the importance of kind of neighborhood buyin and starting in places that could be um cultivated was important. uh we were repeatedly told that the city is not a developer and so problems like something a grocery store goes away does not have a magic one solution and so I think the the nature

[42:00] of the recommendations coming from the assembly was to think about kind of starting with certain neighborhoods but they didn't give kind of specific recommendations on how many or how big they are or to what extent the full kind of footprint of Boulder is filled with 15-minute neighborhoods. >> Okay, thank you. And then just one other quick question. I read and took to heart your concern about gentrification that you know creating these vibrant, beautiful, exciting, attractive neighborhoods could make them more expensive and push people out. And I was wondering um I'm sure you discussed it a lot if you had any insights or thought for us about how to avoid that or things that you saw in other communities that you would want us to replicate here so that we don't end up gentrifying these beautiful neighborhoods and we have the mix that you're looking for. Yeah, I I would like to for all of us to look at cities that already have these neighborhoods developed and that are successful and have not gentrified uh the places. And what comes to my mind is

[43:02] if if one city becomes very attractive, then everybody's going to want to come and move here, increasing the price. However, what if we implement that everywhere, right? If I had like a little magic wand, I would love to do that, you know, just so everybody has access to the vibrant neighborhoods that we all deserve. >> It's a great answer, Ryan, and then Taiisha, Claudia, and then Rob. I also want to appreciate the work that you've done here and um emphasize that it's important work both the community assembly process as one of the first in the country to do something like this. It's such an important thing that that we have done that you have done and that we'll build from. Um and and also the the planning step. This is a monumental topic that we're taking on that will could change how we do planning for the

[44:01] next generation and I'm just very grateful for it. Um two two questions. The first one, can you just summarize how much time have you spent together? Like how many days and how many hours we what >> how would you summarize that? >> 57.5 hours. >> Is that right? Like on average each each person >> that's total official media time for a full assembly >> for each person. >> Yeah. So each person has literally spent 57 hours on this. >> Yes. >> It was seven full day Saturday sessions. >> Eight hour sessions. >> Somebody I heard something like that downstairs and I didn't fully appreciate how much time people had invested in this and I I just want to say thank you for for that. Um okay, second question. I find the recommendations compelling and um but to be thorough um there was a a line in the in the study or the the summary that had the word minority

[45:00] report and it made me think to ask was um anything worthwhile saying about um I don't know dissent about I don't know maybe the overall premise of this and any anything worth saying on that regard? Um yeah, I think there was definitely a lot of um challenge uh from the beginning and throughout the process of coming together and agreeing on do we even want 15-minute neighborhoods and or a city and what does that mean for me and my car or my house or my sidewalks or my neighborhood? And I think a lot of that was there from the beginning. Um but we we did come together in the end through the education and the you know the amazing work of the facilitators um to kind of show us what it could look like and how it could be um you know a positive impact on the community. Um but there were a lot of things that were brought to vote that did not get um you know enough support to include in our report. Um and they're not in there and there were there were a few things that

[46:01] you know things that I definitely wanted to see in there and then there was things that I didn't want to see that didn't get in there. So, I think at the end of the day, the process was was really good at at um highlighting the things that we really all agreed on as a as an assembly. >> Great. Tesa, Claudia, and then Rob. >> Awesome. Thank you so much. Um I concur with my colleagues on the quality and depth of this report and the process as well. So, just thank you so much for being a part of it. Um, I especially love the accessibility or the access uh accessibility audit idea is something that really stuck in my mind as a takeaway. Um, and I did appreciate the minority reports components in there as well. That's often an oversight. Um, I ran on climate and cultural resilience. So, I have one question on climate and one question on on culture. I'd say the biggest challenge I have to the concept of 15inute neighborhoods is it does not adequately address water and energy and those other needs that go across the

[47:01] city. And I'm just kind of curious um what conversations came up as it relates to water and energy when you're thinking about these definitions. So that's my would you like to answer the first question then I'll go to the second. Yes. >> Uh so uh one of the benefits from a planning perspective of 15-minute neighborhoods is it could touch on so many of the focus areas and despite spending 57 hours together, the time to learn from experts on everything was constrained by choices. One key way the assembly did that is they made choices on their focus areas. And so by choosing housing choice and opportunity and local uh inclusive local economy, they really chose what they were going to learn deeply about. And so um there were sustainability was an important value but they heard less on experts on some of these issues because of those choices. So we didn't have kind of focus expertise on water and energy and thinking about those trade-offs and that's in line with having the priorities of designing with certain

[48:00] focus groups and focus areas in mind and that meant others got less focus. So, they were able to come back to them as you saw with accessibility, but they didn't come back to everything, nor did they have the sort of like detail I think some of you would love for them to have had. Um, which I think they would have too if they had more time. >> Awesome. >> Thank you so much. Um, my second question is around culture. I noticed that one of the lines reads something to the effect of Boulder has quote visionary changes um around land use. And I thought that that was really interesting choice of terms, visionary um especially since um the evidence points to actually the erasure and the force displacement as well as um the custom of redlinining. So, um recognizing that land use can be both a very beneficial thing, but it can also be a very exclusionary and unfortunately um our city is is still recovering from

[49:00] some of the recl exclusion components and thus I really appreciate your efforts for trying to dismantle some of that. On that note though, I am curious whether any conversations came up around um you know, laying back to our indigenous and tribes um related to these 15-minute neighborhoods and if there are opportunities to atone and repair um for that forced displacement and the debt that we still owe. So, I'm just kind of curious if you know tribes and you know um you know indigenous peoples came into any of your conversations. Thank you. So, uh, there were conversations about redlinining and there were conversations that we weren't talking enough about redlinining. I think when we talk about land use, it was a notable absence that we didn't have people who identified as indigenous and there wasn't a lot of direct talk about other uses for land. So, I think there was commentary about

[50:00] what you're talking about, but there was not sustained attention to it. Thanks, Cluty. Then Rob, >> I'll also start by saying thank you to the presenters and the entire assembly. Um, and I'm so grateful for your commitment to our shared home here. Um, my question builds, I think, a bit on some of what Tara was alluding to, um, about losing things in neighborhoods. And I wanted to flag that many of the components of 15-minute neighborhoods that the group identified require a certain minimum population in their kind of direct service area or walk shed since you chose to define that around pedestrians um to be viable. So, you know, you can't have a school without a certain number of students in the area. Retail and restaurants, if you want to have them locally based, also need a local population base. And then if we're talking about things like rec centers,

[51:01] libraries, parks, governmental investments, we also, you know, are only going to make those investments when we have a substantial number of users. Um, and that this can be intent in in tension with lowdensity housing. And I'm just curious if the assembly received data on things like population thresholds for some of these different key pieces of 15-minute neighborhoods. And if so, um, how did that inform your discussions? >> Um, I do not recall a specific number that was given in terms of population thresholds for things like, you know, public uh investment in um, uh, rec centers and, you know, what might be needed for a school. Um I do think that that kind of comes to our recommendation of not um telling you where these things should be, but based on um our recommendations of you know access to services and density um for the city to

[52:02] find the best most viable um areas that these can be implemented in without prescribing that you might need to put a school here or a grocery store there. Can I if I can add one clarification? Uh the recommendation is 15-minute neighborhoods are mixed density and that's uh the assembly's term of art to suggest that we don't think about these as either high or low density. But in recognition of the support needed for some of these services and also the connections between human and economies that are that 15-minute neighborhoods rely on that we don't think about these as either or but they're necessarily both. And so 15-minute neighborhood can't just be single family housing. It needs to have density, but we shouldn't think of these as only high-rise apartments either. That they are necessarily the mix across. And that was in response to some of these kind of questions about what is viable and also the kind of human connections that I think you've heard highlighted here is

[53:01] central to what they were trying to accomplish. >> One of the ways I like to think about what Leah just shared is if you're walking for 15 minutes, you might imagine in one of these neighborhoods to walk by some single family homes and then walk by some apartments and then walk by a manufactured home community all within that 15-inute walk. um which is not necessarily something we see now in Boulder. >> Thanks, Rob. >> Yeah, I also want to echo the thanks. It's a lot of effort and when I see you guys and everybody behind me putting these efforts in, it's really motivating and thank you. Um I think it's a beautiful analysis that you guys did. I just have one question. Um, under the climate resiliency and sustainability considerations, did you take into account the wildland urban interface and the effects of natural disasters, evacuation routes and things

[54:00] like that with, uh, the planning piece? So, uh, resiliency and sustainability both came up as important values and the same answer about having to choose focus areas, um, and use those to guide what kind of specific experts we heard from. Um, that that wasn't one of the focus areas that was end that ended up being chosen. So, it wasn't something we considered in detail. >> Um, I'm gonna jump in again. Um, and for Rob's benefit as our newest council member and maybe some of the other folks around the table, when we say the focus areas, um, at the time that we were starting as the assembly, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan team had identified seven focus areas for the conversation they were having with the community. Um, I can't list them all off the top of my head, but that's the list that we presented to the community assembly. Safety was on that list. Um, WOOI was not called out on that list.

[55:00] Um, but that's what we drew from and that's where we landed on inclusive local economy and housing choice and opportunity from that list of seven. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Great. So many fantastic questions uh reflecting the depth of interest in the work that you all have been doing. Um, we're actually coming to the end of our aotted time. We need to have a feedback section, but actually I'm going to take a stab here. And so what I have been hearing um uh from city council and from planning board is a huge amount of enthusiasm for the work that you all have been doing. Um and so what I might do is turn to staff and say how do you anticipate these recommendations being included in the comprehensive plan. And once you've answered that, I'll see if any council or planning board members want to throw in some additional kind of points to make about how it might be directed. Um, but like I say, I have been hearing a lot of enthusiasm for the recommendations. >> Sure. Hi, Kathleen King. Um, principal city planner. Um, the recommendations

[56:02] are incredibly helpful for some of our next steps. Um, you know, we've had a policy about 15inute neighborhoods in the comp plan, but it hasn't been defined. So, you can't identify something when you don't know what it is yet. So, um, one of our first steps if if, um, planning board and council, um, support the the concept of this definition is for us to be able to look at, okay, where do these already exist in the city and where are there some gaps? And that will help inform some of our next steps and choices about the land use map. And then additionally, I think um we'll be using um some of the information in the report um to look at some of the draft policies we have and see where we might tweak those to align better with that definition as well. >> Great. So, both on a map level and also on a policy level, then these would be incorporated because I do see some uh really strong synergies between the recommendations that they've made and some of the directions that the draft

[57:01] policy provisions are going in. So that then that's something that you would take as you uh wrote the draft plan. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. That sounds excellent. So then what I would do is I I'll note that we're we're within five minutes of our aotted time, but I don't want to short change this either. If council planning board members have a particular way that they'd like to see those recommendations be guided into the comprehensive plan update, I would say now would be your time to make that comment. And I've got Tina and then Nicole. >> Uh yeah, thank you. that helped. Um, I really want to just follow up with uh what Claudia said about understanding how many people we need. Our city is growing so slowly and I don't want empty spaces. Um, and I also want to understand what the long-term impacts are to the city needing to provide funding um, incremental funding to sustain any other investments just so we can plan accordingly. So, this threshold idea of what you need in the walkshed I think is really important as we look at

[58:00] this Nicole. >> Um yeah, uh like like Taiisha, I was really taken by the um accessibility audit uh recommendation. So, thank you all for that. Um I think it is really really crucial and important. And I would just say that as we're thinking about which neighborhoods are already there. Um I would love to see that that metric of accessibility be a part of that, right? So, um thinking about, you know, which sidewalks are actually wide enough, right? um which don't have cracks and roots and the things that can trip people up and um you know good visibility things like that. So that that for me would be an important thing as we think about bringing this in if we're thinking about what we already have to make sure that piece is there because it seemed like such a central component of the group's discussions and and what's coming forward and it was one of those kind of hanging um it didn't kind of fit under the other ones but I think it is a really good organizing principle as we think about these neighborhoods and it feels like that fits in with a lot of what you all have been talking about too and was in the

[59:01] report. Thank you >> Ryan. Just a thought or two. Um, so the 15-minute neighborhood concept brings together transportation, housing, and other topics. Uh, in the previous BC, BVCP, I know transportation is its own category and those other categories. Um, and I'm just I'm just thinking that this is seems like such a great opportunity to provide some new ways to show how the housing and transportation budget in a household are actually part of the same summary budget. And and similarly, there's um there's a lot of silos that have just, you know, over decades have been created, not just in Boulder, but just, you know, society. And if we can find ways in the the BBCP to identify that that integration and and that access is both transportation, housing and um viable services nearby. I think that would be that would be really great. Um and then related this I just

[60:02] mentioned housing and transportation but I I think kind of the flip side of that is there are cases where we have housing now and allowing for small retail nearby um is also part of the opportunity. And so that's a different maybe construct than thinking about housing and transportation. And um anyway, just a few thoughts on on being creative about how we might integrate these topics together uh in novel ways. Thank you, >> Council Mark. >> Yeah. Um I think it would be useful, certainly useful for me to have the report identify um where you anticipate uh 15-minute neighborhoods would be appropriate. It's obviously not going to be everywhere. um some areas are going to be more appropriate, easier to to do than others. Um and to the extent that the report can set forth um where those likely targets are um I think that would

[61:02] be very helpful. >> Kurt and then Tyan and Laura. >> Thanks. Uh yeah, and I agree with Mark at the same time, not to put words in the assembly's mouth. My feeling is that there's not probably a binary between something absolutely is a 15minute neighborhood and is not. There's maybe some some gray levels there. And so I would love to see in the policies thinking about how can we move all areas really farther along the scale of 15minute neighborhoods. And so think to some extent about yeah where can we make the fully the complete sort of neighborhoods but where can we just help some of the ones that are a little further away. >> Great point Laura I have you next and then Taiisha and then Matt.

[62:01] So, I just want to follow on Kurt's comment there and say something that really struck me about the report and the recommendations was that a lot of it was about the built infrastructure, but so much of it was about that social infrastructure piece and the connections and the support systems and the programming, neighborhood festivals, neighborhood bucks, entrepreneurship programs that don't rely necessarily on having a specific geographic location. And whatever we do with regard to the geography, I don't want to see that social infrastructure piece get lost. I think that's really so important for the whole city. >> Tisha then Matt. >> Awesome. I just wanted to say that I'm hopeful that these um these recommendations aren't limited to the Boulder Valley comp plan. I think that it in is integrated and can be and should be integrated into a variety of different plans um that we are discussing and we are considering considering the amount of time. And so I just want to lift up I see and I would love to be able to crosswalk back and have this be one of the source documents

[63:01] that we use when we're talking about some of these other things that fall outside of the Boulder Valley comp plan. So one I just want to say that's a lot of effort. Let's make sure it has legs. So that's number one. Um number two I wanted to just make sure I made a note about the navigators because we have the Boulder Chamber, the Latino Chamber, the Small Business Development Center. And so there's a lot of resources out there, but the fact that this was such a huge conversation makes me wonder about how do we better thread into some of those resources so that they're meeting the needs um there. So those are just two quick things, but thank you again, >> Matt. >> Thanks, Aaron. Um I think I'm going to pick up on sort of a theme I was hearing certainly from Kurt and Mark, pardon me. um was really centered around I think the report as it is can be a means in which we measure or grade either our existing or future 15-minute neighborhoods and I think something where it would helpful in integrates into the comp plan would be how do we actually measure the existing ones and then we e and then or where is it

[64:01] missing I mean I think of I look at the proposed land use map and I look at this desert basically between alpine balsam and way way north boulder and I go there's a massive of chasm in the middle that does not have that infrastructure or that sense of place. And so that's a new spot. But I also think of how do we know which ones are doing well and how do we grade them and how do we do an inventory of what's there? Some places might have grocery stores andarmacies and others have maybe more restaurants and community gathering and not those. So I think that that in the comp plan might help us get to how we measure and then I think in terms of resource allocation we'll know hey do we do a little bit to sort of complete this one or this one needs to really start we need to build a new here and so I think that would really help us in execution and really that needs assessment. So I think the report can really follow or or lead us in the direction of identifying those areas and then where to invest the time resources to achieve those outcomes. >> Thanks Matt. I'll just note that Council Member Shuhart has had a family issue come up, so he's had to step away and hopefully he'll be able to come back

[65:00] before too long. Uh Mason, >> great. Uh thank you so much for all your efforts and all the time that you've spent on this. Um so what what I've heard through the questioning in your presentation is a is a need for flexibility and how 15 minute uh neighborhoods are defined and how they're developed. Um, so bringing that into the comp plan, I would like to make sure that when the definitions are set uh for the land use, residential, etc. that we are allowing for the zoning that will eventually fall out underneath to allow for that neighborhood commercial or um, etc. Uh, and the second point, I I think what I also read from your report was that, you know, not including the bikes in the definition of 15-minute neighborhoods made a lot of sense, but it didn't mean that you were uh dep prioritizing the infrastructure. So, I just want to make sure that that's clear when we're working on this. >> Good point about the bikes. Um, I believe that's all my council and planning board hands. Um, I have a comment, but I'm going to turn to Nur

[66:00] here for one before I go. Just a a quick note and I appreciate so much council member Adams uh lifting up the richness of this report and and wanted to make sure that we um said that I it I knew uh some of the conversations I was privy to to the process a little bit but there is so much more here beyond 15-minute neighborhoods and um and I want to assure you that as we're looking at it we are looking at it for more than that from accessibility to the economic development efforts that are going on to so many of the other topics particularly as you centered equity in the work. It does go beyond this particular topic. We will be looking at that richness looking at this process actually for other things. So please know that it will continue to be lifted up and we will be looking at across other ways in which your insights can be useful to some of the work the city is doing. So it will certainly broaden to what this is. Thanks for that, Maria. And my comment

[67:01] was just going to be that um rather than focusing in on a particular area, my request to staff would be to just take this phenomenal work and just take it as far as you can um because I think the recommendations that they've made are um very insightful and very rich and really important for the future of our community. And uh as Taiisha Nur have said that we can also look for other places outside the comprehensive plan to take into account the recommendations that have been made and use those in other areas as well. That would be my request to you all as you move into the draft plan um coming back in a few months. So with that, huge thank yous uh Alejandra and Lily and Judson. So appreciate uh your representation tonight and uh all of your articulate articulate explanation. I can't pronounce articulate. How bad is that? Um uh explanation of the uh phenomenal work that your assembly has done. And to the entire assembly, I just give our deep deep gratitude. 57 and a half hours is a heck of a lot of work. So, a huge

[68:01] round of applause for the all that they've done. And with that, I think we're done. So, thank you again. Um, and then I encourage I know assembly members, you've got a lot to talk about and I would just encourage you to head on downstairs and then chat your hearts out and thanks thanks again so much for all of your amazing work. And m maybe we just pause for a couple minutes. Don't leave everybody, but we'll give a little time for adjustment.

