February 19, 2026 — City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[4:57] 30. So, welcome to the Thursday,

[5:00] February 19th, 2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. I will go ahead and call us to order. Alicia, can you do a roll call, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you and welcome everyone and thank you for joining us. We'll start our roll call uh for tonight's with council member Adams >> present. >> Benjamin >> present. >> Mayor Brackett >> present. >> Council member Kaplan >> present. >> Marquis >> here. >> Shuhard >> here. >> Spear >> here. >> Wallik >> here. Mayor Pro Tim Winer >> here. >> Mayor, we have our quorum. >> Thanks so much. All right, let's go to open comment and Alicia, can you go over the public participation guidelines, please? >> Yes, sir. Thank you again. Good evening, everyone. And thank you for your participation at tonight's city council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the voter

[6:00] revised code, which includes participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. No attendee shall disrupt, disturb, or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the council. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No partic no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscinity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not

[7:01] be tolerated. Thank you again for joining us and thank you for listening. Thanks so much for that, Elicia. All right, so I'm going to read the first three names. The people are going to be speaking. Everyone gets two minutes. Um, I am strict about the time and about the rules. That doesn't mean we don't like you. We just do follow our rules closely. Our first three speakers are Frank Reinhardt in person, Christine Briscoll in person, and then Lara Gonzalez virtually. Thank you. >> Hello, city council. My name is Frank Reinhardt and I care so much about the South Boulder Rec Center that I'm missing my basketball practice just to be here. When I was thinking about exactly what I wanted to say about the South Boulder Wreck, I realized that the best thing is probably the most simple. And here it is. This is all about our

[8:00] pool. Our pool is the reasons thousands of people are signing the rec center petition. Our pool is the reasons thousands of people are uh our pool is the reasons we're coming to these meetings. Our pool is the reasons our friend and our little brothers and sisters are decorating flowers. But when I say this is all about our pool, I'm not talking about the total number of lapses in the city of Boulder. No, I'm talking about the specific location. A pool we've had for 52 years and a pool that is used by people of all ages. A pool that is walkable for kids and senior citizens. A pool that is the heart of the South Boulder Rec Center. But this isn't surprising because a lat pool is the heart of every rec center. That's because without a pool, you don't have a rec center. Instead, you have a fitness center or an arena or a teen center. Or worst of all, you might have a fieldhouse. And we definitely don't want a fieldhouse. Now, I may only be 14, but I've learned about democracy three separate times in school. And I know that each of you is elected to

[9:01] represent us. So please represent us and that means not letting parks and reccks department or anyone else take away our lap pool. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we're going to go to Christine Brasll and then Lauder Gonzalez and Lin Seagull virtually. >> Hi, I'm Christine Bruscll speaking about the South Boulder Rec Center petition. This isn't a niche petition. To the contrary, our signers include former members of city council and current members of the BBSD school board. So, why would BBSD school board members sign our petition asking to keep a lap pool in the South Boulder Rec Center? Well, this is an easy question if you know any members of the school board. It's because they care about kids and what's best for kids. And they truly do. And it's obvious that it's best for kids at all five BBSD schools in Table Mesa to have a pool that's walking distance from where they live or go to school. And this is of course true for Fairview swimmers, but it's also true for high

[10:00] schoolers across the district. It's obviously best for them to practice at the pools that are closest to their schools. This also isn't just a South Boulder petition. People of North Boulder are heavy signers, as are those in 80303 and 302. And the number of signatures and our ranks slowly grows each day because we have teams of volunteers going doortodoor, block by block, having in-person conversations. We're building awareness and relationships. And I can tell you as one of those volunteers, I can attest to the two constant refrains we hear. One, uh, Boulder residents are upset that replacing the South Boulder Rec Center with a no pool facility is even on the table. Indeed, it is shocking that other products pro projects like the civic area or park projects are higher priorities than keeping a pool in a community rec center, particularly a rec center that doesn't need to be wholesale replaced. And I ask you, please question

[11:00] that conclusion. I mean that it does need to be replaced. Uh people definitely the second thing is people definitely don't want the outdoor Harle plats field with the volleyball courts and soccer field. It's what's all right next to the current field. Um, and right now, you know, it's a free to use, open to the public for, you know, it's great, especially for young kids. Great, um, to be converted into an outdoor field. >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony >> or be converted in. >> All right. Our next uh, our next speakers are Lara Gonzalez and Lin Seagull virtually. And then Mary Snew in person. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Good afternoon to Frank, Christine, and every person that is here today and has been here in the last few weeks advocating for a pool in a rec center that provides physical, mental, and emotional well-being to the tax taxpaying community. Please demand to divest $ 38 million a year that the Boulder City invest in genocide, murdering children, the age of what

[12:00] we're trying to protect here, raping children and women, and also ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people and uh committing appetite in the West Bank. So, please divest those $38 million a year and invest it here in our community where we pay our taxes to keep our children healthy. Uh, the illegal Zionist illegal occupation are planning a final extermination project to get rid of all casawis in March during Ramadan, a sacred Muslim uh holiday. That is why Netanyahu was here, the so-called board of peace. It wasn't just to enroll the board, but to use the excuse to forcefully disarm the legal resistance group of Hamas and other legal armed resistance groups that are protected under international law in Palestine to constantly bombard innocent people. Up to now, 591 people have been murdered and 1578 injured after the so-called ceasefire that Terra Winer celebrated in October. They have started in the north of Gaza in the Jabalia camp. Yes, that's right. You celebrated that, Tara. You remember that you asked us why we were

[13:00] not celebrating enough because they the genocide never stopped and you are in the record saying that and you will never be able to say that you didn't know. Your children and grandchildren will know that you knew that that genocide happened and that you continue to invest in it. That will be your legacy. They have started in the north of Gaza in the Javalia camp. They have invited 8,000 Indonesian troops to come outside of Gaza and are inviting more than 20,000 foreigner to protect the Jewish supremacist forces that are committing a genocide instead of protecting the innocent children, women, and men because Jewish supremacy period. And let's stop calling itism. It's Jewish supremacy because words matter and we got to call it what it is just like we call white supremacy here in the United States. Florida. >> Our next speaker is Lynn Seagull and then Mary Snaywaz and then Rahi Abuja Minali in person as well. >> Mayor, I do not see Lynn online tonight. >> All right, let's go to Mary in person then.