[73:39] All right, folks. If we can start to get back into our seats, please.

[74:41] Everybody has not eaten. >> Yeah, I know. Um, all right. So, if uh council and planning board members can have a seat, please, and city staff, and if others can uh either sit and uh listen or move on out of chambers, please.

[75:18] All right. >> Almost back. We're almost back. I don't know. >> Uh, we could we can probably expand, but it might be a little hard to mean if >> All right, let's come on back. Everybody's chit cchatting now. All right. So, we are now uh ready for our second item. So, Nuria, I'll turn to you to introduce our second.

[76:01] >> Thanks so much, Mayor. Uh and for this, we'll go straight to our director of planning and development services, Brad Mueller. >> Thank you, Nuria. Well, among all the superlatives this evening, it's impossible to really add to those. uh but I will add uh my own which is just great appreciation for the support that you all gave to the assembly and to the larger process which we hope you found uh resulting in some rich uh things to be able to work through tonight and we are getting to that point of really rolling up sleeves and and getting feedback tonight. I want to ground this discussion tonight in the fact that comprehensive plans by design and this comprehensive plan by design is an aspirational document. So it is not designed to answer the question how and in fact sometimes we may not have those answers to how for five years or 10 years. It is um it is a 20-year planning horizon and so some of these things necessarily because of resources or

[77:00] knowledge or insights might take f might not happen till year five or year 10. Um being an aspirational document it does have some limits around it. So and things that we would expect you to react to. So if you saw a policy that we brought forward uh through the process that said Boulder should be the number one steel manufacturing place in the country, you might say, well no, we don't think that is a priority. So that's the type of thing that you might speak to. And we also recognize that it is in the realm of possibility. So uh it does not have recommendations that we be the number one coffee growing community in the country for example. So uh you know keep those kind of things in mind but also appreciate the fact that it is aspirational. We want to hear from you about things that are inherently off track in in terms of the bigger themes, things that are gaps that are part of that. Um the whole plan is up for discussion. So that includes process map

[78:00] all of the other aspects but we're focusing uh most on the funneling process of of policy. And that's of course the framework of what you got this uh evening. A lot of that detail is a memo. We appreciate uh the work you've done in in looking at that. And the last framing that I would like to uh share with you is that while this is not uh the last bite at the apple, uh this should be treated as the second or third look to the last bite at the apple because we are trying to get we are trying to get to a winnowing process. We're trying to get to some conclusions. not that they can't be re revisited. Uh but do know that we are are trying to trying to land some things uh with this conversation and and therefore we're we're super excited to hear what you all all have to say. So with that, I think I'm turning it to Kathleen. >> Yeah. Our wonderful Kathleen project >> co- project manager. >> Oh well, no. Sarah's the project manager.

[79:00] >> Okay. Uh, but I I do focus a lot on the plan and the content of the plan. So, I'm really excited to be with you all tonight. Kathleen King, um, principal city planner. This is so fun to sit in the round like this and feel like we're all working together. Um, so I'm hoping that's kind of how we approach the conversation tonight. Um, we're working together on the comprehensive plan and and um, as Brad mentioned, really want to hear your thoughts and feedback, red flags, um, major opportunities for change. Um, so it should be a great conversation. Um, this is our agenda for the evening. We're actually going to break our item into two sections. So, uh, the first part will focus on policy and the second is going to be about the future land use strategy. and we have a um an hour scheduled for discussion after each presentation. We'll take a break in the middle. Okay. So um the project started in

[80:00] October of 2024 and this meeting marks a transition from phase three of the project and we're moving into drafting the actual update to the comprehensive plan. So, the purpose of our time together tonight, um, we're going to review key direction on both policies and a future land use strategy. We're looking forward to hearing your feedback. Um, and as I said, you know, really tonight is a a big night to um, the way I described it um, to the internal team was like get your wiggles out, like really get all your energy that you want incorporated into the plan out tonight because we're going to move into drafting the plan. and that's the version that will um be shared with the public. All right. So, um everything that we're going to look at tonight has been driven by community input. Um it was mentioned earlier, but at the beginning of this process, the team set out to host the most inclusive engagement process that the comprehensive plan has ever put

[81:01] forward. Over the course of the past year, there have been 58 different opportunities to engage with the project team and submit feedback. We've received thousands of comments, ideas, and concerns from community members and um I think it's been, you know, one of the most varied and interesting planning processes I've been involved in and our team thanks everyone who's participated so far. um we really have read every comment that's been submitted and so thank you to everyone that took time to submit and and visit us and and um share your thoughts about this project. So tonight you're going to um see communitydriven ideas and policies and a land use strategy intended to move these communities ideas into the future. Over the course of the project, there's been one major theme driving so much of the feedback and it's been helpful to understand how this theme can play out

[82:00] in our policy work and land use planning. That theme is a call for connection. Community members consistently describe deep desire to connect to nature and the protection and the enhancement of the Boulder Valley's unique natural resources is very highly valued. We've heard a desire to connect to opportunities. Community members want to be able to learn, grow, and succeed in Boulder, and this can be supported by a lot of our community policy moves. Finally, and overwhelmingly, people want to connect to each other. The call for social places and desire for belonging is loud in the comments. And this is something we know is a national dynamic as people continue to come out of COVID with new realities as well as a very local issue as many have described feeling excluded for a long time. So we ask that as you think about the

[83:00] work and the progress on the plan thus far, help us find the best ways to provide connection for the Boulder community. So, I'm going to be walking through um some of the key policy direction. You'll notice as I go through this that we're working towards aligning policies with goals of the sustainability, equity, and resilience framework. Updates to policy can help implement these goals and serve as a guiding resource for future decisionmaking. If you've been following along with the process, um you'll know we've heard a lot about the topics on the left of this slide. Topics we've called focus areas or areas of focus. Um so much about these areas of focus are influenced by and can help address issues of the STER goals. So we're beginning to tie these things um more closely together. as I go through the policy direction. Um, there's some questions that we've

[84:01] prepped for your discussion. Um, and I've mentioned it multiple times now, but you know, the the most helpful feedback for our team tonight is identifying any changes in direction that planning board or council would like to see incorporated into the draft. Okay. Um, so I'm going to walk through the STR goals in alphabetical order. There's no um winning STR goal. Um, I'm going to start with accessible and connected. So, we got so many comments on this goal area related to transportation in particular. People were thinking both holistically about our systems and how they work together. And some people were very specific about particular streets or intersections that they want to see improved. Overall, some general ways to talk about the feedback were these three major things. People want an expanded pedestrian and bicycle network. Boulder Boulder has a great network today, but community members see opportunities to

[85:00] make it even better. One of the reasons for building it out even more is to support community member goals around reducing car dependency both for people living in Boulder and those commuting to Boulder for work. And that's very much tied to this third item um which is that community members want a more effective public transportation system. They want more connections via bus, greater frequency, and a safe, comfortable experience. So, the teams developed some policy moves related to this feedback. The first is that moving around Boulder should be joyful, more than just safe, more than just comfortable, but actually a great experience. And this is both because investments in transportation are significant and community members want to feel the value of that investment, but also because a great experience moving on a bike path or riding the bus can help move that community member to um choosing types of

[86:00] movements um that are not just driving for a lot of local trips. Second is a move to have a people centered transportation network. This means that the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of Boulder's multimmoal transportation system will focus more on moving people as opposed to just moving vehicles while improving infrastructure for walking, rolling, bicycling, scooting, taking transit, riding, micromobility, and also for driving. Finally, a policy move to highlight is a commitment to innovation in transportation and making sure that as the community welcomes new mobility technologies, all community members have equitable access to that type of innovation. Under the goal of economically vital, we heard great interest and support for local and community-minded businesses. This frequently rises to the top of community conversations about the local economy. We also heard great interest in

[87:01] entrepreneurship and wanting to support resources to build wealth locally. Community members recognize that Boulder is an expensive place to be and they want to find ways to make a high quality of life here. Finally, we heard a lot about equitable access in the economy and a recognition that while Boulder has exceptional university and amazing businesses, not everyone benefits from those resources. So looking to the future as Boulder's economy experiences some successes from things like the Sundance Film Festival, community members want to see those successes shared. There's a couple policy areas that can help move that feedback forward. Um the first is expanding small-cale commercial uses in residential areas and supporting things like homebased businesses in more parts of the city. Um, you'll see this come back when we talk about land use, but we heard a lot about this. Um, and you might have noted um, in the results

[88:00] to the statistically valid survey that was conducted as part of this project that nine out of 10 respondents supported allowing small-cale businesses in residential areas. This is also um, a concept that we just talked about with the assembly. Um, the next is thinking about embracing an economy based on experiences and reducing barriers to businesses that enhance cultural life while ensuring that the positive impacts of tourism that can come with offering great experiences flows back to community members. Okay. Throughout the process, community members have provided a great deal of feedback on the desire for the comprehensive plan to address the valley's natural resources and changing climate. 80% of participants in the survey indicate that it is essential or very important to protect and enhance the natural environment. Comments collected represent interests in climate change mitigation and adaptation,

[89:00] natural resource protection, and building resilience into many aspects of planning for the future. This community process also highlighted a lot of community interest in food systems and the future of local agriculture in particular. Community members highly va value the agricultural resources and businesses in the valley and want to recognize the high value of this and find ways to support the a community into the future. There's a couple of new moves to highlight in the policy direction in this on this topic. Um the first putting forward a um a nature everywhere approach to the city. This is something that the parks and recreation department has been exploring in collaboration with children and nature network and the national league of cities. The direction means that the city would strive to provide access to nature to all community members to live with, learn from, and play within natural places. Additionally, a cross department team

[90:01] has been working on building the community's understanding of natural assets as infrastructure and this policy direction moves us towards that concept. Tree canopy, greenways, open spaces all support a network of natural infrastructure that provides multitude of benefits to community members like managing heat and air quality while also improving mental and physical health. Finally, related to agriculture in the Boulder Valley, one thing to highlight is a direction that would find avenues to support local agricultural workforce with housing being a top concern related to the healthy and socially thriving goal. Community members have described needs to support a more diverse community, including finding ways to foster belonging, support health and wellness, and strengthen social connections. Written and recorded feedback frequently touches on related themes including the protection of diverse communities, the need for more

[91:00] gathering places other than work or home, family-friendly housing, and broader efforts to increase affordability. This is also related to the assembly's work and implementing a 15-minute neighborhood concept. People describe really wanting to be able to walk around neighborhoods for convenience, but also for opportunity, for social connection. Historically marginalized groups have voiced a strong need to be heard by the government, noting that past engagement efforts often ignore their perspectives. This feedback underscores the need for a community where everyone feels supported and that they belong. So some directions to highlight include a new concept to the comprehensive plan, support for social infrastructure. So, encouraging spaces, programs, and institutions throughout the city that offer social places for interpersonal connections, belonging, well-being, and community cohesion for people of all cultures, generations, backgrounds, and

[92:00] abilities. One path towards rebuilding or building a social infrastructure network is the evolution of the walkable neighborhoods, also referred to as 15-minute neighborhoods. a very popular concept tonight. Um, where community members of all abilities can enjoy and equitably access daily needs, connect with others, and experience nature within a short walk. Additionally, updates to policy around arts and culture investments highlights opportunities to reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of Boulder's community members. Okay, on to the livable goal. Um, the livable STER goal is where a lot of the housing input falls and as a top area of interest, many community comments have identified local housing challenges as a priority to address in this major update. Concerns for housing affordability and availability are a driving force with community members, describing a lack of housing

[93:01] opportunities through an individual's lifetime, including those who would like to remain in Boulder as they grow older. The survey indicates that three4s of participants support increasing housing that is more affordable, allowing moderate density housing types in more areas and encouraging the use of underutilized sites within the city before developing areas outside the city boundary. While there is majority support for these, we also hear community members who have concerns about managing population growth. um uh concern about large residential buildings, change in quality of life and change in established residential neighborhoods. Housing uh affordability and diversity was a major focus area of the 2015 comprehensive plan and that you know the focus of that really led to new programs, policies and many code changes. In this major update, there are new and ongoing key concepts offered for

[94:01] council and planning board's consideration. The first is a clear commitment to increasing the housing supply in the Boulder Valley to contribute to regional housing needs. At the start of this process, we got a lot of feedback about the lack of clarity on this issue in the current version of the comprehensive plan. We've heard that clearly articulating that the city supports increasing local housing supply would be a valuable update. The sec second thing to highlight is a commitment to increasing diversity of housing types across the city to enable people to remain in the community as their needs, incomes, and household compositions change over time. Additionally, continuing to strengthen city county collaboration around policy to help people experiencing homelessness move into safe housing and help them stay housed remains a priority. Okay. Um related to responsibly

[95:02] governed. Um this one maybe hasn't necessarily been a top priority in the community comments, but there are two major things that we hear about frequently. Um the first is about providing more meaningful and effective engagement opportunities for youth and indigenous peoples in general and the second has been the management of community resources particularly water supply as we consider changes for the future related to water supply and growth management. A water resource planning policy directs the city to use a variety of strategies to meet municipal and open space water resources and agricultural goals. It also ensures that the city can achieve water supply reliability criteria through water supply and demand management while balancing instream flow maintenance and preservation of sustainable agriculture. That's big. Um, additionally, aligned

[96:00] with the responsibly governed SER goal, boards, commissions, and council will consider a new overarching policy that directly speaks to equity, racial justice, and social resilience aimed at dismantling institutional and systemic racism and ensuring that all voices, experiences, and needs of community members are fully and equitably heard and considered, including those who have been historically excluded from local government. Okay, so we're already on to the last goal area, which is safety. We've heard a lot about um safety from the community. And this topic topic touches multiple arenas, including um transportation, public spaces, housing, resilience to climate change impacts, um really a gamut of issues that the community is concerned about. hazard preparation and resiliency is an area of concern for 91% of survey participants. 88% identified safety of pedestrians and

[97:02] bicyclists as an area for concern. Community members also describe a need for the design and care of infrastructure and public spaces to reflect the range of diverse needs of the people using them. People want public spaces that enhance community trust and strengthen social fabric through shared care, cultural and historic understanding, and inclusive activities. There's also an interest in supporting the mental health and wellness of community members who are suffering or have been fatigued by multiple local crises. There's a number of policy updates and new policy direction for your consideration related to safety. First, although the comprehensive plan has referenced vision zero goals in the past, until now it has not defined um Boulder's understanding of vision zero, which is that the city and the county aim to reduce the number of traffic related fatalities and serious injuries

[98:01] to zero. Community safety is prioritized by employing holistic problem solving and crimerevention strategies to support a safe community and participation in active public life. And then to address resilience in the face of future wildfires, the city and county will collaborate on a fire adapted community policy by integrating wildfire resilience throughout the Boulder Valley and working to reduce risk, enhance safety, and plan for efficient and effective response and recovery. Okay. So, um, we've gone through some policy directions that we felt spoke directly to a lot of the community feedback that we've been hearing. Um, but this is, you know, definitely not an all-incclusive look at the policies that will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan. Um, there's many foundational policies that will remain. There's some that we are just sort of

[99:00] editing for clarity. Um, and then there's other, you know, new policies that, um, we'll be considering, um, and that community boards and council, uh, will we'll look at in the draft plan update in March. Um, so, as I mentioned earlier, feedback tonight um, is going to help us work on those draft updates, work on those policies. um if there's something I pre presented that board and council want to redirect or um look at a different approach that would be great to hear about. Um and then you know as we've mentioned if if there's something that you really want to make sure is included in the draft um related to policy this is a a great time. Um okay I think with that I'll turn it back over to the mayor to facilitate discussion. >> All right. Thanks so much for that. That was uh there's a lot of information that you got through very quickly. A lot of good stuff. Thank you. So, let's start with any uh questions for staff about how they got here or about the specific

[100:01] uh ideas that were presented and then after that we'll go to feedback. So, any questions from council or planning board members? Matt and then Laura. Thank you for that uh review. One question that comes up is I see you know in here there's a lot of goals and I think those are aspirational goals and we'll keep using the word aspirational not prescriptive um which is an evolution in this version of the comp plan is to be less prescriptive and more aspirational and flexible but when we state goals usually it's because we have a baseline from which we're trying to achieve something in which case you wish to measure that success and so I'm kind of wondering if we've got goals and we have these draft policies is it here and or Where do we go about measuring success? And some of this seems, you know, further down the pipeline, like I see transportation safety and vision zero. Well, our vision zero action plan is what defines that success. But not everything that has a draft policy or in here has such a welldefined document and um example of where you can

[101:03] then go to find those measures. And so I'm wondering like if we're going to do this in the comp plan, how do we make sure that all of those goals and thus draft policies have their corresponding documentation and work from which we can then measure results and success? >> Yeah, thanks for that question. Um for each of the STER goals, we have collected a lot of um baseline data and um did a lot of existing conditions work in that phase one and um that information is all available on the comprehensive plan website which is a boulderfuture.org. Um and you know we've been thinking and talking a lot about how will we demonstrate progress on these goals over time. So, um, part of the work that we'll be doing over the next six weeks is looking at those baselines and thinking about, uh, a metric that would, um, help us demonstrate progress in

[102:01] these different areas. And I don't know, KJ, if you wanted to speak more to that at all. Um yeah, just to add to that too, I think we've been able to share in the past a relationship of the comprehensive plan and Sarah grow um Sarah framework to the uh various implementation which include things like the citywide strategic plan, the budget, the CIP, individual what we've historically talked to as department plans but are looking to be more inclusive now and moving forward as well as individual work plans and And I would point out some of the policies are are evergreen and again being aspirational something like having clean water. Um that can be defined you know in a very very technical way and that's where it becomes I think a little bit evident that that deserves to be in a water quality plan which of course the city um has and will aspire to improve on. But by having those goals that or rather

[103:01] policies that say this is our vision, this is the policy, we're setting uh up a framework by which you all can make priorities in the future um through your prioritization, through the strategic plan and through all the other mechanisms we use. So it'll be a little bit of both, but we also recognize there's going to be limits to that. And just to follow up, we have an easily accessible and dis and a way to disseminate, you know, dashboard. We seem to like our dashboards. Is there a way to do that? Because I want to go look at the comp plan and be able to quickly be like, "All right, how's how's that, you know, safe goal doing?" And then be able to sort of see the family tree percolate out of where all those policies are and where those plans are. I mean, I know it's a lot of linking of all the pieces, but that that synergy of a of a guiding document like the comp plan should have that sort of trunk to roots aspect of of it when you sort of follow and choose your own adventure. >> Yes, I agree. And I think the the the ultimate goal is that there is sort of a shared data dashboard that is citywide

[104:01] to some degree and includes all of these different things. And I know, you know, there's a lot of great work by our IT department and others to try to, you know, coordinate because right now a lot of those things exist, but they might be in in different locations. Um and also I would just mention as well that you know the vision that we are continuing to work towards as we move into this drafting phase and then ultimately the adoption of the plan and what the final tangible uh experience is I guess of the plan as that moves forward is that it does transition to be more online. So, it's more of a um more of a an online document, but there could be these dashboard or other metrics that are identified that are directly connected to the plan itself so that you can see those things in real time as you know as we continue to make progress. >> I just wanted to add that like the implementation like the citywide strategic plan will become an implementation plan of the BVCP or the comp plan. And also I would just offer

[105:01] that we're kind of lifting this up a little more and like you mentioned more than prescriptive more aspirational and part of that is to allow departments to we need goals and vision but to shift some of those metrics as time moves on in case something like COVID happens again and we might have this goal that is no longer realistic. So, we're trying to open it up a little more to say these are our values and what will push us, but we need to give other departments and people time to really think about what metrics are most important. So, I would just add that. >> Thanks. I will note that council member Shuhart is uh now back on with us online >> and uh Laura, you had a question. >> Thank you. Uh just a hopefully quick question about plan organization. It's currently 10 chapters and those chapters have uh topics that are different than our STR goals. Are we am I reading between the lines correctly here that it's going to be reorged to match the STR framework and not the current 10

[106:00] chapters? >> Um yes, we are reorganizing it will not be in 10 chapters. Um but as we're thinking about the plan and this online platform, we've looked at a a lot of great examples from other cities. Um so many of the policies touch on multiple SER goals and so I've organized them in that way tonight. But um we're hoping to move into a direction where um you could click on the safe goal and see all the related policies, but you might also click on the transportation goal and there may be some duplication. Um so again, you know, we're working towards a um a more navigable comp plan. Um but yes, they will not be organized by topic anymore. or they'll be kind of tagged by goal. >> Thank you, >> Tina. And then Mason.

[107:02] >> Yeah. um in the section where it um we speak to how marginalized communities feel heard, do we have examples of successes and examples of times that people didn't feel heard recently? Um that might help those of us I'm not from a historically marginalized community and getting more information about where we've been successful is always helpful. >> Yeah, I actually might look to Vivian to respond. Sure. I can give uh one concrete example. So we met with local indigenous peoples um in the last uh couple months and there was a frustration amongst um people who who are indigenous locally who are not registered with federal tribes for example and cannot participate in that process um but live here and and would like to uh engage more meaningfully but don't feel like their voices are lifted up um in broad engagement. So that's um

[108:02] that's one example uh a success. We've been um consulting with our community connectors and residents on equity impacts for different policy directions and getting some really great advice. So that's a standing body who is you know famili a little bit more familiar now with city processes um and we've will continue to consult them through through the end of the process. >> Mayor, can I call aqu on that please? Thank you. Thank you, Tina, for that question. Um, because I actually had a question about the stat the statistically valid survey and I just wanted to say thank you for doing that. But I also want to lift up according to best equitable research practices um that um statistically valid surveys can still be inequitable when you have small ethnic group sizes and so best practice there is to do either over over sampling or qualitative to ensure true representation. So I was curious again I

[109:00] have significant concerns that only two Middle Eastern people, seven black people. I have no idea their soio economics. I have no idea on their geographic. I have no idea on their linguistic. I have no idea. It is very concerning to hear the word equity used so deeply. And then to see this erasure and um this under reppresentation is very very troubling. So, I'm just curious if there was any oversampling um particularly for those small ethnic groups that were not air quotes significantly uh um statistically significant. Thank you. >> Um oh, I don't know if you have the data, but we do have um Erin Caldwell, who was our consultant from PCO um on the on the line on the Zoom. So, I wonder Erin, if you could speak to the sampling. Yes, I can. Um, we did do some oversampling for this survey, but we did not do it on uh and I'm I'm sorry I'm

[110:02] red and look like I'm in a photographic dark room. I am actually talking to you from my father's house and the lighting is just odd here. But what we did do is we did a a typical random sample. Um this survey was um the the outreach was done via mail. So we used the delivery sequence files of the United States Postal Service that are about our most comprehensive uh list of you know all households within the area we wanted to study. Those lists don't come with um that kind of demographic information attached. You can purchase lists that do have that. They're obviously more expensive, but they also don't include all households. So, it's a tricky balance. The oversampling that we did do was um we always within the those lists we over sample the multif family houses meaning those on the list that have a unit number versus those that don't because

[111:01] those do tend to be uh the types of housing where we'll get under response and where those that are harder to survey may reside. We also did some additional oversampling because we knew that there weren't a lot of um households in the uh planning areas two and three. And then in addition, we did some oversampling in four of the sub communities that had a higher proportion of renters. So to answer your question directly, we did not oversample certain um ethnic groups because of the list that we used. That was the oversampling that we did. >> Okay. So, thank you so much for that response. I just um again want to lift up because that was not done and I'm specifically speaking about ethnic groups. Um unfortunately that means that you know um the the significance of the data that was performed or provided um

[112:00] is not as reliable and it could potentially mask some of the unique issues as well as fail to capture meaningful differences and forcing reliance on broader less specific categories that hide diversity and experiences. So, I'm wondering since this is only we still have some more time um if there are opportunities again we have the community connectors and that's such a valuable resource and I would just hate to know that we have people who are connected to the people that we need to hear from who talk to them all year round and yet for this very core foundational document have not been engaged in this way. So, I'm hopeful that we can erectify that. Again, I'm sorry on the long colloqui, but I've heard the word equity used and it makes my ears burn when the science is not backing it. Thank you, >> Mason. >> Yeah. Hi. Um, so as someone who uses uh the builder rally comp plan a lot on the planning board, one struggle I've had uh in the past with it is that it's not univocal. And that's just partially by

[113:01] the nature of the type of document it is, right? aspirational whole community. Not everything's gonna be aligned. Um, but I was hoping in this update that there would be a little less of that so that we can drive towards specific goals because I do think if there's, you know, if it's everything to everyone, we're going to get nothing sort of situation is my main concern. So, I I didn't hear anything about that. I know this has been a topic of discussion and I didn't know if you could speak to it at this time. Thanks for that question. Um, two common criticisms I've heard of comprehensive plans throughout my career. One is how can it be more specific to your point and being aspirational, it can be very general. One of the challenges we set forth and the team really worked hard on is making um offering a policy uh vision that is specific enough to be meaningful and not

[114:00] just you know all things to all people to your point but yet leave the room that uh that I I think Kathleen was speaking to to be able to speak to over time and and maybe one of you can speak to how we've have attempted to find that balance and will continue to as the draft gets done. The other thing that I've heard throughout my career is, and maybe you were alluding to it, maybe you weren't, but is the fact that there are contradictions or that this value and this value compete. And I would encourage us to all live with that discomfort because it represents us as human beings. We can have competing values. And one of the things um for example we we want to have uh good access on site and good storm water and they may not sit in the same spot but we have a process um through quasi jud judicial decision-making through policym to reconcile those forgiven situations and so in that regard I would encourage you to feel um comfortable in that discomfort where there is that conflict

[115:00] but I think about finding that goldilocks level I don't know if one one of the other team members wants to speak to that. >> Um, I do think in our a lot of the revisions and our approach, we're trying to be um maybe uh more direct and more clear about the intention of policies than um some of the more historical policies. So really coming forward and saying we want to increase the housing supply in Boulder that's not come through in the prior iteration of the comprehensive plan. Um so I do think we are making some important tweaks to be really direct. >> It's good to hear Mark Council. Yeah, there was just one question in the poll that I found uh either incomplete or it just bothered

[116:00] me a little bit. Uh and that was the questions about area three. When we asked those questions, did we at any point discuss uh water sufficiency as a consideration in doing that? And was there any conversation about the infrastructure costs which have been identified as 600 million to a billion dollars? I I think those facts might have had some impact on the responses which in themselves were not too robust. >> Yeah, thanks for the question, council member. Um, we we we did not uh we did not provide a lot of um background context related to all of that in terms of the survey questions. We wanted to keep them uh of course very um clear and and simple in terms of people being able to provide a response. Um we completely agree though that you know that information is absent of that context and so we recognize and understand the

[117:01] sort of level of um appetite in the community to explore that further would need to be further discussed as part of the conversations that we'll be having with you not only on the first step of that process which was that urban services study that identified the infrastructure costs um but also this next step which will be coming uh after the first of the here to consider community needs and whether or not that actually represents a need that is um of a high enough priority that we should continue to go down that road and explore that process. So, this is just one piece of information that kind of goes into the into the mix for us to um continue to think about and carry forward to all of you. >> Okay. As long as it goes back into the mix going forward. >> Absolutely. >> Kurt, >> thank you. Uh getting back to this question of the trade-off sort of between being aspirational in the policies and being more specific. Uh did was there any consideration given to the

[118:01] possibility of airing more on the the side of greater specificity but also thinking about the amendment process for the comp plan and making it more nimble so that if a pandemic comes along for example we're not stuck waiting for the next 10year cycle you know to come around and um therefore allowing us maybe to be more measurable as as Matt was getting to. Was there any consideration of that? I think Sarah, it was you were the one saying, "Oh, you know, we need to be we we need to to be able to deal with these kinds of um the events that come along, but couldn't that happen potentially in the amendment process?" Um if you have an example of when it would be valuable to have um specificity that I think that would be really helpful for us. Um on the amendment

[119:00] procedures um amending the comprehensive plan is a process that is agreed to in the intergovernmental agreement. It's a uh the amendment procedures are an attachment to the IGA and so we will um as part of the adoption process be looking to renew that IGA and we are revisiting those amendment procedures um and uh reconsidering um the best ways to think about amendments um in this next iteration of the comp plan. So yes um looking at that >> got a question from Ryan and then I'll go to ML. Thank you. And hello again. And just to dispel any mystery, I I left the room um because my wife said I had a a kid had a a nose bleed that wouldn't stop and needed help. And anyway, it's resolved. So um thanks for accommodating me here. Um just I have a couple of sort of real

[120:00] high level procedure questions. Um I earlier earlier in the evening I had referenced um the categories of transportation and housing as or in the previous BBCP and um I I'm just wondering um you know we're to today we're reflecting on the map and and the the survey feedback. Um can can you just talk about like overall in the process if we have um I guess what to expect with with respect to questions if we have questions or feedback around transportation like like pretty transportation focused topics. When when will we come to that? Will we come to that? How how should we think about when to talk about transportation? uh if you have thoughts about um transportation policy or any of the direction in transportation policy that we've um presented tonight. Uh tonight

[121:01] is a great time to talk about those. Um uh in our next section of the meeting, Tessa is going to speak to speak to how we are more closely tying our land use and um mobility expectations related to the land use map. Um but yes, if you talk transportation policy uh as it's related to the comprehensive plan, tonight's a great night to do that. >> Okay. So just and thank you for saying that and my um I guess I did have some land land use thoughts too. They're just they're not they're not exactly uh responsive to the questions that are that are being asked to us here. So I I don't want to insert opinions about transportation and and land use where they don't belong. But I I think what I'm hearing you say is if we have thoughts on transportation and land use um just have at it in the next the next part. Is that Yes.