[14:04] >> Hello. Uh, thank you for your service. My name is Mary Snice and I'm a 23-year resident of Boulder. My family of six has used all of the rec centers extensively for those years. In fact, my sons are at Fairview swim practice right now at South. I like many in this room believe all our rec centers are valuable assets that we should maintain and preserve. The city's own 2022 master plan states as a top priority taking care of what we have with regard to facilities. I'm here to challenge the narrative that Boulder Parks and Recres and Facilities has been pushing for years, that the South Boulder Rec Center is end of life, past the inflection point, has structural and foundation problems, and the like. Just because something is said over and over doesn't make it true. Um, we've seen the 2025 engineering report. South does not have structural or foundation problems that necessitate replacement. Indeed, the report states, and this is a quote, regular maintenance must continue to

[15:00] ensure the structure remains intact and functional. The visual evaluation did not find any areas of major concern relating to the structure. No issue at South is so great that the entire building must be torn down. That narrative is being used in order to justify spending all the $53 million at East Boulder Community Center so that Boulder Parks and Rec can can consolidate aquatic services at East and eliminate the pool at South. You as our elected representatives have the power and the responsibility to pursue the priorities of us residents, not the priorities of Boulder Parks and Wreck. The lab pool and gym are already in existence. We're not asking for new services. Residents have voted for CCRS tax extensions in 21 and into 2025 that explicitly state recreation center renovations and replacements. Yet, when it comes to South Boulder Rec Center, Boulder Parks and Rec continues to say it will depend on what the voters will pay for. Well, voters have voted for rec centers time and again, and our petition with with over 3,000 signatures is yet

[16:01] another show of voter demand to keep the South Boulder Rec Center pool and gym. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now we go to Ry Abuja Minali in person, then Samantha Ducet virtually and Elizabeth Rasmusen in person. Hi, my name is Rahi and I'm a third grader at Bear Creek in South Boulder and I really enjoy swimming. I like to watch the Olympics with my parents sometimes, the very little TV time I'm allowed and I find it inspiring to see all the athletes be so good at what they do. I especially love watching the summer Olympics because of the swimming and gymnastics competitions. I'm pretty good at gymnastics, but I want to get better at my swimming. We

[17:01] may not all be Olympians, but it feels good to be really good at something. My mom and dad teach a lot of life stuff. Be kind, eat your vegetables, and also speak up for yourself. And I'm here not just to speak up for myself, but also for other kids like me. My parents also say practice makes progress. Not perfect, but progress. Now, for me to make progress in my swimming, it helps to have a pool nearby where I can practice my my swimming a pool that someday I can walk to myself independently. We are so lucky that the South Boulder Wreck pool is open again. Thank you for that. So, why take it away? It makes no sense to take away what we already have,

[18:00] an amazing pool. All I'm saying is, do I really have to bug my mom and dad to drive me all the way to another rec center or pool to swim just because South Boulder doesn't have fun? Please, please save our pool. All of us kids love it and need it. Thank you for all that you do for the city and thank you for listening to me. >> Thank you so much. And I'll mostly ask people not to applause, but that was amazing. Great job. Right. Um, now we go to Samantha Ducet virtually then Elizabeth Rasmmanson and Katie Reid in person. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, but you have an echo. >> Okay. Is it still there? >> Okay.

[19:04] I'm not sure how to get the echo to go away. >> You You may have two devices on >> and we can't hear you now. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Okay, perfect. Sorry. Okay. Good evening, council members. My name is Samantha Ducet. I am a Boulder resident along with my dog, Olly. I love our open space and I want to be able to use it safely as I know many others do. I want to be very clear. I support Boulder's voice and sight program. I am not here to take away anything from responsible dog owners. As Boulder grows, I'm concerned the program is being taken advantage of. There have not been updates or progress monitoring on this program since 2018. I have a fearful dog

[20:01] adopted from the Boulder Valley Humane Society along with other dogs being brought in from surrounding states being adopted out. My dog is always leashed. I plan our roots carefully. I step aside for others and verbally advocate for him. He has just as much right to be on our public trails as much as any off leash dog. And yet, we have been rushed multiple times by off leash dogs. Each time I hear, "My dog has a tag," or "They're friendly." But many dogs and many people do not want to be approached by unfamiliar dogs. Instead of enjoying our trails, I'm managing risk. This isn't what shared public space should feel like. I'm not asking to end the program. I'm asking to strengthen it. I propose these enhancements to the program. a standardized in-person evaluation of the dog with a clear checklist either through volunteers or paid by raising the tag prices andor an approved training course pathway with certification from a local trainer stating completion and adding a clearly defined rule that tag dogs must not

[21:00] approach leash dogs or wildlife without explicit permission or at the bare minimum conducting an updated interim status report. The full proposal was emailed over to all of you. Strong regulation does not threaten access, it preserves it. I want Boulder to remain a place where off leash, recreation, and safety coexist, where other owners are not absorbing all the risk. All dogs deserve to feel safe on our trails. Thank you. >> Thank you. The rest of our speakers are in person. The next three are Elizabeth Rasmmanson, Katie Reid, and Martha McFersonson. Hi. Okay. Hi, I'm Elizabeth Rasmmanson. I live in South Boulder. I moved to Boulder in 2021. Um, and I'm speaking here with Baby Noah. Um, and my husband Keegan um, about the South Boulder Rec Center and South Boulder in general. Um, there were some I'm an engineer by trade and so I did a lot of like math to try

[22:01] to come up with numbers for you guys. One of the things that was surprising that I know anecdotally is how many young families are in South Boulder. South Boulder has one of the lowest single family housing costs. It's about $980,000 for a single family home in South Boulder versus over a million in central or north Boulder. Um, of that over 33% according to the census ACS data have 33% of us are in households raising children. uh households raising children have like no time to come to these city council meetings which is why like babies like Noah is 11 months old but um I want him in 10 years to be able to be like the kids who are here and like it's very expensive to live in Boulder so we both work so finding time to come here is hard so just take what I'm saying and think about it like multiplied by all of our friends um also when it comes to South Boulder Rec Center I know there's the argument for East Boulder Rec Center and North Boulder Rec Center But like stroller walking from Darly Avenue to East

[23:02] Boulder is just like not an option. And you know, we can bike him, which we have, but being close is huge and that's a selling point. And we have friends that are now moving instead of choosing the city of Boulder, they're going to Lafayette or Lewisville because they have rec centers and they're seen as more familyfriendly. And I think like part of the cost and why we were willing to pay the surplus of Boulder is because of the infrastructure and how you guys like prioritize that. Um, but it's hard when you're like, "Come, let's be neighbors." And it's just crumbling. So, I think that's something to think about. Um, and also like we're the ones who are trying to have babies to put into the elementary schools for you guys. So, like kind of help us out here. And side note, in the last three seconds, um, the volleyball courts are rough and they have like prickers. >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. >> All right. Now, we have Katie Reid, Martha McFersonson, and Sunonny Vanderstar.

[24:00] Hi, my name is Katie Reid and this is my friend Kira Fling. We are juniors at Fairview High School and we swim on the girls swim and dive team. The girls team at Fairview is an inclusive no cut sport where swimmers of all ability can be part of a healthy athletic team with really supportive coaches. We have swimmers that are state champions and girls who join the team just to stay in shape for other sports and everything in between. It's one of the few sports that is truly inclusive at Fairview. The South Florida Rec Center is our home pool and where we practice every day and host meets. From what I told, this has been the case for decades. Having the pool so close makes participating in swim team possible for anyone. Going to another pool further away would be very difficult for many girls because they don't have a license or they don't have a car or they just can't take the time to drive to and from another pool after school. I've heard from past swimmers that about onethird of the girls quit the team the year that the South Florida Rec Center was closed and the practices

[25:00] were held at East. Having the pool at South Florida Rec Center and being able to practice right after school is a huge reason why the team is so big and why we are so successful every year. We just got second place in the 5A state meet yesterday and it's so special to be part of this team. Swim team for me has been one of the highlights of Fairview High School. It's social, competitive, and a great for my physical and mental health. If the South Boulder Rec Center pool closes, joining the team will be impossible for many girls. And not only will those girls miss out on an experience, but the team will suffer, too. I don't understand why keeping the pool that's been there for 50 years is such a big ask. Please make kids in Boulder a priority. Please keep the f the pool that Fairview High School uses daily from November through May to make our swim teams the best in Boulder. Thank you. Thank you. Now we have Martha McFersonson, Sunny Vanderstar, and James Duncan.

[26:00] Uh, hello. My name is Martha McFersonen and I'm here again, as you probably recognize me, as the voice of outrage with our situation that continues to just devolve as far as the genocide and the silence and the lack of any real response to the catastrophe that just continues to grow. So, I'd like to read a quick thing that I think is relevant to how I feel the situation is being treated by the city council. Um, I sort of feel like you're probably part of the Rachel Maddo, Heather Cox, Richardson listening audience. And they share the same fatal political flaw. They never talk about the genocide in Gaza. It's a conscious decision on their part as not to alienate Zionists and

[27:02] thus grow their following as influencers among liberals. They probably also support the extermination of Palestinians because how can a seriously committed political person remain silent, neutral or indifferent? Their silence is not an element of the fiddling while Rome burns phenomena. It's an element of betrayal, of complicity, of whitewashing, of running interference for Israel, the US and all countries complicit in the genocide. They are only relevant to Zionism and serve its treacheries as handmaidadens by soothing the consciences of Zionists who are sure their bio bloodthirsty support for genocide does not make them psychopaths. Truth matters. Matt once said, "It sure as hell does, even if she, Richardson, and the other crowd of

[28:00] progressive besides Palestine continue to flout it. >> Your your time is up." >> Okay. Now we go to Sunny Vanderstar, James Duncan, and Edward Connelly. >> Good evening, council members. Thank you for your time and your service to our community here in Boulder. My name is Sunny Vanderstar and I have been a resident of Boulder for 30 years. My first real job at 16 was as a lifeguard at my neighborhood pool. I remember sitting in the lifeguard's chair around 5:00 p.m. watching people walk through the gate with the residue of a hard day still lingering on their faces. They'd lay their towel in a chair, peel off their work clothes, and a smile of anticipation would spread across their face. There was a little skip in their step as they made their way to the pool's edge. And then they slipped into the water. In a moment, the day dissolved. Shoulders dropped, foreheads softened. They became