[122:00] We're doing questions right now and then we'll get to comments next. And I encourage folks generally to point your comments d at the policies and the direction that staff has been presenting rather than kind of making them fully general, but it but if you have a couple of additional thoughts at that time, you're welcome to throw them in. >> Thanks, Mayor. Right. So, I I'd like to be responsive to what staff's asking for tonight. So my my question is I is there another time in the in the future in the process where we should expect to um I don't know be be coming upon th those topics again. I guess I'm I'm looking for a map of like what are the future conversations after today? Maybe that's my question. >> Yeah. Uh Council Member uh Shard, this is Brad Mueller. Uh what decisive moment will be in March when the draft is put together? But I'll also say kind of to this point of uh specific items which might be more in the realm of strategy that's really going to be back to those implementation

[123:01] techniques of the citywide strategic plan of individual department or theme plans in this case mobility. Um that will be part of an ongoing u process into the future that is informed by these broader policy aspirations. Okay. So, I I suppose I'm still trying to get a when do if if we just have sort of um like medium level feedback on like here's here's some design ideas I I would you know would like for consideration. Um I think what I'm hearing you say is well staff's kind of implicitly working on that um as we go as they go. Um there's not really a a time you're going to be asking for that. So um I think I heard Yeah, I'll I'll I'll give this a little thought, but perhaps in the comment section, I'll just try to distill what what's on my mind. So thanks for that. That's all I have. >> Sure. And just one quick addition too along with that uh specific conversation around the draft. We recognize that

[124:00] council members and planning board members will provide, you know, comments in writing as well. So there'll be opportunities. >> Great. Okay, we I've got a couple more questions queued up. We still need to give feedback. We have half an hour left in this segment um ideally. So if we can be um efficient that would be great. So I got um >> yeah but I've got let's get through other people's first ones first. I got ML and then Nicole. >> Um this is kind of a followup. Uh we're the little planning board contingent here concerned about the aspirational nature of the BBCP because when we're in deliberations the BBCP becomes one of the accountability um the means for accountability that we use. And so, um, it seems that one way to, um, to actually have this become a functional part of our conversation is by this downstream metrics that Matt was talking about, right? That there is a

[125:00] link between this aspirational um, say, uh, you need to respond to your context when you're building housing. And an example would be you're held accountable to the area plan and then the specifics of that area plan are downstream. But that that's one way that the comp plan can give some specificity to where do you look for those metrics because it's a big broad document and when we're looking at well does it meet BBCP policies in general that's a big landscape to be accountable to and a lot of things fall through the cracks that way and I think we start getting projects where we're not comfortable that don't seem to you know, landing in our values. So, how do we reconcile that? And I think right now is a good opportunity to begin um that conversation of the inputs and the

[126:00] values need to both trickle up and down. So, when we're down here looking at the detail, we need to be able to pull it back up and say, "Yeah, it's it's here. This is a value that we want." Um, so I would just encourage, you know, that uh process to be a part of the of the thinking that specificity matters when you're trying to be accountable um to the document. Thank you. >> Great. And and we are just we're going to try to get through a couple questions here. Yeah, if you don't mind, I just want to respond because I think I think maybe the the question or sort of the intent of of what you were asking, Emil, is is how do we still provide some of that specificity within the comprehensive plan as this large aspirational document? I think what Kathleen was speaking to before about the way we intend to write these policies and of course that'll be I think much more apparent in March when it's available and everybody has a chance to look at it but to really be very clear and direct and straightforward in what those policies are saying so that they are specific in

[127:02] terms of the outcomes or the intent that we are looking for. They may not necessarily be specific geographically, but the overall sort of concept should be more apparent than maybe some of the language that's in the comp plan today, which has a tendency to to be very long and and complicated. Nicole, >> yeah. Um, so this is back to the trade-offs question. Um, they seem to especially show up around implementation. And um it always seems like the various parts can fit together until we get into the weeds and then it turns out they don't quite. And so my question is do we have information from all the engagement um we've been doing on which principles to prioritize or wait more than others um when we get to making trade-offs in future years uh with the plan? And is that something that would or could be included um as we move forward? Um, yeah, I think that's a an

[128:00] interesting idea. I um it's probably worth conversation or or feedback from the broader group. Um, the thing that I would hesitate about is when you've defined we wait this priority over this one. If something the economy changes, we're still locked into that, you know, waiting criteria. Um, and so it it it could affect the the flexibility or adaptability that we're striving for. So, but um worth talking about. Um, and just a kind of a follow-up question to that. Um, are there any tradeoffs that you anticipate that we could hear about when this comes back to us in the spring? I I think you've stumped us a little bit

[129:00] because um you know it I I think we feel that if we've done our job the visions will be precise enough um and the policy precise enough to to feel that there's a direction being moved towards but I'm not sure we will ever be able to lay out uh decisions and I I suspect this is not exactly your point, but going to the other extreme for specific cases, specific needs at a particular time in history, a particular topic, whether it's safety um or more specific topic such as uh funding for uniforms, you know, those types of things. So, I I think we're going to we're going to do our best to make sure that those trade-offs are embedded in there as aspirational and clear policy. and then when it's not, we we'll look forward to that feedback. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That might be some more of the living with the discomfort that you spoke of earlier.

[130:00] >> Yeah, it it is. And and again, I I do want to kind of return to that fact that a good comprehensive plan should, if taken just at its face value, have conflicting policies because that's who we are as humans. >> Yeah. Matt, did you have a followup? >> Question. >> Yeah. But did see Nicole kind of wave her hands. Did you want to like follow up on your own piece? >> I I did. Yeah. Just just really really quickly. Um which is that this is this something where the principles that led to the creation of the plan could kind of be the principles that help us get out of this in the future, right? Like I think that that is the piece of it. So inclusive, so much engagement went into this. When we get to tradeoffs, how does it mimic that that process? >> Yeah. Yeah, Vivian's mentioning the priority focus areas will do that. The SAR framework being the grounding should do that. And I'm a big believer and you see these in the city's codes of intent because at some point you get back to

[131:01] the intent. You can only be so prescriptive with law as just one of the tools. Of course, again, there's CIP and budget and those types of implementation tools, too. >> This is maybe a question of where this fits into our conversation. I I the questions we've been asking are really good. They are very high level. They're plan like over you know the larger plan as a whole. I have a question that's very specific about the concept plan map and is that is this the time to bring that up or in convers? >> The map is coming next. >> Oh that is next. Gotcha. Okay. Great. >> I will table my question. Thank you. >> All right. Seeing no other hands raised, then if we can take a look at our um question they've asked us, which is do planning board and council have feedback on the preliminary policy direction? And I would say if you think that staff is just, you know, going in the the great direction, I don't think there's any need to raise a hand, but if you do have specifics and ways that you'd like to see it shift or if you think there was something that was missed, this would be

[132:00] your chance. I would ask based on time to maybe keep your remarks to if possible no more than two minutes or so if you do have those thoughts. All right, I got uh Kurt and then Mark. >> Great. Quickly, I'll go through mine. I was surprised under climate change that there was I'm sorry, under environment there was no reference to climate change in the key policy directions. So that seemed like a missing point. Um the there was reference to investing in innovative transportation technologies and I think that that that may be true in some cases but I think that there are a lot of really basic transportation uh technologies like sidewalks that we should be putting more investment in. So not not so innovative. Um Yeah. Uh there was a a fair amount of

[133:01] attention to fire which is obviously super important and I'm glad to see that. But we shouldn't be forgetting about flood risk, right? In our history, we've had at least two major floods, 1894 or whenever that was and then 2013 and um the flood risk is increasing along with fire risk and so we should pay attention to that. Um, and last on this responsibly governed piece, I think certainly both planning board and I know city council and the community have been very focused on how do we make city processes more efficient and in in in conjunction with that, how do we more efficiently use the people's money? And so I'd like to see more focus on that. Thank you, >> Mark. Uh, first I want to say ditto to Kurt's comments. I thought they were very good. Uh, this is where I start to get in trouble. Um,

[134:00] continue to get in trouble. Um, I have a problem with the concept of a policy that says we're going to um prioritize uh moving people over moving cars. uh we still have a very robust amount of vehicular traffic in this city and as everyone knows our streets are not in good shape. So I I I think um not even putting those uh two items um in par uh is a tremendous mistake. We just passed a CCRS extension and some of that's going to go for road maintenance. We have a new transportation fee and some of that's going to go for road maintenance or a good portion of it's going to go for road maintenance and we still have 50 to 60,000 people driving in every day. You know, I I I agree with the goals of better bike and pedestrian infrastructure and reducing reliance upon cars, but making it a formal policy

[135:01] of the city that cars are not going to be regarded in terms of expenditures and infrastructure at the same level as alternative means of transportation. I think it's a mistake. You know, with with respect to more effective public transportation, that's easy to solve. We just need a big bag of money. Um, if you can find it, uh, we'll be happy to spend it, but I I just don't know where the realism is in in that policy. RTD doesn't have a a penny to its name and we don't have the money. So, how exactly are we going to get from point A to point B on that. So, I I think the way our uh transportation policy has been expressed uh requires some revision. Now, I'm in trouble. You can go sit in the corner now. Mark, just kidding. Matt and then Tina. Appreciate it. Um, so I've got uh two questions. I'll try to be brief for or comment questions. First is with regards

[136:00] to the uh proposed land use map. Um, I see that we've called out specifically university. Then we also have Civic Hub. >> We We're getting next topic. >> I thought you just said we were talking about the map just now. >> We've got a whole presentation. >> That's next after that. >> We got a whole presentation. Yeah. a whole another that didn't seem like it showed up on that. >> Okay. Oh, my bad. U then specific policy questions and I guess I don't even know where my next one fits in. Um this would maybe be regarding regarding agriculture. Um, so something that seems to be kind of missing a little bit is we talk specifically about sustainable and regenerative egg, but nowhere do we talk about the aspiration for it being a thriving andor economically strong egg community because those are important too. And so it's not just about the practice of agriculture in terms of is it sustainable, is it regenerative, but are the entities practicing a in a thriving state? And those policies might be a little different. And I speak to

[137:01] like our water delivery systems. We want perhaps greater yield and we want to use the little bit of constrained water we have more efficiently. Then we might want to allow a diversity of water delivery systems such as if we're also in a civic area planning looking to have a year- round farmers market. We may also want to make it more conducive for green houses and making them energy gefficient so we can have the yields in which to have a thriving year- round farmers market. So I think there's an economic aspect to the a not just the practice of regenerative and sustainability. So I think we can merge those two and build those into our aspirations in the comp plan >> Tina and then Ryan then Mason. >> Okay. I had a few comments. Um the first was just about when we talk about housing diversity, the extent to which we could specify which types of housing and what the population need is behind those decisions so that we can create the conditions that encourages the type of housing we want rather than the type of housing that comes to us. So I think we don't um we aren't as specific about

[138:02] that. We need to think about that. Um, another thing that I'm interested in is just making sure that um, when we think about adding commercial to residential that we don't displace uh, places for people to live which are in lower demand than commercial space. So making sure we get that balance and thinking about policies that um are about people who live in that dwelling maybe having the business in it rather than a commercial developer coming in and buying a residential property and then subdividing it into different commercial spaces. So just trying to think about that over time. Uh something that's been on my mind. I'm not going to go quite as far as council member Wallock. However, um I I do uh was reading through the SER framework uh document and some of the language around cars um felt like using words like the perceived inconvenience of a less car- friendly city or something like that. And I just feel

[139:00] like some people's experiences and the need to drive a car is not always a choice. It's because they are coming from a far place. They have children in daycare. They're trying to access medical care that isn't easily accessed by a bus. So making sure that our language around people who use cars is not like a moral failure or they made a poor choice but instead it's probably wasn't really a choice from day one while increasing multiot modality but I just don't want to make that's not what I'm looking for in this um personally. And then um another thing is just on how people connect and we talk a lot about this with our kids. There's um unstructured play and structured play. Thinking about continuing opportunities like the volleyball you see at North Boulder Park on Saturdays and Sundays or the way the ultimate frisbee team plays on larger fields. There's unstructured ways that people connect and they meet people in new ways um and might meet different people. So, um it's great to create structured spaces, but also

[140:01] maintaining these unstructured spaces I think is important. >> Thanks. Let's go to Ryan and then Mason. Thank you. Okay, three little comments. First, I um just I'd like to build on Kurt's point about innovative technology. Um I think we should be very um proactive about um anticipating and using for our benefit innovative technology. So, I think it's good that it's in there, but I think we also should look at this as both there's often great upside to new technologies, but there's also a um a a very um uh typical pattern that we see with technology and technology service models that involve attracting users to a platform. um you know building that that um building independence on the platform and then extracting maximum value and um

[141:01] so I I think we also need to look at um the safeguards and what we need to anticipate to ensure that when we do try to use innovative technologies including emerging ones that we don't know how they're going to play out such as automated ride share that we have both a you know an optimism and also a skepticism. and that we're pretty conservative about uh what we need to do to protect the public's interest and to anticipate um like kind of obvious directions that that um you know businesses uh investor own businesses are going to want to head in. So we need to hold both of those together. I don't know the right words for it but I I would hope we could carry an idea like that with innovative technology. So that's the one. The other one is on this um people and cars business. Um, cars are inclusive of people. We built a system that works for a single mode. I

[142:00] think it's clear to most readers here that the idea is we will try to create a system that provides a balance for a wider set of users and uses. And I don't think there's any real changes needed, but I certainly agree with Tina that um this should be an affirmative um helping as many people as we can exercise. Um and then the final one I I think this goes here um maybe in the responsibly governed category. Um or it might be in mapping, but I'll try it here. So when we think about big new uses of land such as area 3, you know, we we have this area 3 process that's that's begun, but I think like bigger picture as we look at um potentially starting big new uses of land evaluations. I would like to see some some kind of um

[143:00] principle that says we we're going to have an evaluation of alternatives for the same kind of outcome that is leading us to to to to want to change the land use. In in the case of area 3 for example, I think one of the obvious cases that we're talking about it is to try to increase housing. I would expect for in in this example there to be some um alternative alternative with the financial analysis to say to create this many houses this is what it homes this is what it would cost and this is what we would get but then also here's an alternative way to do it perhaps with a more infill oriented approach. I'm using area 3 as an example. I think it's a good example, but this could come up more and more. And I and I would think something along the lines of ensuring we have an alternative um a financial altern or an analysis of a financial alternative um in something of in a big land use change like that I think would be important. >> Thanks. Thanks. M >> Well, uh Ryan pretty much encapsulated

[144:00] everything I wanted to say. So I'll just um tack on a little bit. completely agree that the transportation um policy is good as it stands. I agree with Tina's comments that the rewarding can be done. Um and the only additional comments I had is that I think it's required for 15 minute neighborhoods to work and I think it's required for being a more equitable city. So I'll keep it short. Thanks Nicole. >> Um yeah, just a few comments. Um some more specific and then a little bit more general. Um, one is around this uh, focus area of public transportation, right? And how that came out um, as something that people would like to like to think more about. Um, I would love for us to think about public transportation a little bit more outside of the box and to kind of build this in a way that recognizes there may be opportunities that we don't have a model of yet right here in Boulder. I think about Ride Longmont um as a really cool model of how you can do a public private

[145:01] partnership to get to a ride share um that can replace single occupancy vehicles. Um and then I also just think about self-driving cars and how these are emerging in other cities, right? Um it it doesn't have to be that um we think about public transportation the way it's always been with these big buses running around our town um in specific routes. Um and then I I think this one interesting theme I see emerging in a couple different areas is around using small um pockets of space that is otherwise designated for say using some of our um agricultural land for workforce housing for agricultural workers um using areas a residential area for um a little bit of commercial space. And I think that's just a really um important principle for us to to keep pulling out. Um and and I flexibility and adaptability is so important and just in the last five years, we've seen how crucial that is and how quickly our

[146:00] worlds can change almost overnight. Um so I really appreciate the focus and this plan around um decision-m principles that are going to help us uh and be more flexible and adaptable moving forward. I think that's really key. um the priorities seem to be emerging as a guiding vision. Um I'd really like to avoid being too prescriptive um as much as possible as we move forward. Um but the thing that I'm not really willing to compromise on is the inclusive process that gave rise to this document. And so however we can figure out how to put that piece in there. Um it a little bit more maybe it's just an introduction or something like that, right? that really helps whoever's implementing this in 20 or 30 years. Um recognize that that need to return to an inclusive uh thorough engagement process whenever we're talking about making big big trade-offs or major changes or things like that. I think it this if we can include that

[147:00] moving forward that is a transformative component of of what you all have done here. >> I got Laura and then Claudia and then Tisha. Just a couple of um hopefully quick comments. Nothing super deep. The first one's going to be very boring. Sorry. Sorry, Tara. But just in terms of the organization that we talked about with the STR framework and how different policies could fit under many categories, I hope that you include something like a very boring indexing tool where people can like look up the topic that they're interested in and then figure out where it fits. um and and maybe it's an online search function or whatever that is, but some kind of very easy to use index to help with accessibility to all kinds of users. Um and then I also just wanted to call out well so I want to say I read through this document and I saw no red flags which is rare for me. So kudos, congratulations. Um, and I wanted to appreciate a couple of things that I saw in the racial equity analysis piece that for me highlighted the value of using that tool because these are things I haven't seen in any other document in

[148:00] the city like ever. And I'm really happy to have seen them there and I hope that they make their way into the BBCP document. And that is um the call out that emergency evacuation planning should include planning for people without cars because if we're trying to plan for a car light city or for that option for people, those people need to be safe in an emergency situation. So specifically planning for that I think is so important. Um the call out that any recovery efforts should include nonhomeowners. I haven't seen that before. I thought that was a great piece. Um and then also seeing a nod in the policy about agriculture to humane treatment of livestock which is near and dear to my heart and I really appreciated seeing that >> Claudia then. >> Okay, I'll try to be quick. Um overall I think the direction we're hearing tonight is great. It's also really good to see broad alignment between community sentiment in the survey and what I understand as evolving best practice in the planning world. I just want to call out a few pieces um of these policy