[29:00] weightless, ageless, and free. The pool was a place to unwind, to reflect, to heal. A place to connect with family and friends in an authentic, playful way. So I ask you, is the neighborhood pool a relic of the past, a nostalgic luxury, or is it a wise and essential framework for building a strong, resilient community? Today, the trend is consolidation, large aquatic centers, packed lanes, regional meets, chasing Olympic records. But in a population increasingly struggling with anxiety and disconnection, is spectacle and individual glory what we most need? I speak for those of us with no Olympic aspirations. We simply want to swim and recreate with our neighbors in a place we can walk, bike, or bus to. A place without overwhelming noise and crowds. A place where kids can enjoy their

[30:00] childhood and seniors can enjoy their golden years. The Boulder I know and love values life lived on a human scale at a pace our nervous systems can process. It understands the emotional and environmental wisdom of the 15minute neighborhood. Please invest in a recreation center with a pool for South Boulder. >> Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Oh, >> your your time is up. Your time is up. Thank you. All right. Now we'll go to James Duncan, Edward Connelly, and Katherine Mskin. >> Good evening, council. My name is James Duncan. Thanks for your service. Um, I live here in Boulder, so you are my elected officials. Uh, while this uh building is getting new lighting, I see outside, I want to shed some light on a few things. One is my country, our country is uh is

[31:00] uh issuing grave threats and is about to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, which risks a major regional war among nuclear armed countries that threatens humanity everywhere. The rational protocol is to call on member states of the United Nations to settle disputes by peaceful means, negotiations, mediations, arbitrations, etc. without force or the threat of force. I urge you and everyone to make a statement encouraging a re renewed commitment to diplomatic uh uh means to res to to solve the problems. We are all part of humanity and we have a responsibility to keep the peace. Also, I want to recognize and applaud the courageous and righteous heroine

[32:00] Francesca Albani, who has been t targeted for speaking truth by stating the obvious, right? The international system has allowed a genocide to be committed in Gaza, which means most most uh governments have provided it with political and economic coverage and that the the common enemy is the system that is allowing the genocide. So here's to here's to uh Francesca Albani. Please hold her in place. Power of the people and plan it free. Your time is >> up. Thank your f time is up. Thanks for your testimony. Now we go to Edward Connelly, Katherine Mskin, and Michelle Rodriguez. >> Uh good evening. My name is Ted Connelly. My family and I have been fortunate enough to be a part of the South Boulder Recreation Center community for over 25 years. And since

[33:00] we joined the rec center 25 years ago, the city has followed clear pattern with two other recck centers. North Boulder Recreation Center was renovated roughly 30 years ago after it opened. Today, East Boulder Recreation Center is receiving a substantial investment at about the same point in its life cycle. Unfortunately, South Boulder Recreation Center has not followed that pattern. In 2015, the city stated that the South Boulder Recreation Center was nearing the end of its life. That was 11 years ago. Today, the facility is more than 50 years old, and it has never received a substantial renovation. South Boulder Rec Center is not just a building. It's a cornerstone of the 50inute neighborhood concept, centrally located in a residential community within walking distance of seven schools. It is also a safe haven for Fairview High School in the event of a school shooting. The Fairview swim team practices there and it serves families, seniors, students, and working adults

[34:01] every single day. My family is down there almost every day as well. Even when I'm not working, I will deliver dinner to my 16-year-old son who is a lifeguard. Basically, I'm like Uber Eats and chat with Maddie at the front desk. In all honesty, I'm quite honored to have such a fil facility in our neighborhood. I feel very grateful for each for such a resource in the spirit of community. My request, please commit to investing in South Boulder Recreation Center and commit to preserving the core features of the pool, cardio, and gym. Thank you. >> Thanks. Now we'll go to Katherine Mskin, Michelle Rodriguez, and Tenzia. Is Katherine here? Looks like probably not. So, let's go to Michelle Rodriguez.

[35:07] Hi guys. It's been a long time. I missed y'all. Um, first I wanted to say I I missed the homeless memorial this year. Um, I had a good reason. Um, I wanted to follow up on that. Um, we did have the trial for Zariah Hardy and the loss of life for that young soul in our community. Um, there was a prosecution that garnered 96 years for the person that was convicted. But there were two people that are still amongst us running loose. They were identified by the judges and also by officers um with confessions and evidence. Um but they're still free. So I want to push the city to look into that and f follow up further on that as to why there weren't charges pressed um

[36:00] for the boyfriend and the and the the girl involved. Also, I'd like to say farewell to AMR Ambulance and um rest in peace to Jesus, the young man that lost his life um due to um chemical sedation. I also wanted to say it kind of runs personal and deep for me. I know um you know, I've had a few diagnosises in this last year and they they both relate it right back to my incidents. I've got um now because of chemical sedation and stuff, I've got two issues going on with my heart. I was just told about in the last few weeks. Um AMR ambulance paramedics did that. Um I I'm concerned for this new ambulance company coming in. I I think they they need to know that that's not okay. this this chemical sedation of

[37:01] um unnecessary proportions going on with our our public. Um I I need to follow up with you and I'd like to >> Your time is up, but thank you. >> Thank you. >> Right now we'll go to Tenzy Abiety, Jill Walter, and Evan Rabbitz. Hi, I'm speaking today to address concerns regarding equity and fairness as it relates to the South Boulder Rec Center. As a resident of South Boulder for 15 years, I've seen our community repeatedly being neglected. Parks and Wreck have been aware of the decline of of our facilities since 2015. Yet no action has been taken. During the last council meeting, Mark Wallik suggested that we must compromise. Why are we being asked to accept less than

[38:02] what we currently have? Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of taxpayers to solicit funding from other residents for basic amenities. Projects such as the Flat Irons Golf Course restaurant, the Boulder Reservoir restaurant, and the civic area were funded without requiring community-led fundraising. Why were these new projects allowed to take priority over maintaining existing buildings? While there are claims of declining revenue to justify caution in spending, the budget for East Rack increased from 13 to 53 million. We are now facing service cuts, scaleback facilities, and difficult tradeoffs across the board. If an energy upgrade is this expensive, maybe it's not the best use of our tax dollars. transparency on how funds are being