[149:02] proposals that I think are important to keep or to lean further into um as you're drafting. Um first on transportation, I do appreciate the emphasis on moving people rather than vehicles. I'm going to be on team people here. Um mode shift is a really high level and longterm equity community building and climate strategy. And I think acknowledging that in the BBCP will help us to continue with that really long-term generational project. Um, I think it's totally clear that some people will still move in cars, but I think it's important to use this platform to name cars as a mode rather than the mode of mobility um, in our settlements. Um, on environmental sustainability, I was really excited by and I also am somewhat wary of this concept of nature everywhere, that policy that you're proposing. Um, I think that could support some really huge steps towards

[150:02] green building and urban design. It could also in some forms prop up a status quo of right now what is largely privatized and/or token nature in the city. So, private yards, setbacks, difficult to maintain rights of way, etc. Um and so I hope that the direction that you take here continues to first of all um really affirm a distinction between urban and rural open space. I think that's something that the comp plan has always done well. Um but also as we bring nature into the city to really emphasize creating more larger public um natural spaces and experiences versus these kinds of patchwork private instances um that we have in the city right now for healthy and socially thriving for that goal. I just want to call out social infrastructure. I'm so happy to

[151:01] see that concept in the plan. Um no more to say there. Thank you for including that. And then um for the housing policies under um livable city, two points. First of all, I really appreciate that you are naming housing supply, housing diversity, and housing affordability as separate and somehow yet related issues that require action. I think when we conflate those three things as we often do um we get into trouble both when we try to design policies and then when we communicate with the public because those are really big difficult and controversial topics. So I appreciate that you are talking about them separately um and putting that clarity in the plan. And then second, with regard to housing diversity in particular, and I think echoing Tina's comments here a bit, is it possible or appropriate to write policies that explicitly encourage rather than simply allowing or

[152:00] acknowledging particular forms of housing. So, for example, we we've got a lot of survey data and discussion about small multi-unit buildings. And I know that we're trying to stay high level here in the comp plan, but if there are types of housing that we really want that we do not have in large supply right now, is it appropriate to call those out in the plan? >> Thanks. >> Thanks, Tyan. Then >> thank you very much. Um I will be fast. Um, one I I too am very excited about the agricultural component and I was curious if there's opportunities to expand and break the silo between agricultural practices and food systems. So would love to see a stronger integration there. Would also love to see a connection with the restaurants considering that food and labor are their most expensive costs. Most the I feel like the conversations we've had have been exclusively on labor and not on food. We have 16,000 acres of agricultural land. So would love to just see a stronger connection and call out

[153:00] to our restaurants in that section. Um love the housing solution section. Had some concerns on the focus on housing only for um the people experiencing homelessness when we know the research says housing first with da. So just it's included in the second section of the thing, but it's not included in the actual policy statement. And so making sure that we're tying the need for housing with the need for mental health support and drug addiction and right the whole suite of what the research is saying and not just one component. Um Ford biodiversity would love uh for us to consider a move away from the term enhancement considering that we are both aeridifying and humidifying as our climate has changed. It's not change. It has changed. Um, and I would love to introduce climate benefits as a term and language for us to consider how is whatever policy we're doing benefiting the climate, not just enhancing, right?

[154:00] Um, because we're working from a deficit for the fire adapted city. Love that one. um would love again to see a stronger connection to watershed and um forest health as well as more regional collaboration recognizing that three of our wersheds are outside of our city limits and are actually managed by other people that are not in this room right now. And so I would love to just make us more explicit call out for the need for more regional collaboration. Actually refers back to my comment around the 15-inute neighborhood, right? Our water comes from farther than 15 minutes and would love to just see a more regional call out there. One, two, three, four. Um, and then I'm back on equity. Um, I don't see any racial justice in that current draft. Um, again, as a equity specialist who's been doing this work for 30 years before the word equity was even created. Um I also have continue h to have concerns on the focus on access and representation and not a sufficient u amount of concern on the quality of

[155:01] the experiences and the actual outcomes. Um and on that again that definition would love to see something around fair fair treat fair treatment opportunities and again outcomes right now that section is not measurable. And then last, I just love seeing in the water section um ensuring that we are securing um agricultural land um and making sure that it can continue to stay in production. So, thank you very much. >> Thanks. I'll call on myself and I'll just say um primarily just a huge double thumbs up. I think you all have done the directions that you're going are fantastic and I'm hugely supportive and I thought you did a fantastic job of incorporating the survey and the community engagement uh with uh urban planning best practices and then are heading us into some fantastic directions. Uh Claudia, I thought your summary of areas to uh lean into was a good one. I thought I thought those were a great set of um things to thumbs up and and make sure we go full in on. I'll

[156:00] just make one specific comment which is about the commercial uses in residential areas. The um current draft policy says the city supports small-cale commercial activity in residential areas. Spaces may include homebased businesses, accessory commercial units or other live work forms. Dot dot dot just I thought um Tiny made a great point. We don't want people tearing down homes to build commercial spaces, but we do have existing um commercial spaces in residential areas that currently have very limited uses allowed in them. So, I think in my own neighborhood in the Holiday neighborhood, there's some commercial spaces in the middle of the neighborhood where you can do very limited things. Or think about some of the historical ones like on Mapleton Hill or West Arapa or sprinkled throughout. Um and I'd love to see something that supported a wider range of neighborhood serving activities in those um existing standalone commercial areas. So just one of the things to think about in that and also uh the big thumbs up on uh better allowances for homebased businesses which do have a lot of restrictions right now. So that's

[157:01] what I got. Any other final thoughts before we finish up this section? Seeing none, thanks again. Um, we >> did you have another one? >> Okay. Um, so we're scheduled for a 10-minute break. Uh, we're a few minutes behind, so let's make it an 8 minute break or 9 minute. We'll come back at 8:45, please, promptly. 8:45 promptly. And we will Thank you.

[167:24] Okay, take it away and maybe just introduce yourself to get a start. >> Yes. Hello, planning board and city council. My name is Tess Sha and I am a planner on the team and I'm excited to share with you the latest updates to our future land use strategy. So before I get started, here are the questions we'll be asking after the presentation. Um, so just to make sure, they're about the same as the policy, just about uh the future land use. So first, the Boulder Valley

[168:00] Comprehensive Plan has two major components. There's the policies, which you've heard about earlier, and then there's the future land use map. These things work together to help make the city make choices about projects, investments, programs, and how we collaborate with the county. In this part of the presentation, we will be focused on the future land use map. First, let's just review what this map does. It is meant to describe a desired future vision for the community. It guides zoning decisions and it is used as a reference for any development projects that go through the site review process. These projects must be consistent with the land use map and with the policies of the comprehensive plan. All this means that it's really important. It's a really important tool for shaping how the city evolves and how it will look over time. Before we get into the details of the future land use map, I want to provide a

[169:00] comparison between future land use descriptions and zoning as they are often and easily confused. Future land use is aspirational and describes the vision for an area over a 20-year horizon. It may or may not be the same as what is on the ground today, and it informs future zoning and development decisions. This future land use does not automatically change zoning or existing land uses. It is meant to guide future decision-making. On the other hand, zoning is a legal property right and it establishes specific dimensional and use related standards that must be followed. It regulates the allowed uses, building form and intensity of development on that particular property. So now that the difference between the future land use and zoning has been explained, we will go get into the goals for these potential revisions. First, we wish to reset expectations

[170:02] that the map describes the future of Boulder Valley. Historically, there's been confusion surrounding this map kind of about whether it should represent existing or future conditions. Second, we wish to plan for places and rightsize the map. We are scaling back the parcel by parcel approach of the current map to define land use and crate designations that can apply at a neighborhood scale. Thirdly, we are working towards unique definitions that attempt to remove a lot of the ambiguity between the current designations and allow for different mixes of land uses instead of separating areas and properties by very limited uses. Uh finally, these designations would also offer a more adaptable environment for zoning choices if conditions change and give a wider variety of redevelopment options for property owners. Because we've heard through community engagement so much interest in walkable neighborhoods and

[171:01] mixing uses across the city, our updated approach would offer multiple options for for individual property owners while maintaining a consistent vision for the future of a neighborhood. So when we met you all in August, this was the structure for the new draft land uses we had developed. And through community feedback as well as direction from city council, planning board, and our other boards, we've made some significant revisions to some of the designations highlighted here in red. And I'm going to walk you through those updates in the next few slides. First, there are some updates to the neighborhoods and hubs classes. Based on community assemblia feedback, we revised definitions of the neighborhoods designations to allow for more organic, small-scale, and communitydriven commercial activity to take place throughout the city. In a in the August iteration, we had a designation for

[172:00] something called a local hub. We learned at our community meeting in September that people weren't particularly interested or comfortable with identifying exact locations that would limit where this kind of neighborhood commercial activity could take place. So, we've moved that local hub design or we've removed that local hub designation and allowed for more variety of commercial activity in these neighborhood designations. We also heard from community members that they wanted civic places to evolve to be more social places. The addition of a civic hub designation considers how civic sites can evolve into the future to be more to offer more amenities and opportunities for socialization in and provide safe welcoming spaces. Part of what can make this work in the future is the inclusion of residential and commercial uses in and around civic sites, activating these places um with

[173:00] nearby community members and walkable destinations. So, think of something like a rec center. People describe wanting to be able to grab a cup of coffee while their kids take swim lessons or being able to buy sports gear near where they play tennis. So then applicable to all the designations, we've added some additional information. Oh, >> thank you. >> Sorry. >> My bad. Um, in response to planning board feedback about the importance of greenways, we've assembled a cross-dep departmental team to work out the creation of a greenways designation that intentionally defines and conserves these unique community assets and helps city staff collaborative collaboratively manage the future of these treasured spaces. In the previous iteration, we had a couple different designations that would apply to land outside city limits. After working on these with county staff as

[174:00] well as county planning commission and the board of county commissioners, we've revised this to reinstate the purpose of lands mostly in the county that play an important role in shaping the urban form of the city but also offer places of work, residential neighborhoods, and agricultural lands. The updated rural lands designation is intended to provide greater clarity and reinforce the commitment that rural lands will continue to support local food systems, land-based economic activities, and cultural heritage while helping prevent sprawl and leapfrog non-onti continuous or scattered development. So then now we're here um uh applicable to all the designations. We've also added some information about expectations for mobility and mobility facilities in each land use designation. The addition of mobility features is intended to further strengthen the relationship between land use and

[175:00] transportation planning functions within the city and county and support greater coordination with regional partners such as RTD. So, tada. Um, with these updates, this is our revised framework that includes four separate classes and 13 land use designations. I'll pause for a second so people can look at it. Okay. So, in your packet, you received a full set of definitions for these designations. These are a work in progress and we work look forward to your feedback on these tonight, but I just wanted to walk take a minute and walk you through what's included in each of these definitions and how it would be used in the future. The definition includes information about what the designation is and why it matters. These are written to help communicate in plain language what these places might look like and feel like and why each land use designation is important to the overall

[176:00] composition of the city. And these might be particularly helpful for community members trying to understand the future land use map. Under the what you can expect section, there are a couple descriptors. The first being uses and these are lo loosely tied to our zoning codes use table and help identify which uses are supported in each area of town. Then there is an urban design section which speaks to things like scale expectations for shared spaces and areas for so socialization. Finally, there is the mobility section which I talked about earlier and that offers some guidance on types of facilities that would be encouraged. So, I won't go through all of the designations, but this is just a general overview of what's included in these definitions. Okay, so we have our designations and now we are working on how these get

[177:00] applied to the map. There are a couple different inputs that are helping us work towards a complete future land use map. We are not starting from scratch. The current land use map in the comprehensive plan is a starting place as we think about cover converting the previous 26 designations to this new framework. We have also held different community mapping sessions to really work out those hub and neighborhood designations and are getting an understanding of where people might be comfortable with some level of change from what was described in the previous version of the map. The map here is a compl compilation of a couple different mapping sessions we held with the community about this hub and neighborhood designations. We are also doing an analysis of other layers of information like flood plane and wild line wildland urban interface and transit corridors to help align land use with our updated policies. Additionally, we are considering some

[178:00] recent statewide legislation particularly related to transit oriented development and looking for opportunities to implement that. So this is a big lift and at the end of this process we'll have a new map guiding future land uses which is very exciting and as we work on this we of course had to test it out. Do these new designations and definitions actually work? What are the impacts of these revisions? And so many more questions. These are all questions we're currently working through. But our early analysis indicates that the updated framework offers some benefits including more clearly describing a vision for the future value indicating key centers of activity like re regional and community hubs while communicating which lands will be reserved as community assets such as open space. It defines a unified vision for areas at the neighborhood scale while offering a variety of choices for redevelopment at

[179:01] the parcel level. It expands opportunities for diversifying housing and business locations throughout the city. It distributes opportunities for change more equitably across more areas of the city. And finally, it outlines a vision where land use, mobility networks, and policy direction are all planned together in concert. Like I mentioned, this is a work in progress. That is by no means the final map. There's a lot of revisions, a lot of changes. We're working on some stuff. Um, we are currently working through a lot of things, including defining the greenways. This is a totally new land use designation. So we are working with utilities, parks and OSMP staff to find the most appropriate method for defining these spaces on the map. We are also going back through a lot of community feedback and considering recommendations from the assembly to nail down the best locations for our hub designations.

[180:02] We are working with transportation staff on aligning future land use with planned transportation facilities. We've received multiple land use change requests from community members that we are evaluating. And then finally, we are modeling potential outcomes of the land use map to understand how the map might influence things like GHG emissions, housing units, population, water use, and many other metrics. Uh we want to make sure this is a sciencebacked process as much as it can be. Okay, so that's it. I know that was a lot in a really short amount of time. Um, but it's all moving in a direction we feel has been supported by community feedback and we look forward now to your feedback and the discussion tonight. And now, Mayor Brockett, I'll turn it back to you. >> Thanks so much, Tess. Um, great presentation and exciting direction. I'm glad you also find this exciting because I'm really looking forward to this as well. Um,

[181:02] all right. So, questions for staff about the updated land use map. Claudia >> Tess, would you be willing to put that draft map back on the screen, please? >> And I do understand it's a draft, but I have a question about kind of the status of this draft. So, by my reading of this, um, it seems to show primarily current land uses. There's new categories, there's fewer categories, but just from my quick review of this, um, it looks to describe what is basically currently happening in the city. Am I reading that correctly? >> Yeah. So, um, the early iterations of this map are an attempt to convert what we have in our land use map under these new designations. >> Okay. So there's definitely a lot more work to do um under some of those categories and analysis that Tess

[182:01] mentioned um where we will continue to integate that across. >> That is great to hear. Are you able to describe at all how much change we might expect to see on the draft map that will be coming back in March? Um, I don't think I could I I don't think I have like a ballpark percentage of the city that could expect change, but certainly when we come back with a map in March, we would indicate um what areas of the um map are potentially a change from the current land use map. >> Okay, great. Thanks for that road map. Claudia, if I might just add as well quickly, um, is that part of the process of moving this current concept into what'll ultimately be the draft map in March is working through that community change request process, which we'll touch on just briefly sort of as our next steps, but that could influence some of the decisions we make as far as making changes to, you know, what you see there versus what it might be in the future.

[183:00] >> Nicole, and then Mason. >> Um, yeah, thanks for the presentation. Um, I just have one really specific question around the rural um, designation. Um, you mentioned landbased economic activities in there. Um, that's starting to mean some different things at the federal level and I'm curious just what does that mean here? Like what kinds of things are include? I know you said like things that the county permits and stuff like that, but does that include something like any any kind of extraction based like mining or something like like how do >> how do we clarify that? Right. >> Yeah, that's a great question. Um I think the wording of that was an attempt um to maybe speak to what council member Benjamin um highlighted earlier that agriculture is a business in this community. And so, um, but that's a a really good note that it could be interpreted differently. So, um, yes.

[184:02] Thanks, >> Mason, then Kurt, then Matt. >> Uh, thank you all very much. Great, great presentation. Um, and I am super excited for this section. So, uh, the neighborhood. Um, again knowing this is all draft, I do see that we have, you know, primary use, supporting use, I just want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly, does this mean when I see supporting for commercial, and this has been a big topic all night about having commercial and residential areas, does this mean this is an allowed use? Even if it's just in supporting and it's not primary, it is an allowed use. >> Yeah, I'm happy to to jump in on this one. So what these land use designations represent is policy, right? It's aspirational. And so the the goal of what these um these definitions do for us is that moving forward if we recognize or that there is policy that would establish or allow for commercial

[185:01] activity within a residential neighborhood. Right now we even if the policy is there, you couldn't necessarily do it because the zoning is still restrictive. And so it but it what it does is it sets a foundation then for those future zoning code changes and other um other updates that would be necessary in order to actually allow for that type of thing. But the difference that we've tried attempted to try to do to describe between those primary and supporting is really to give community members and all of you a a general depiction of what you can expect as far as what are the primary uses you would typically see within that particular land use designation. But then there is all of those other supporting uses that could also occur and would be supported as part of that vision. >> So sorry I could have been a little more specific. So if in use review uh this comes up, this would support that use. Long and short. Well, it depend if there was if there was a if there was a zone district that allowed for say a commercial activity um

[186:03] and but that commercial activity was only allowed through a use review and one of the criteria for that use review was consistency with the comp plan. This would be conceivably supportive of that. Got it. Got it. Um and then the other question I have is and this probably should have been our earlier section. I'm sorry, but it's related to the map. Um, I didn't see it in the packet, but I know in a prior iteration or the current iteration of the comp plan, there's a clause around preserving neighborhood character. I don't know if that was something that's being continued or if it's something Go ahead. think you were ready to >> um you know we want to of course listen to community members and preserve like the feel of neighborhoods. I think the word character has been weaponized sometimes in the past um to support kind of a no change situation. Um, and I think we're

[187:00] trying to move this plan into acknowledging change is probably going to happen and we want a more mixed density, mixed neighborhoods and you know, so we're careful about that word character um, just because of its past weaponization potentially. >> And I know this is getting into comments, but I am for making it more specific that that is clear intent. But uh I'm sorry, one more question. Again, I said I was excited. Um the in the map I noticed that where neighborhood one and neighborhood 2 is. Again, I know you guys are doing a lot of changes. Uh there appears to be a lacking of neighborhood 2 around uh places that are serviced by transportation already, transportation options, bus, etc. Should we expect that to change? >> Yes. >> Okay, cool. I love the short answers. That was great. Kurt,

[188:01] >> thank you. A couple of quick questions. First, the ladies designations talk about for for neighborhood at least or residential attached unit versus multi-unit. Can you be more specific what those how those are different? >> Yes. Uh an attached unit would be um things like a town home or triplex project. Whereas multi-unit um we think of as um uh multi-story like apartments, condos, >> vertically stacked versus horizontally attached. >> If if I can ask a follow-up question. I mean do you have a definition? because I like the building I live in has a mix of town houses and stacked flats. So, I'm not quite sure where it falls in. >> Right. >> So, yeah, then this will be this will be some nuance. Um uh and we were careful to not create a direct onetoone correlation back to the use

[189:01] table within the zoning code because that can change and then that would require an amendment to the plan and you know all of those sorts of things. So, trying to again build in some additional flexibility here. Um the good thing is there will be a glossery as part of the comp plan that will have definitions to describe what each of these means. And I you know I I would say just broadly thinking you know attached unit is probably in the neighborhood of eight units or less. Multi-unit would be something more than that and the configuration is yes debatable. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next question refers to the there's um a use group living but group living is I mean as a separate thing we don't have occupancy limits. It's not really a thing, right? Do we need to call that out separately? Yeah, this is another nuance and again there will be some clarity and definition around this in the plan as it comes out, but group living is something that you might think about in terms of a senior living facility or um additional supportive

[190:03] services, things like that where people may live in a more of a dormatory type of situation with a shared uh commissary kitchen or other kinds of things that would then serve that serve that that purpose. It's true as well that um there's a number of examples of newer student student housing that actually falls into that sort of category with shared living and kitchen spaces but um then separate bedrooms. Okay, sounds great. Um the next question is about the the design separate designation for greenways and you talked a little bit about why you did that but my question is if we have a separate designation for greenways why don't we have a separate designation for streets because really they fill a lot of the same roles right there's a transportation role lots of times there's a green base role, there's

[191:00] a utility role. What how are those fundamentally different? >> Yeah. Um that's a interesting question and some cities do have a land use designation that is right ofway. Um we have historically not had that type of designation, but um if the group is interested in pursuing that, it it could be something to look at. Okay. Um, yeah, we can we can talk about that. It just it feels like maybe it's a holdover from a an earlier time when we thought of greenways not as really transportation corridors, which hopefully has changed. Um, it's not clear to me why fundamentally again how industrial and facilities are distinct. they they they feel like they really from sort of the neighbor standpoint or

[192:00] something they're pretty similar. >> Yeah, this, you know, this is one we continue to wrestle with and and I think as you as you recognize that in the previous iteration, um this had a different category name and you know, some some other things. So, it's clear we're we're continuing to work on this. Um the way that I would that I would describe this um specifically and and I think for most community members that they will recognize there is a difference between a industrial land use that is providing manufacturing or um research and development on the private side etc versus a facility which we're describing more as the the larger sort of federal labs campuses um or the um I believe uh the the power plant area um you know Valmont power plant area. So those are like large municipal facilities or other generally publiclyowned facilities that take up a

[193:01] lot of land area. Um but they sure there may be some crossover in terms of the types of uses that they do like in terms of um some of the research you know facilities things like that but industrial is is is primarily private industry um and uh you know supports our economy in a different way than maybe the way that those larger uh municipal or public facilities would. >> Okay. Thank you. And then I also have a question about university and civic hub but I think Matt has that so I won't I will let him ask his question and I might follow up. >> That was a wonderful tea up. I appreciate that. CS as Kurt alluded to and as I tried to jump the gun earlier on um I I am very curious about why university has its own designation. Um, and then I relate that back to Civic Hub. And I think it's very obvious that the university is it

[194:02] more of a civic hub than any elementary, middle, or high school is within BBSD. And so I'm and and so that that that is a a misongruence that I'm trying to wrestle with. Furthermore, those are all sovereign entities. And so really any land use designation we apply as an exercise of futility. And we saw that in no clearer when we had CU South designated ED as OSO. And that created massive amounts of community confusion because people seeing that OSO gave the impression that it was somehow ours or theirs to do and recreate on when it was a sovereign state entity's property that they could do whatever they wanted on. So how do we reconcile that? I think way to actually I would almost argue put university and civic hub and call it a day. Um or separate your sovereign entities into its own thing and not designate a land use because at the end of the day we're not doing anything with those anyway. And so I just what what

[195:01] are your thoughts on on that that piece? >> I think in some ways you sort of answered it. you answered your own question in that, you know, while BBSD is a sovereign entity, there's a lot of publiclyowned civic hubs that the city has more say in and more control over. And the reason we separated the university is to make it really clear to community members that we don't really have control over what they do. you know, we we talked to them and all that, but they are a sovereign entity that um because of that OSO issue and all those other issues, we wanted to make it very clear that they are in control of what they're doing. >> I'll just add to that another way that I think about it too is that again these are future land use aspirations and vision and the approach with the university is unique in that regard. So while we do not have let's say land use

[196:02] control over uh quote unquote control over the university, we do have a relationship with them and it's a reciprocal one both in practical terms and in an aspirational relationship. So we can engage in conversations with them about service levels and and service um renewation and and how and what types of uh municipal services and others can get there. So the relationship to housing. So by having it as its own designation, it I think it sets us up for future success for planning processes. >> I would argue the same as with BBSD in that regard, right? So that that's a curiosity is why not lump them together in school or education and then that way we're just clear what they are and where they represent and I think what you mentioned >> is a product of where our current relationship is with each entity and we know that that has been quite different over time. >> Yeah. Right. >> And so the ability to influence that has

[197:00] thus changed over time. >> Yeah. I think one thing that's a little different about uh BBSD is that it is so integrated into neighborhoods. And so you've got a much more fine grain relationship between transportation and sidewalks and and those types of things. And there is some nuance that probably isn't worth going into today where the planning board does of local jurisdictions still get input into the process with school district whereas we get none of that with the university. >> Okay, fair. I still think it should be a civic but I'll I'll leave it at that. Matt, do you mind if I ask a follow-up question on that? And with that university land use designation, are we just thinking that that would just follow the University of Colorado's ownership of parcels or or would there be a distinct distinction between like core university areas or like you think about they just bought the commercial property on the corner of like Fulsome and Arapo? Do we then immediately change the land use designation to university or how how do we kind of track that against their ownership patterns? Yeah, that would be an ongoing um uh

[198:00] thing that we would manage through the regular updates that we have to the plan. I think our initial first pass and u correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in our initial first pass, we used their underlying ownership as as the basis for applying that land use, knowing that that is university owned land and we would apply that land use going forward. And the description of that university um land use within that definition obviously is broad enough to kind of encompass all the things that they can do on their land from um you know academic facilities to research facilities to housing commercial activity etc etc. >> Thanks. Sorry. >> Yeah. No two more. Thanks for that. That's a good clarification. I was thinking the same thing. Um two other quick questions. Um I mentioned OSO open space other. I remember post CU South we talked about getting rid of that thing and it seems like it has held on like Lykan. Um and so I'm I'm wondering why and and what's the overall need for open

[199:00] space other rather than it either is or it's agg or it's very clear what it is. The other seems like that could set us up for trouble down the road. Uh there is no open space other designation in the proposed framework and we are re-examining all of the properties that are currently designated as open space other and finding a a new designation for those. >> Okay. I mean because I can see right here it says primary other open space a on the um on on the um in in in the document that lays out the draft of the open spaces. is what you can expect us use as primary other open space agriculture. >> Oh, that's that's just the other is sort of the category of the uses that would be in there. So, if you look at and compare to some of the others, it would say primary use, residential, and then a little bit of a description of the types of residential that would be there. The other is not referring to open space other. It's just referring to the category of use. >> Good. Thanks for that clarification.

[200:01] You see where I got you see where I got caught on that one. We yeah we may we may tweak that language. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. Uh lastly um with uh the overlay on rural lands the rural lands very much and I I want to uh call on what Taiisha has mentioned talked really clearly about food systems being in the rural lands but that in open space as it refers to a no such reference is made and yet they're very much overl at least with regards to the 16,000 acres of a open space. So I just want to make sure that we are managing their land use similarly if it's open space a as rural a that they have very much overlaid common use and intended use and they're not somehow differentiated outside of who the owner is. >> Yes, our uh colleagues in OSMP also identified that um edit. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much. Appreciate it, >> Council Mark. >> Yep. Yes. Um, we had a recent incident where um,

[201:05] and again, I I I sorry I haven't been keeping up on what where it landed, but I know the county was considering using some pesticides that um were were low um toxicity but not no. And so just going back to I noticed even just in the language of the policy statements around the city and the county. And so just kind of like just from the example that you shared like you know we are one ecosystem. And so just when those types of tensions come up like how can this support um you know or or help to better address that particular example moving forward? Yeah, I think um some of that city and county language that's a challenge for um the county is when they

[202:02] agree to that, it applies to all of the county um not just land in the Boulder Valley. So that's a um that's a tough commitment I think for them to make. Um, but I know that related to pesticides in particular, there are ongoing conversations about that. Um, that's all I know. >> Yeah. >> Council Mark and then Tina and then Rob. >> Uh, I guess I am easily confused which is no mystery to my colleagues. Um, talk to me a little bit about neighborhood one. Um, I want to understand precisely what housing types you can build in neighborhood one and what you cannot. Well, today and tomorrow, if the if the plan were to be adopted, you could build the things that you can build today

[203:00] because it's all it will all be governed by zoning, right? And so there would be required to be either a reszoning or a change to the code itself to allow for a wider variety of things. What the what the intent of the policy or the description of that future land use designation is that it would allow for the ongoing construction of single unit detached residential. It would also expand the opportunity to be or to include attached unit which through that zoning update that could be duplex only. That could be duplex up to quadplex. That could be up to an 8 unit. It would be dependent upon that future code change. Um and then group living was an additional one included in terms, you know, of addressing some of those things around um senior living facilities and other types of um group living situations that could be incorporated into that into that neighborhood. So will those changes be applicable to uh low density areas to um re uh areas

[204:04] as well >> to anywhere that's identified as the neighborhood one and then it would be up to future planning board and councils to make those decisions around code updates and the implementation of that policy of what does that look like and does it look different in different parts of the city? Does it apply differently within different zone districts? So in in effect the concept of a single family neighborhood is no longer going to be applicable. >> Um not necessarily if there is a determination that um that there's a particular zone district that would need to or want to restrict it to only that and that was a decision come to and agreed by the city council through through that code update process then sure it would continue. Do we have that right now? In other words, under our present authority, can we do that? >> Uh, well, I think for the most part, um,

[205:01] and I'm thinking off the top of my head, so I would have to consult the code, but I think for the most part, duplexes are allowed in almost all residential neighborhoods. No, duplexes. I'm talking about going >> but even even some additional um multi-unit dwellings are but I think what happens is that the um the lot size restrictions um essentially you know prevent those from from occurring. So the use itself is actually allowed but the implementation or the construction of those uses is impossible. >> But in the re zone there would be large lots so there would be no such restrictions. Uh well again it would be it would be up to those future code updates to determine you know how many units would be allowed in say an RE zone as an example >> right the land use designation establishes that future vision but then it's those those critical code updates is where um where the implementation really really hits >> but you couldn't do that today could you in an RE zone

[206:00] >> uh well and today there's there's not as much of a policy foundation to make those code changes to allow that variety iety of different housing types in any of those zone districts. There's there's some language within the comprehensive plan today that allows for that expansion of of duplex and other types of units in some areas, but um it's not as expansive. It's it's fairly limited. >> You know, you couldn't today you couldn't do a sixplex in an RE zone. >> No. >> Okay. So, this is a pretty fundamental change in terms of land use. >> In terms of in terms of land use, yes. >> Okay. Thank you. keep keeping in mind subject to future code changes. I mean, if we adopted what's in front of us tomorrow, you still couldn't build more than what you can today in any of those zones. >> All right, who do I have? Tina. >> Yeah, following up a little bit with what Mark was saying, um, currently our setbacks and solar requirements and all

[207:00] of that would are the same. So, we're not changing that. And I think the just reading this right the um we do use the word character for neighborhood one and talk about the special character and the charm of the connected neighborhood and um so presumably our zoning would reflect having that same look and feel um but with a little bit more options for housing like duplexes um and forplexes. Is that accurate? >> Yes, I think that's accurate. And I think in terms of the description of of neighborhood character um and really um looking for ways to be complimementaryary to that um as opposed to say preserving it in in amber and not allowing for things to change. Really the intent of this is to allow for that more organic type of um change that happens within a neighborhood but still uh provides a similar sense of scale, a similar sense of architecture and setbacks and things like that. So we we certainly aren't envisioning or

[208:00] encouraging um really radical changes within a what is traditionally a single family residential neighborhood. We aren't in expecting that there would be a five-story apartment building next door. Right. We are looking for those more compatible uh adjustments to um allow for those different variety of housing types within those areas. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and then I had another question about how are we thinking about development on the WOOI in this land use map. We spent a lot of time about how we want to have these defensible areas and just um there is a new piece of legislation that might look at land or lot splitting by right which would increase the ability of having fencing and structures in closer proximity. And it made me think about are we going to be having the same roles closer in the WOOI area as we are in the sort of the non-WOOI area and the WOOI adjacent I should say as well.