[39:01] spent. a commitment that some Boulders's facilities not be overlooked while others are expanded and a commitment that some portion of the 2025 CCRS funding be diverted to South Boulder. As a taxpayer who has consistently supported city funding, I'm asking when will South Boulder receive its fair share of investment. We have waited long enough for our community to be prioritized. Your time is up, but thank you. >> All right. Now, we have Jill Walter, Evan Rabbitz, and Leslie Gluststrom. >> Good evening. My name is Jill Walter and I live in South Boulder. I have spent most of my life on the East Coast, New Jersey, New York, and Washington DC. And I am used to paying high taxes, but I am also used to receiving strong public services in return. In DC, my daughter attended full day prek every day at our local public school at no cost. And in

[40:00] DC, both the indoor and outdoor pools were free for DC residents. High taxes equaled services. Since moving to Boulder in 2021, my property taxes have increased significantly three times. In 2022, based on the 21 assessment, my property taxes rose 15%. I get it. We bought our house in 21. The assessment caught up to the market. In 24, my property taxes increased 23.7%. And now in 2026, my taxes increased another 7.8%. As I said, I'm used to high taxes. However, I am not used to paying more and getting less. Mesa Elementary will be closed at the end of the next school year, and now I'm facing the loss of my recreation center. I don't understand this pattern of paying more and getting less. I also don't understand why South Boulder has not seen the same level of investment as North and East. Buildings age. They require maintenance and reinvestment. In the past four years,

[41:00] I've had to replace my spoiler, sewer pipes, appliances, and AC. I maintained my house because that's what responsible ownership requires. Why doesn't the city apply the same standard here to South Boulder Rec Center? South Boulder Rec Center is within spitting distance of the middle school and the high school. It gives kids a safe, structured place to go. It gives families, seniors, all residents a vital community space. Just because this facility was not adequately maintained in the past, that does not mean our community should lose it now. If we are going to continue paying more, we deserve to at least maintain, if not strengthen, the public resources that make Boulder a place that everyone wants to live. Thank you. >> Thank you. Right now we have Evan Rabbitz, Leslie Glustrm, and then Lynn Seagull online. >> Evan Rabbitz, 47year resident. The threatened closure of the rec center shows a poorly run department and city. First, the fact that we voted

[42:03] for dedicated funds that can't be used for the rec center can be fixed by council by putting it on the ballot and asking us to fix the mistake. Please don't waste millions redoing Central Park again just a few years after the last redo. And don't waste more millions on changes at North Boulder Park that no one wants. Why did the parks department spend millions building new restaurants at the reservoir and golf club a few years ago just when many Boulder restaurants were going out of business? Why is council planning on spending 5 million to reduce Iris from four to three lanes supposedly for us cyclists? most of whom prefer the far quieter and less polluted routes on Glenwood and Calmia. On baseline, it's

[43:01] worth at least trying what you're doing because there are no available parallel bike routes. Then there's the 7 million you wasted making the far north Boulder bike lanes more dangerous and the 14 million you've spent sweeping the homeless back and forth from camp to camp with only 140 unsheltered homeless. That's $100,000 each to fruitlessly try to chase them out of town, which is has not worked for at least my 47 years here. Thanks. So, we'll go to Leslie Glstrom and then Lin Seagull. Uh, evening, mayor and council. Thank you for this opportunity. Um really appreciate you listening to the public.

[44:00] Uh my name is Lesie Gluststrom. I do a lot of work on climate change. Been very concerned about bringing the carbon intensity of our electricity down. When I began, our electricity was over 90% fossil fuel, 60 plus% coal, 30 plus% natural gas. And now we're on track for Excel's electricity to be about 90% renewable by the end of this decade. That's the work of hundreds and hundreds of people over a couple of decades. So, um I'm excited about that. But as we know, uh we can't really count on the power to stay on these days. And as they say, the time to fix your roof is when the sun is shining. So, we managed to dodge this last outage. But it's been, you know, about two years since the 2024 power shut off. It's been about five years since the Marshall fire, about 13 years, give or take, since the flood. So, we've had lots of

[45:01] warning. And what the handout I've given you is from New Orleans. It's a model that many of us look to, couple of links at the top you can do, but hurricanes are their thing, as you undoubtedly know, and they began quite a few years ago saying, uh, we can't count on the utility to keep the lights on. So they began to create a community plan around resilience hubs. They started with three. I always think South Boulder, East Boulder, North Boulder, you know the story. Um then they're on their way to 16 with a plan to go to 87. So this handout is just a quick introduction as we think about our climate. I'm all about reducing emissions, but really the important thing now is to make sure that we have ways to keep the power on. You've heard the stories. You've had the emails and as we think about our climate dollars, I think there's a place for this. Thank you. >> Your time's up, but thank you. Our last speaker is Lynn Seagull online.