[209:01] Um, you know, I we have had meetings with the office of emergency management um asking questions in particular about intensity and density and um what considerations we should include. Um and the thing that was really highlighted was about evacuation and um so that's something that um we're continuing to work with them on. I don't think and you know it's probably a good question for additional followup. Um but I I don't remember from that conversation the um WOOI being a limiting factor for intensity or density. It was more about if this is the direction that the city wants to go, um direction being potentially increasing the amount of

[210:00] units that could be in that zone, then the next step is we have to plan for the evacuation, efficient evacuation and management of those um areas should they um experience wildfire in the future. Do we need to set parameters before we increase the intensity density in case there are limiters for the evacuation options or are we hoping to retrofit the evacuation to whatever future intensity density we opt for? I think there's probably going to be some back and forth conversation with that office in particular um as we iterate the map because you know Broadway is sort of the defining boundary and when you think about the uses that are there today along Broadway um there's potential um aligning with transit corridors and things like that to think about and apply that neighborhood 2 designation or community hubs along there and that

[211:00] would be a change from some of the lower intensity uses that are along that corridor today. So I think we're going to have to continue to iterate on that question. >> Okay. So maybe we would help make sure our zoning reflects whatever comes out of that discussion before we >> move forward with that. Is that would that be the strategy? >> I think that's a strategy if you want to pursue it. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think and yeah, getting back to just um you know, building on the the uh response to council member Wallik is you know this this policy and the comprehensive plan establishes a vision, but it is it is in those implementation steps where we might be adjusting the code to allow certain things where you could really get into a deeper conversation with um with those representatives from the office of emergency management management about what is what are the appropriate changes and densities that we can realistically basically achieve here and yet still maintain a safe and resilient city. Those are conversations

[212:00] that we're having sort of at the highest level right now today as part of this structure and understanding what's the most appropriate land use to apply. But it would really get into much more detailed conversations as you as you move into those implementation steps. >> Okay. And then I had a separate question just around neighborhood two and some of the uh neighborhoods that aren't neighborhood one. um the use of the word green. I know there's a nature everywhere theme, but we didn't really call out green space in those particular areas, and I just um I know that they won't be as attractive to families because of the housing types there um traditionally from the yield that we see at the Boulder Valley School District, but um should we be calling out more specific green spaces in those areas or >> as far as specific like geographic locations for of green space. >> Yeah, I think that we can do that within the descriptions and the definition of each of those land use um categories or

[213:00] those land use designations. I think we can be more explicit about the expectation of uh green space and public gathering spaces and things like that. So, we can certainly add some of that language in particularly as we describe some of the factors around urban design and why it matters, what you know, what is it, that kind of thing. So we can add some additional language that's really specific to that. >> That's great. I just didn't want it to be limited to neighborhood. >> Yes, of course. >> Y >> Rob and then ML. >> Thanks. Um I'm kind of following up on Tina's question and uh as well as um Claudia's observation of the map. I looked at it and I saw that the yellow was right up against the open space which made me feel good. But I I hear you saying there are going to be changes there. And then the comment um the questions from Mark where it could be up to an eight unit uh possibly in there. And then the followup with more experts. I I just had that followup with the

[214:01] experts. And I I just want to say this out loud. So when you are making these changes in that WOOI area, the yellow um it's approximately six homes. If we have six homes on fire in the city, our resources are taxed. We're done. 15 homes, we lose our water supply. So, I just want to put that out there so that we're very cognizant when we move forward with that um space right up against our our open space. Um I know there are a lot of things that we can do with the open space like keeping the grass mode 100 300 feet. Um but I just wanted to make sure that there was that in coordination with OSMP um for the border around the city. Um on a lighter note uh um people have talked about uh public access and understanding and this is obviously a very complicated

[215:01] uh plan subject concept for people that aren't in um the public realm. Will there be something that shows, and I learned this from your August meeting by listening to smarter people than I, um where there'll where there'll be a map that shows layers of what exactly land use is, the definition, um a sub area plan that can be layered on top of that and then the zoning on top of that. So people don't look at this and think that this is changing. And you know, kind of to some of the other questions like these can't be changed without counsel, but it has potential to change with council. >> Um, yeah, I think that's a great suggestion. We don't have a public map that's compiled in that way. You can kind of look up the layers separately, but I think that's a great suggestion for kind of a public land use and zoning map. Yeah. >> Yeah. And also just even within um you

[216:02] know as we go into drafting the plan we will spend a lot of time creating a lot of introductory text that provides that context for community members or people that just are not um you know uh comfortable or or used to reading these kinds of things and and absorbing this kind of information. Um, you know, from from the beginning, we have taken this approach to try to make this plan much much more clear and simple and using plain language and make it more effective and accessible for everyone that uses it, staff, policy makers, community members, everyone. Um, and so that's on us to make sure that that introductory narrative to this land use section and ultimately the map is very clear about what does this represent? how is it intended to be used going forward etc. So we will we will make sure to focus on that. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> All right let's see if we wrap up questions.

[217:01] >> Thank you. Um so I'm curious how the 15minute neighborhood has informed or landed on the land use map. I didn't really see evidence of >> Yeah. So, they've um just recently completed their work and it's not been integrated into the that map yet. So, that's part of our next steps. >> Y um perfect. And my second question, um do you have a neighborhood scale of the changes that you're talking about? I mean, I think being able to see the big kind of vast thing, but we've got some and I also saw that you're integrating, you know, the state driven all the code changes that have happened, the the transit corridors and all that's going to change the maps pretty significantly along those corridors. Um, will you be putting out like little

[218:01] areas that are going to have more significant change sooner rather than later? how how might we follow you as you um get some of these things because there's there's a lot potentially there's a lot going on. >> Yeah. So, when uh when the draft plan is released um at the beginning of March, part of that is going to be an interactive map online where you'll be able to zoom in and out of the land use map and be able to look at those areas. Um we still haven't made a final decision, but it um we are considering or we're working through some of the just the technological um ability to be able to actually have the have the current or the old land use map as a as a comparison. So you'd be able to see where those changes from the old scheme to the new structure and where those changes might um might be most evident. So there will be the opportunity to zoom in and really look at it at a at a neighborhood or even

[219:00] parcel level if you're interested. Basically be able to enter your address and it'll zoom right in there. >> Um would you be able to filter by um say I want to see how this has changed relative to the transit corridors or I want to see how this has changed relative to 15minute neighborhood thinking or a specific influence. um that is going to be driving um the shifts. Are people gonna get a chance to understand, oh, this is this way in case I want to have a business in my house or this is this way, you know, >> just that whole idea of uh there there's a lot of shifts that are happening and a lot of these properties are owned by individuals and it's not going to be kind of the big developer coming through and trying to understand. It's one by one by one people saying what's happening to my land, right? >> Yeah. I I think um as we develop this map, there's going to be a lot of analysis that we have to do defining

[220:01] where those corridors are, things like that. Um I'm imagining that we will include that analysis in our presentations at the open house, at planning board, at council. Um so that might be the best way um for people to understand those changes related to the a particular issue. um just kind of our our capacity for creating those interactive maps is more limited. Um and so what we'd probably have to think more about that. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Laura. >> Thank you. Uh just a few again boring and arcane questions. Sorry. Um so it was really helpful to get the slide at the beginning of the presentation about this is a future vision, right? And I think he even specifically said either Brad or is it Tess said the future vision may not match what is there right

[221:00] now. So my question is in site review one of our questions is consistency with the land use map. Is that going to change when as we change how we use the BBCP? >> Um I don't think so. Um I mean part of part of the implementation that would immediately occur after adoption of the plan is for us to revisit any of the references in the code that are related to the comp plan. One very relevant and derain one to this conversation in these two bodies is the site review criteria. So we'll take a close look at that in terms of making sure that the code language and the way that the comp plan is intended to be applied during those processes is correct and you know make any adjustments as we need to. Um but again if you were thinking about a site review process or or a project that was in front of the planning board and using that criteria to say is it consistent with the comprehensive plan land use map and policies. This map um should you know again

[222:00] establish what the future vision is to be and would provide some care some description around what those uses should be and etc etc. So you would still use it in the same way to compare whatever that project is being is proposing against how what is what is the definition what's the description in the land use map are is it supportive of the policies in the map etc. So I think it would be used essentially in the in the exact same way. Um and really the the goal of these is to in most cases actually broaden the types of opportunities that can happen within a single parcel as opposed to creating significant changes that would limit things. So again there probably will be a few examples where some things might be limited but for the most part this is actually expanding the types of things that you can do on your property as opposed to restricting them. >> Okay. And that feeds into a second question I had, which is, and maybe you can't answer that tonight, maybe it's a question for a future meeting or some other format, but does staff anticipate any changes to the site review process

[223:01] or the formbbased code based on this 10-year update? I, you know, I don't think we've thought that far ahead yet, if I'm honest. Um, I mean, I I do think that there will be policies in the plan that will establish a foundation for changes to the zoning code or the formbbased code um or the site review criteria or the resoning criteria. I mean, I do think that those the policies that will be in this plan will lead to changes, but we don't exactly know what those will be yet. And I think it will take further conversation among all of you and through council priority setting our individual annual work plans around you know what does that implementation strategy look like? What are the things that need to be changed as um as priorities? >> I can add a little bit too. Um, in my mind, an example under the current

[224:00] comprehensive plan that approached that very question was a council decision to uh bring forward policy a couple years ago about the family-friendly vibrant communities, for example. And so that's a policy decision to say, hey, we want to implement this vision um in this way, go forth and put specific code together, for example, in that instance. So I think it can be conceived of in that in that way. >> Yeah, I um very much appreciate that and I haven't thought it through either. I'm just um I don't want to arrive in a situation where we're trying to apply something like the formbbased code or the site review criteria and we find ourselves in conflict with something that we just adopted. So um I just want to put that concern out there and and look forward to your guidance on that. And that leads me to one more question which is about existing subcommunices that are newer like the East Boulder sub community plan and the transit village area plan. Is that part of your criteria

[225:01] for when you're thinking about making these changes to the different zones in the on the land use map? Are you trying to are you trying to achieve consistency with those plans or are you assuming that we will not look at that and then we'll make any necessary updates down the road? >> I would say particularly for the recently adopted sub community and area plans, we're trying to achieve consistency. Thank you. >> Great. Okay. Well, now let's move to the next. You got something, Ter? Go ahead. >> I forgot to mention this for the first section. I just wanted to thank you because I thought that the um Boulder Valley comprehensive plan updates to stat statistically valid survey was really great. And what I loved about it the most was that it take it took us I think it took me outside of my little box or you know you you have your group that speaks to you all the time and so you

[226:01] can't really it's hard to know what everybody is thinking. So when you have a statistically valid survey, it gives you more of a sense of what the community as a whole is really thinking. And the especially learning about how people felt about adding to like medium density to neighborhoods and such was really great because you you can't tell really. You can just you have your silo. And so I just wanted to thank you for this really great survey. I thought it was excellent. >> Survey love. Okay. >> So, so now the the last question for us is do planning board and council had feedback on the preliminary future land use strategy? And as we dive into this, 45. Uh getting late. We're supposed to end by 10. We can go over of course if we need to, but I'd really encourage people to keep their comments brief while also acknowledging this is an important topic. So Mark

[227:03] Mike Mark. >> Yeah. >> Um, so it's been interesting. I I this has been so much about connections. Even reading the packet today before seeing anything, I was like, that staff really did a great job talking about connections. And um to that end, and I can I can always count on my planning board colleagues and counselors to study up and read their packets carefully and and to address many areas. And the one area that deals with connections, but we haven't really talked about much, I did talk about it last time we were here in a joint session, is the greenways. And so, yay. I'm so excited that uh greenways are on the map and designated

[228:01] and because greenways are I think key to part of our identity as bold rights. It's part of why people come to visit here. It's that connects us in our identity. It connects um kids going to school. It connects parents going to work, uh shoppers to the grocery store, hikers to trail heads, uh especially those with limited parking. And the other thing that I really enjoyed and that connects us is the joy of transportation, of being transported on a creek on a greenway, right? It's like nothing better. I I ride my bike a lot and it's part of a puzzle. I get on my bike and I think, okay, I want to go from A to B. Which way am I going to go? Oh, I can take uh Elmer's two mile to Goose Creek and then

[229:00] I'll take that crosswalk over there. Then I'll go through the transit village and then I'll get back on some other greenway. So, um, I think they're incredibly important and I am supportive of them receiving a full map designation. Speaking of the map designation on the greenways page, transportation is missing either as a primary or secondary use. Yet they are they are you know um I can't give a percentage but one of their key high functions is strictly trans joyful transportation. Um, so I'm I'm what I'm what I'm really hopeful for is that um that this update to the BBCP and the and the more serious designation of greenways leads to more serious

[230:00] management and focus by the city on how greenways are managed. right now they are the child of every department and no department. It is utilities. It is storm water. It is open space and mountain parks. It is parks. It is transportation. But if I said who's the department head who's responsible for greenways? Well, I I I I couldn't answer that question. >> So Mark, I'm sorry to interrupt, but maybe if we could >> Yep. Okay. I'll simply say um thank you. Okay. I'll simply say that we um uh that I think the greenways are an important part of the BBCP update and I hope it drives more serious um management and uh uh better facilities for the community. Thanks. >> Thanks for that Greenway love. Okay, I've got a few people queued up here. Tina, Taiisha, Ryan, Kurt, Mason.

[231:02] >> Okay, I'm not as poetic as that. Um, so I just uh wanted to follow up a little bit with Laura's point about the industrial and um just understanding how residential and industrial coexist and and how to think about that and when it doesn't make sense to try to give us some flexibility. We already had that recently. um sort of was confusing with an office park application and so just trying to figure out how we can make that easier. Um the other is just in general uh recognizing more of the student population. They're about 35% of our population and their needs are very distinct. They're very transitional population um just by nature of being four-year students in general uh or grad students. So, I'm not sure if there's a way to call that out in terms of housing type, but they do take a lot of housing and and it's very it's a very different type of housing with different expectations and different um terms of residency with it. Um, and then the last

[232:01] thing is uh is just recognizing that when we want people to be less car dependent, we might want to think about things that aren't in this land use plan like things that are expensive in Boulder because we tax them highly and people know that they can go to Costco and get things for a little less. And so when we think about how we attract um how we attract goods to our city and businesses and also how we tax, we're also creating incentives for some people sometimes to leave the city to buy their goods there. So I'm just I wanted to to say that we should be sensitive to other things that might lead people to get into their cars. Also, the way that we maintain playing fields and playing spaces for soccer certainly impacts how much a parent drives uh if they have to go to Superior or to Lewisville for their um athletics and those are very very frequent trips. They can be three four times a week. So, um those are some thoughts I had with the land use.

[233:01] Thanks. >> Thanks. We got Taiisha Ryan Kurt Mason. >> Thank you very much. Um, so, uh, I guess this is both a comment and a question. So, when and where do we provide policy direction for the development of new planning areas? As a former CBW commissioner who has read and reviewed more herd management plans than you could ever imagine, I am concerned about the hyperfocus and pri prioritization of human needs over those of our more than human can, specifically water, air, soil, and wildlife. Um the process of area 3 started with human needs before considering ecological ones. Water for fight fighting wildfires were not considered and um though grocery stores were considered um there were no real discussions about agricultural needs. Um and unfortunately grocery stores in and of themselves are not resilient uh are not resilient unless um the food is generated within

[234:01] or you know within you know is locally produced and and reducing food miles which again is another huge exacerbating for our climate and food security. So I guess and I I asked this initially and I'm waiting for the moment. So is this the moment or when when is the moment? Uh now would be a moment if you want to make a comment about specifically um you know how we address the planning reserve in the future. But there is uh going to be a public hearing on the planning reserve in February. >> The planning reserve or how we plan for planning reserves. >> Uh it's it's it's about the decision related to the planning reserve. So it's not about how you plan for the planning reserve. So I asked specifically when this process when when we discussed area three when would be the time to talk about the process that we as a city use to inform and guide our you know our planning and I was told that that was be uh the B I I know I'm over I I didn't

[235:00] talk before this whole time the Boulder Valley comp plan this is very important so I'm just wondering is this the time? Yeah, if I understand your um question, council member, I think you're asking is this the time to talk about the >> the rules around that or the amendment processes for area three or or areas like it and and now it's that and now would be the time >> because the ship has already sailed on area 3 >> as far as process. >> So that's the the comment that I have. I didn't see anything in the documents provided related to how our city plans new areas and I would love to make sure that that is is a component. Thank you. >> Very good. Now we've got Ryan then Curtain Mason. >> Okay, I got five. I'll try to I'll try to be quick. Um number one on neighborhoods. Um I I like what I what I've heard. Um I think we might want to spec well I would suggest we specify

[236:02] that we we do mean for smallcale multif family development up to sounds like aplex to be allowed uh by right everywhere with the idea that we let the city code deal with um I guess additional stringency from there. So I think that's great and I suggest that we we make that explicit. I also um I guess this is I'm asking staff to think about this. We ought to be facilitating the development of ADUs andor back or call them backyard cottages if you like. Um I don't know if if the if the if the BBCP has a method to do that. I think um condoization allowing for that is is one method. I'm not sure if BBCP is the right place for that, but um I would uh endorse anything we can do to explicitly um support and facilitate um you know to to future readers of the BBCP that we

[237:01] really want to um streamline and help ADUs to to um to roll out. Okay. Um, next on there's a there's a crosscutting mobility theme and uh in the previous section um in policy under under um safety um it was pointed out that twothirds of serious crashes happen on arterials. And there's a there's a principle here which is high kinetic energy at high speeds exponentially increase danger. And above 20 to 25 miles an hour your chances for death go up exponentially. And I I think that should um be spelled out uh because it's not just about arterials. And as we look at these different uh land use constructs, I I think we ought to consider what in, you know, a neighborhood and what in other areas.