[46:06] >> Sorry, I'm so patterned to six o'clock. Um, you know, this municipalization thing. Um I agree with the resilience hubs but I have a different plan for the resilience hubs and that's resilience within many um many grids reactive energy and storage and these like a a city is like a micro grid like a like a circuit you know you can do direct energy in different places and you can do it yourself and yes we have to own the power lines, Leslie, because we can't run current without owning the power lines. And look at all the things you've had tonight of people complaining that there's not enough money for this, not enough money for that, and now we're

[47:01] doing Sundance, which the economics impact advisor with the with the chamber says is like COVID or the Marshall fire, an emergency opportunity. Oh my god. I don't think I like emergency opportunities like that. I think what we need is a solid way to take over a corporate entity, especially in these days of Trump and big big massive amounts of money. We can do this. We can do it ourselves with these micro grids, with transactive energy, with the resilience hubs that are embedded in a micro grid system that we have control of. Excel will never ever do that because that's the cheapest way to do it and that's the diversity, equity, inclusion way to do it, right? because

[48:02] we have a diverse we have a real problem, you know, of wealth disparity in Boulder. So, let's do it. Let's do it. >> We need >> Your time is up. Thank you. All right. That was our last speaker. So, thanks everyone for coming out and speaking to us this evening. I want to particularly thank the young people who spoke so eloquently and the other uh kids who are out in the audience. Thanks so much for joining us and being part of your local democracy. and I will turn to city staff for any responses. >> Thank you so much, mayor. A couple of things. Um to um Sam who spoke about the voice and sight program, know that I'll be following up with the team on those concerns and suggestions. Um to Michelle, I'm going to follow up with you directly. Um Leslie, I'll be sharing this information with our uh climate team um as we work on council's new priority for power resiliency. And I will say to the young people who are leaving that I am um really proud to say

[49:01] that democracy seems to be alive and well in our future uh as we see how eloquently they um come to a forum such as this. I want to appreciate all of those uh for coming to talk about South Boulder Rec Center with such love and passion. I'll say again, I know we've talked about this at a recent meeting. Um we we as a city have not made any decisions uh yet about South Boulder Rec Center. you've in fact invested uh in the 2025 budget thanks to council's approval $2 million which I hope you see is a sign that we do not think it's in imminent uh danger of failing right now. Um but we are looking to see how we best serve community at this site. I shared um with uh the public then and I remind council that we will be coming to you uh very soon here to talk about our long-term financial strategy, how that fits into facilities. We have a couple of upcoming meetings. So March 12th, there will be a study session to update on that long-term financial strategy and

[50:00] the 2026 ballot measures. And then we will have another uh study session on April 9th really about city's facilities and the financial landscape update and we will be um specifically also bringing conversation about rec centers at that time. So more conversations are coming up. >> Thanks, Nar Teresa. Anything? >> Nothing from me. Thank you. >> Any questions from council for city staff? Not seeing any questions. Any uh very brief responses to open comment? I got Tara and then Taiisha. >> Oh, Taiisha. Was that a question? >> Okay, we'll go back to questions. >> I wanted to follow up. It was it Michelle about the um new ambulance people and the was it chemical sedation? I just wanted to make a note on that. I didn't hear you. Can Can anybody speak to that or can we get some more information? >> I I will say that we I I'll just start

[51:00] with uh operationally we do have a new ambulance service provider um as of the beginning of the year and I'll perhaps defer to our city attorney um to speak to um that particular case or not. Um I I can obviously disclose what's public um um uh which is uh an allegation of chemical sedation by our former provider. Um the the city um defended that lawsuit and that lawsuit was dismissed. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and then I also just had a question about the uh voice and sight tags if in that investigation we're going to continue to do an online version or if there's any considerations to going in person again as a part of a comment to that. >> I am always candid to say when I don't know the response to a question and I do not know. So I will get back to you

[52:00] council member. >> No worries. Thank you very much. >> Those are my questions. >> Great. We'll go to brief council responses if people have them. to terra. >> Well, I want to make a shout out tonight to Rajie, my granddaughter Shar's friend from the neighborhood. You are awesome tonight. You what a great speech. >> Yeah, >> that's right. And I want to shout out give a shout out to all the kids and all the teens who spoke tonight. It was truly amazing. You guys are great. This was definitely the highlight of my day. This part of right there. Thanks so much. >> Very good. All right. Not seeing any other hand. Oh, there we go. Nicole, >> I just wanted to echo the thanks um to all of uh Matt and my se fellow South Boulder people um who are showing up to advocate. Um really appreciate your passion and I know that our parks and rec staff do as well. Um I I I know that they are so committed to our city and we truly have some of the best um staff people anywhere in the world really. Um and and I know that we're all going to be working together to try to figure out how we uh how how we proceed. So, thanks

[53:00] for coming and thanks for engaging and I hope you'll continue engaging as we enter the fund our future conversations, too. >> Yes, we all understand how deeply important the South Boulder Rec Center is to the South Boulder community. All right, with that, um, thanks again everyone for coming to opening comments. I'm going to gave us into a recess and 30 for the business portion of our meeting.

[65:08] So, let's come on back in. I'll gavvel us back into session and we'll continue with the consent agenda, please. >> Yes, sir. Our consent agenda is item number three on tonight's agenda and it consists of items 3A and 3B. >> Okay. Any uh questions or comments on the consent agenda >> or perhaps a motion? >> I'll move the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Got a motion by Mark and a second by Matt. Um we will vote on that with a roll call, please. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 3A and 3B with council member Wallik. >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tim Wer. >> Yes. >> Council member Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin.

[66:00] >> Yes. >> Mayor Brackett. >> Yes. >> Council member Kaplan. >> Yes. >> Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shuhard. >> Yes. >> And Spear. >> Yes. >> The consent agenda items are hereby approved unanimously. >> Very good. if we can go to our first um public hearing, please. >> All right. Thank you. Our public hearings are item number five on tonight's agenda. 5A is the consideration of the following items related to a petition for an annexation of approximately 24.04 acres of land located at 5399 Kowani Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road, including 55th Street. right away. Our first item under consideration is the motion to adopt resolution 1370 setting forth the findings of facts and conclusions regarding the annexation. Our second item is the consideration of a motion and second reading to adopt ordinance 8734

[67:01] which is annexing to the city of property the approximately 24.04 acres of land. And our last item is the consideration of a motion to change the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map designation. >> That was a lot of words >> and I skipped some. >> Thanks so much, Miss E. Uh, with that, I'm going to send it over to staff and Shannon. I will give you the mic.

[68:11] Do we need any assistance? Okay, thanks for bearing with me there. So, I'm Shannon Mohler with the City of Boulder Planning Department and I'll be taking you through the staff presentation tonight. Would you like our clerk's team to help advance? >> That's possible. >> That may be good. I can't quite seem to get it. >> I don't know if you all can put it up.

[69:02] >> Thank you. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Um, so tonight's proposal is to allow the property historically known as the Hogan Panost property to be annexed into city limits and with a Boulder Valley comprehensive land use designation and a zoning consistent with the future land uses that are designated on this city-owned property. So, we're going to take a look at the required processes, history of the site, some context, summary of the proposal, and some key issues. Um, next slide. So, um, this proposal involves these two review processes. The BBCP land use map

[70:00] change, which can be considered concurrently with an annexation, and it's reviewed under the criteria in appendix B of the BBCP. And the second review process is that annexation and initial zoning. It includes review of state statutes and BBCP policies and the zoning that should be applied. Next slide. Um so here you can see uh the recent history of the planning process to date. So as noted on the previous slide, these items were discussed at the planning board hearing on November 18th of last year. The board did recommend unanimous approval of the annexation initial zoning and also unanimous approval of the land use map change. The annexation and initial zoning uh first reading was approved on consent back in January at city council. So tonight's hearing would result in a final decision on all of these items. Next slide.

[71:00] Um for public notification site was posted and public notification provided per code. Some public comments were received which included concerns about flooding and future development. The written public comments were included in the packet. And at the planning board hearing in November, one community member spoke to share an idea for a botanic garden on the property. Next slide. So, looking at the property history, um, prior to city ownership of the property, there were m multiple development applications that were considered throughout the 2000s and the 2010s. Most recently, in 2017, public hearings were held on a request that was for an annexation, an initial zoning, and a concept plan that would have developed 117 units on the property. planning board recommended denial of that application and following a city council hearing, that application was withdrawn. Following that withdrawal, the city um

[72:00] city council held multiple discussions about the future of the property and ultimately moved forward with city purchase of the property and city council approved ordinance 8349 and it established future uses on the property. Next slide. So, as shown here, the ordinance established the property as being partially for parks and wreck and flood mitigation uses on the western 19 acres that are shown in the blue and partially for open space on the 3 acres east of 55th Street that's shown in the green. The property has been city-owned with these plan uses since 2019, but there's been no updates to the BBCB land use map and city boundaries to reflect these changes. Um, most recently, the city identified the East of Boulder Community Park as a potential location for meeting community parks and wreck needs and identified the adjacent Hogan Pangos property as an area of special

[73:00] opportunity. Annexation would allow for the property to be brought into city jurisdiction and under the city's purview for future land use reviews. Tonight's proposal doesn't include review or approval of any specific plans. It would just allow for future land use reviews to take place on the property. Next slide. So, next we'll look more closely at the sighting context and with the in the city's regulatory framework and a summary of what's proposed tonight. Next slide. Um, so again, the site is just a little southwest of the East Boulder Community Center. It's bisected by 55th Street, and the proposal would include annexation of about 21 acres of city-owned property and about 2 acres of 55th Street rightway. Um, here you can see some photos. The site's been historically used for grazing and agricultural purposes. Next slide. Um the property is almost entirely

[74:01] surrounded by city annex land. Um here you can see some surrounding neighborhoods. Uh Q8 in Meadows to the west, Green Belt Meadows to the south, Peacock Place under development to the southeast, and the community center to the northeast. Next slide. And here you can just see the floodplane map. The site contains some 100 and 500y year flood plane areas and some really small areas of conveyance and high hazard zones. Next slide. As part of this annexation process, a wetlands map is required to establish mapped wetlands regulatory boundaries for properties that are brought into city limits. wetlands mapping and functional evaluations and an ecological report were prepared and the wetlands mapping shown here would be adopted with the annexation ordinance if approved. Um, touching briefly on the ecological report that was prepared and included in the packet. The site was evaluated for

[75:00] the presence of and habitat for wildlife including threatened and endangered species. The report concluded that the portion of the site west of 55th didn't include any areas of critical habitat and didn't find any evidence of threatened or endangered species. Higher quality habitat is present east of 55th and that area will remain a designated open space area managed by OSMP and the site was also examined for prey dogs and found no prairie dogs currently living on the property. Next slide. So, moving to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan here, you can see the property is located in area two of the BBCP, which is the area that's now under county jurisdiction where annexation to the city can be considered. Next slide. The underlying BBCB land use designation is low density residential on the western portion of the property, reflecting the land use that was in

[76:01] place while the property was under private ownership. and it's designated open space acquired in the light green color on the eastern portion on the part of the property that's managed by OSMP. Next slide. So tonight's proposal includes the land use map change range request for the part of the property that's west of 55th to change it from the lowdensity residential in the yellow to the park urban and other land use in the green. This change is proposed to reflect the city's designation of this portion of the property for future flood mitigation and parks and wreck purposes established by ordinance 8349. Next slide. And here you can see the existing zoning in the area. The property is under Boulder County zoning right now in unincorporated Boulder County within the city. the properties near land zone public shown in the purple at the east Boulder Community Center and it's

[77:01] adjacent to residential land to the west and south shown in the yellow and the dark yellow colors. Next slide. So the proposal includes annexation and initial zoning uh district of public shown in the purple on the bulk of the site. The public zoning district allows a limited number of uses by right, such as open space and parks and wck purposes. Additionally, there's a small portion of 55th Street right ofway that's proposed to be annexed south of the city-owned property. This right ofway is proposed to be annexed to close the gap between areas of 55th to the north and the south so that the entirety of 55th in this area would be within city limits. And this is for clarity and maintenance of permitting responsibilities in that ride ofway. A zoning district has to be applied to all land that's annexed. So this area is proposed to be zoned RL2 residential low 2 shown in the dark yellow. Um so it