[238:01] What what kind of what kind of kinetic energy of motor vehicles do we want moving through those to facilitate the kind of environment um you know that that's intended. And as a as a point B to this, I would I would ask that we consider what's the minimum age that should this should be navigable for. Um, you know, kids have lost a lot of rage of being able to be independent and and free roam. And one of the biggest crises that families with young kids have today or kids at all is dealing with screens and the ancient generation, you know, themes. And one of the most important things we can do is provide an affirmative thing for kids to you know do do that's healthy and and sorry healthy I guess has a lot of connotations I heard earlier but um it's good for the kids and so um I would recommend that we we think about like not think about that we specify what what what is the acceptable minimum age

[239:01] that that a person should be able to free range around this whatever the the neighborhood designation Okay, that's the second. The third one is on um let's see. So Kurt Kurt made a point earlier about um something that Okay, so there there are the some of the designations can support one another. Um, for example, with greenways and neighborhoods, if you if you have um a trail head or a um a bike access point, a bike trail access point near neighborhoods, this could be a great place to have smallcale um shop or even like a a mic some kind of a micro coffee shop or business. And somehow that I would think should be um specified. Maybe that goes into the neighborhoods, but there's something about the interaction of the two. And I remember now the point Kurt said was um you know the the 15-minute neighborhoods

[240:00] aren't just a binary thing. It's also a principle that we should be seeking to incorporate throughout. I'm paraphrasing but um it just makes you think about the interaction of those two and they should um we should try to specify that. Um let's see the fourth thing is also I would endorse Kurt's uh point about and also Mark about sort of the transportation network. I know we have a totally separate and additional um the city does a transportation master plan um and there's probably some good reasons to not get too much into the the minutia but I do think we should specify at least like a a vision or principles for some of the key transportation systems especially public transit. What what do we expect public transit to be achieving for the community? who who do we expect it to be serving and especially in terms of age? Um and um just giving some some definition to transit given how much of this this plan

[241:01] is is about the connectivity between transit and development with transit oriented development. Um and then I think my final comment is um over the course of this the last year or so um there's been a um a a couple of uh uh times we've talked about with energy um with with underground the emerging availability of of underground thermal networks. So like geothermal geo exchange type um technologies. And I don't know if um if this will come up again and be a better there'll be better time to talk about it later, but it does seem to me that um we should contemplate whether the BBCP will will explicitly encourage or allow um that kind of technology. I I would think we we should be and it might be that these um the land use designations here give a way to to say you know where that works. I would think specifically in neighborhoods it should work. Um but I

[242:02] know that's kind of a new topic so it might require some more consideration. Um >> okay we'll do that. Thank you. >> Thanks Ryan. Um okay and if folks can try to keep their comments on the brief 01. So Kurt and Mason, >> thank you. First of all, I really appreciate the inclusion of mobility in the the land use designations. I think that that's a big step towards breaking down the siloization. And I agree with what Ryan said that it would be great to get more specificity about the character of the mobility within the different land use designations. Um I really I don't think that we should have either the university or the civic hub designations. I don't think that those make sense. We can't control what any of those what either the Boulder

[243:01] Valley School District or CU does. If they acquire a site, then it all of a sudden the we have to change the land use map basically. or if they divest of a site, right, they sell something off, then it's even more of a problem because there's there's this land use that nobody can really use and nobody knows what it can be. It just feels really problematic. I totally understand that we want to be able to for instance put a cafe next to or in a rec center or something, but if we use for instance the community hub or the regional public community hub designation for those, I think that that would work great. And you know, there's not that much difference between a rec center and, you know, a shopping center or whatever. Um the I would love to see the neighborhood zones be more focused on form and bulk

[244:02] and less on use. More of sort of a form-based code um approach to those with so just more focus there. Um there's talk about in neighborhood one the the individual basically implying that individual green spaces should be required. The underlying concept we had here was about connections, right? And Claudia got to this. It would be great to not necessarily allow them, of course, but not necessarily require them allow for instead a contribution to a shared green space that would create real connection. Um the in in neighborhood two, it says something about streets often include sidewalks. No, street should always include sidewalks in neighborhood too. Um the um let's see

[245:01] the in the parks it wasn't totally clear maybe this was implied but the parks often provide key transportation connections and so I just like to make sure that that is included in the in the land use description. I think that industrial and facilities, as I implied in my question, I think that those could be combined. If we need to distinguish them in the zoning, I think that that's fine, but I I I think that in terms of land use, they could be equivalent. Um, regarding the land use map itself, um, I would love it. I don't know how to make this work, but I would love it if there could be some fuzziness in places between the designations. Again, I don't know how to make it work, but it would it would be really great. Um, more on the lines of keeping this from being so specific, right? Um, it would uh Ryan talked about this. It would be great to have more illustration

[246:00] of the specific um transportation facilities in the land use map showing at least what's an arterial, what's a collector, where the bus routes are land uh the multi-use paths and so on. Um, and last, I really think we should have neighborhood two or at least significantly more flexible use along all of the arterials, Broadway, South, um, Table Mesa, Baseline, Belmont, Iris, and so on. um and around the university uh in the triangle between downtown the Boulder Valley Regional Center and the university all of those kind and and surrounding downtown right we want more vitality downtown we need more people there that's it >> dang Kurt leave something for for the other people um

[247:01] So Kurt really was hitting on what I wanted to say, but I'm going to go with just one step further on the neighborhood too. Uh agree with everything Kurt said. I'll just say and um as you're thinking about those arterials, the areas that transportation is serving. Um I would like to have you all consider a broader view of uh transportation connections. So, not just what the the streets are doing, the cars are doing, but also what the bikes are doing, where the trail heads are. Like, if there's a major crossing of a street in a in a bike um uh corridor, then that should also be considered. Um, and really, you did hit everything else. I'm done. >> Ditto is a word you can use. So, uh, Matt and then Claudia. >> Uh, first I'll just start with just exceptional kudos. This is an amazing transformation from where we were. Um, so I just want to say thank you. I know you've gotten a lot of those athletes, but it'll be brief, but still I think

[248:00] you need to you should shower in the awesomeness that this is. So, um, um, >> and we're done. There you go. Um, I want to a couple things. One, uh, circling on with the map stuff, it would be nice, and I know you mentioned that the in that the, um, u neighborhood uh, 50-minute neighborhoods will come. I think doing that on the map with a sense of the inventory of which ones you designate and how complete they are or areas that maybe don't have one at all. So, some granularity or a scale um not just a color would be really impactful. Um on that front, um I will say I'm going to sort of follow a little bit on what Kurt said. I don't like singling out the university. This institution is fundamental to our city and I think our land use designation needs to integrate them based on the symbiosis that we have with the university and so uh they need to be I think absorbed into one of those other designations but we don't call out

[249:01] the federal labs uniquely. We don't call out anybody else. I think it would send the wrong message that we are signaling them out rather than showing how they are embedded within our community. Um, so I think we need to find a way to do that rather than singling them out. Um, and and lastly, um, I'll just sort of end with good job. Appreciate it. This is awesome. Um, and if we do take the university away to all the Swifties out there, they will lose 13 land uses. And I'm sorry for that numerology problem. >> Claudia, I'll try to be brief. Um, first of all, I think the land uses themselves that you're describing are absolutely on the right track. I especially um like what you've done in terms of describing these new areas and designations in terms of their function and their feel um and the way that these categories kind of recognize that multiple uses, the primary and the secondary, sometimes residential and commercial in the same areas contribute to the kinds of places that we want. Um

[250:02] so my only specific comments here are about the neighborhood designations. And I want to circle back to my question and comments. um during the community assembly portion of the meeting about population thresholds that we need to support the kind of core functions of the 15-minute neighborhoods. And so two suggestions following from that suggestions asks maybe even please for these neighborhood categories and some of my colleagues have already touched on this. First, I think it's important for that neighborhood one description to affirmatively include many small-cale housing types. So, not just the duplexes and the ADUs that zoning in those areas currently allows, but other smallcale middle housing types. Um, and that of course is assuming that the built form is somehow the most essential characteristics of these areas. Um, it sounds like it is in these descriptions. I would challenge us to be really clear

[251:01] about that. Or if there's something other than the built form that's the essential characteristic of neighborhood one, let's name that instead. And then second, echoing Kurt and then Mason, I think it is important to expand that neighborhood 2 designation around the areas that we are envisioning as hubs in the new land use map. Um I noticed in your descriptions of the residential typologies that that only neighborhood two so not neighbor neighborhood one only neighborhood two is described as walkable. Okay. So if we are serious about 15minute neighborhoods um being navigable by pedestrians there needs to be more of this land use type. And there's synergies here that we can be creating and taking advantage of. So easy access to services and amenities for more people when you place that neighborhood too next to the hubs and it's also a ready source of activation for those hubs getting us to that threshold population. So I would want to

[252:01] see more of that and more deliberately placed in the final land use map. >> Thanks Cody Laura. >> So many great comments that I will not repeat but simply applaud. I just have two. The first one it goes to the neighborhood character issue and also the kind of putting things based on form issue and I think also ties into Rob's comments about the WOOI. I just want to make the comment that our neighborhood character is already changing in that these small um working family homes have been turning over to much much larger buildings that are still only um housing one unit. usually one unit of of whatever a family looks like to that group or or group of individuals. And so I'm not sure how dividing a very large structure that could be 6,000 ft square feet into separate units, how does that affect firefighting if it's the same building type? How does that affect neighborhood character if it is the same

[253:00] building shape? And I think that is one of the key insights of the mi the missing middle housing strategy is taking these footprints that are already possible and letting more units live within that same footprint. So um I would love to see that called out more that these neighborhoods are already turning over to these very large housing types and so how can we take advantage of that to house more people? Um, and again, I I think Rob brings up a really good question about um working with our and I'm glad to hear that you are working with our emergency personnel to understand what does this mean for our emergency response. Um, and then my my only other comment is I want to repeat a concern that I've stated earlier. You have somewhat put my concern to rest, but it's still on my mind. I'm still not 100% sure about it. And that is the idea that if we're making all of these zones more flexible and in particular what are currently our mixeduse zones where we have residential and commercial or maybe commercial and industrial, we often have the issue where a a single property owner or a

[254:01] single developer. It's easiest for them. It's most profitable for them to do one type of thing. And my worry is that by giving more flexibility of choice to those property owners and developers, we may be handicapping our ability to create these 15minute neighborhoods that have the mix of uses that we want. So I just would want to know that staff has really thought through how do we ensure the results that we want with the mixing of uses that we want and are not simply being led by market forces to whatever is the most profitable at that time and maybe getting a lot of the same thing coming online all at once that doesn't serve our goals of 15inute neighborhoods and walkability and all of these beautiful things we're trying to create. >> Thanks. All right, Nicole and then maybe I'll go call myself. Um, thank you. Everyone else has extended a lot of praise. So, I'm just going to say ditto to all of that. Um, some of the general things that I just really appreciate is how many fewer categories there are. Um, the greater

[255:01] intuitive nature of these categories. Um, this absolutely will be more adaptable and interpretable moving forward. And I think that that is a big success. One of the things that I just find myself wondering as we're wrapping up this conversation, um, we're calling out greenways as corridors for water people um, moving around town, but we don't mention streets, right? despite being um or despite the the evolving plans more intentional um linkage of land use directly to transportation planning and ensuring that our land use decisions are made um with transportation access and sustainability in mind. I'm not sure what to do with this, but streets and how they exist in our city are so central to these themes of connection and belonging. think a lot about my neighborhood where we're bounded by Table Mesa, Highway 36, and Highway 93, right? These are major roads that kind

[256:01] of keep people confined. And so the kids in my neighborhood end up going to the gas station for snacks instead of up the road to the to the Civic area where where they can find a better selection of things than you might find at a gas station. But it it really does like that this that streets and transportation, our transportation system are so central to neighborhoods um feels really important, especially as we're thinking about these 15-minute neighborhoods. Um so I I would love to see how streets fit in because they make up such a giant part of our land use, but we don't actually note them um here. And the same with multi-use paths. And I guess my question is just should we include them as we're thinking about this and as we are more tightly connecting transportation to housing and to how we experience our community. >> All right. Thank you. Um so I I'll call on myself and just have a few comments. Fundamentally fantastic job. I love where you're going. Um Tess, thanks again for the presentation. I think the work you all are doing here is fantastic. Lots of great comments. I

[257:01] won't repeat all of them. Just a couple of additional thoughts. one is um on neighborhood one um there was a good comment about making sure that shared green spaces are called out as as a good solution in that area as well. It's mentioned but a little bit on the side and I do note that neighborhood one includes the mixed density residential areas as well as the ones that are currently designated low density. And so there's a like a a real spectrum of housing types and the amount of say mixed use and commercial that I would hope that neighborhood one would make explicit was um good and acceptable. I think we have had some comments about how transportation integrates with this. Um, Nicole, I was just when you were making your point about the streets, I was looking at the map and the streets are actually on here already, but so maybe add a legend street and to call out that there is a transportation aspect to that there, but I wouldn't try to replicate the transportation master plan diagrams within the the land use map. One little nitpicky thing I just noticed is that there's a label for perennial creeks, which are creeks that

[258:01] flow year round, but actually several of the creeks only run for a few weeks a year, like four mile Canyon Creek. So maybe think about relabeling that one. Um, but I think you all are all on the right track. And I just there have been some comments from my colleagues about um the university designation and um personally I do feel like as as the unique cornerstone educational uh institution, our community that having university designation makes sense. But there is this kind of oddness about the university buys something and then immediately becomes university even if it's in a commercial area that's probably going to stay a commercial area for a long time. So I don't know maybe think a little bit about that and how that gets applied and is adaptable over time. So that's all I got and so huge thank you. Is that good enough? I mean we have some scattershot feedback. Do you feel like you can work with what you've heard tonight? I I I think we had we're hoping for another four hours if we could. No. Uh

[259:00] done. >> TJ has three slides. >> I do three I have three to answer your question. Yes, we can we can handle this. Like we've we've had multiple notetakers both online and in the room. So, we have captured all of that. Uh great great response and information and we appreciate it. And I know it's getting late, but I do have three slides, three minutes to just give you a little bit of a preview. And um hopefully this will help answer one of Ryan's questions from earlier. And you know, like what what's happening next, right? Where are we headed with this thing? So um really quickly, uh next week we will be going to the county and doing a much much more condensed version of this and speaking to them uh about any of the county related policy direction and land use types. getting their feedback. Um, and then there are some there are two public hearings coming up after the first of the year that are related to the comprehensive plan. Uh, in your packet in your memo, they are both identified for January

[260:01] 15th for city council and January 20th for uh, planning board. We've had some council rescheduling and shakeup a little bit. So, the council dates are changing. Planning board dates are still uh, still January 20th. Um so I'll just really quickly kind of um go through what each of these is. If you could go to the next slide. Um the first one you will see is the community change request. So every time we do a major update, there is an opportunity for community members to submit requests to change the land use map or the policies or the service areas map. We collected and accepted all of those requests um for a couple of months earlier in the year. We are going through the process or have gone through the process of screening all of those. Your role at that public hearing is to review the entire list of the requests that we received. You are not making a decision about whether to approve or deny the change that has been requested only if

[261:00] that application has merit to move forward in the process and for further evaluation and potential inclusion later. So, it's really you're doing essentially what we are doing. We're going to give you a recommended list of um uh requests that we believe should carry forward for further discussion. You will review that list and if you agree with us, you hit hit the thumbs up button, you approve that or you can either add to the list or take away from the list and we move forward. Uh the next slide then the next public hearing which is um related directly to the area 3 planning reserve process. As you know, when we started the comp plan uh in 2024, you uh authorized us to move forward with the second step of the three-step process related to the planning reserve um which is to assess the community needs through the comprehensive plan process. So, your role during that meeting is going to we are going to present to you what those community needs are and a bit of an

[262:01] evaluation against three criteria that are described in the comprehensive plan today. Um, and your role is going to be determine whether or not those needs are of sufficient priority to warrant further and future consideration of moving to step three, which is the creation of the expansion plan. So, you're not making a decision to initiate that expansion plan only to close out step two. And if you decide that those needs are of sufficient priority and you do want to authorize moving to step three at some point in the future, staff would return at some point later in the year in 2026 to have that conversation around whether or not you're actually ready to initiate that third and final step or if that holds off for a later date. And then the very last slide is just a look ahead to some big milestones in 2026. March is going to be a huge month for us and for all of you the and the community. The draft will be

[263:00] available at the beginning of the month. We will be doing the full board's road show. Mark your calendars for March 10th. That will be our draft plan release party um that we'll be hosting at the dairy center again. Uh and >> it is a it's going to be a party. If you're there, it's going to be a party, Tara. Uh yes, it will be a party. Um there will be cupcakes and maybe some other things. Um >> I think the word is rager. >> Yeah, that's right. End of the month, we will be coming back to this same joint group uh to review the draft plan, to review the map, and then uh then we go through any final refinements to prepare the final adoption ready draft. And then uh fingers crossed, June will be all of the city related public hearings and your deliberation and votes. And then July will be the county version uh on any of the policies or land use items that are

[264:00] directly related to the county. And that is all we have for tonight. >> All right. Thanks so much, KJ. Thanks to the whole staff team. Really appreciate. And I hope Matt, what was the term? I hope you can >> shower in awesomeness. >> Shower in awesomeness. And wi with that um I will bring the meeting to a close 23 p.m. Thanks everybody.