[78:00] would be consistent with the properties to the south and the east. Uh next slide. So we'll just next move on to taking a quick look at the key issues. Next slide. Um so staff identified these key issues for discussion. Next slide. Um the first one is if the proposed annexation is consistent with state statutes and BBCP policies. Staff reviewed the annexation petition and map for compliance with state statutes such as requirements for contiguity with city limits and other items and found the application is consistent with the statutory annexation requirements. And staff also reviewed the proposal against BBCP policies and found it consistent with several policies including those listed on this slide specific to annexation, comprehensive planning areas, and adapting to limits on physical expansion. Next slide.

[79:00] For key issue two is if the BBCP land use map change to park, urban, and other meets the applicable criteria. Um again this proposal is to update the land use map west of 55th from the lowdensity residential designation shown in yellow to parks urban and other shown in green which is described as public lands used for a variety of active and passive recreational purposes or uses and flood control purposes. Staff found the proposed land use map change consistent with the review criteria and the change consistent with several BBCP policies that support support multi-purpose use of public lands, compatibility of adjacent land uses, urban open lands, flood plane management, and city parks and recreation. Next slide. And key issue three asks if the proposed initial zoning districts of public and residential load two are consistent with the zoning standards in 9218 of the Boulder revised code. The review of the

[80:02] zoning presumes approval of the land use map change we just talked about. The proposed public zoning shown here in the purple would apply to the bulk of the site. This allows for consistency with the zoning um of the adjacent community park just to the north. It's consistent with the underlying BBCP land use designations and supports the goals and policies of the BBCP. And the proposal also includes that small small area of RL2 zoning shown in the dark yellow for the portion of 55th uh south of the city-owned properties. This right ofway is being annexed to close the gap along 55th Street to allow for clarity of maintenance and permitting responsibilities. The properties to the east and south of this area are currently zoned RL2. So this zoning allows for consistency with those adjacent properties. Next slide. So with that, um staff recommends these three motions of approval for approving

[81:02] the proposed annexation, initial zoning, and the land use map change. And I'm happy to take any questions before I turn it over to parks and recck staff who is serving as the applicant team for this application. Thanks so much for the presentation. I appreciate it. Any questions for city staff? Not seeing any. Uh let's go to the applicant for their presentation. >> Great. Thank you. Can you bring the presentation up, please? >> Hi, I'm Tina Dalton and I work for the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department. >> And can you get more to the mic, please? >> A little closer. >> That's better. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of annexation, land use, and initial zoning. Tonight, the parks and recreation department is leading this effort with support and collaboration from OSMP and our flood and utilities departments. As depicted

[82:02] in this 1979 aerial photo, the land was primarily agricultural use, including a lighted rodeo arena, and it even depicts a tennis court on the adjacent proper private property. Next slide, please. Um, as Shann Shannon presented, our point tonight is really following through um with the city council purpose for the property. Annexation is the first step towards the goal of making parks and recreation uses possible. West of 55th Street, the primary user is going to be storm water management and flood control utility. The secondary use is for parks and recreation. East of 55th will continue to be managed by open space and mountain parks. Next slide, please. This is an exciting and rare opportunity to expand parkland to mean to meet

[83:01] community need. This diagram demonstrates the site's adjacency to existing park and open space land. You'll see the adjacency to the East Boulder Community Park on the north and other open space managed property to the east. Next, this is a demonstration of the yearslong process that got us to this point today. As outlined in the 2022 parks and recreation department plan, more and more parkland will need to be developed to keep the lame same level of service that we have today. Given the city's purchase of this land and the intended purposes, annexation facilitates a special opportunity to meet community needs with the expansion of the East Boulder Community Park. Future development is dependent on the approval of the annexation land use and zoning discussed tonight. Next,

[84:01] staff does understand the concerns regarding flood planes, wetlands, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and vegetation. As shown in the ecological pack ecological report in the packet that you have, these topics have been carefully studied. In addition, two engagement windows with community community participation were hosted to better understand their concerns. BPR is concerned with the natural habitat as part of promoting health and well-being of our entire Boulder community. This will be a consideration in any future proposal. No development plans are being submitted as part of this process tonight. Um the process and questions tonight will be focused on annexation, land use and zoning. Design development for a site review would be the next major steps if approved. >> Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. >> Thanks so much for that. Any questions

[85:00] for the applicant? >> Right. Seeing none, appreciate your time and we will go to the public hearing now. We have six people signed up to speak. Everyone will have three minutes. Most people are virtual, but we do have an inerson speaker. So our first three speakers are Donald Burgle and Lynn Seagull virtually and then Katherine Sunval in person. >> Mayor, I did not see Donald online tonight. >> Let's go to Lynn then. >> Hi. Sorry. Um yeah, I I I certainly approve this. Um, you know, our our need to control our open spaces and parks and recreation these days is is getting very high and um it's been a long time coming here and

[86:02] the the flood ramifications I'm not entirely sure of regarding the CU South um process, but I know that it can only improve prove anything regarding that development um as far as managing mother nature so to speak geomorphologically. Um but yeah um it's just it's been a long time coming and yes absolutely um we should have control of this land. Um, and it amazes me looking at the imagery from um, 1979, and you know, I was bringing this up today at the intergovernmental affairs meeting, I think. Um, we bought a new house on Harrison Court in Martin Acres in 1961 and we had a swimming pool right three

[87:02] blocks away at base at um, Table Mesa and Morehead. It's now a condo. In the late 80s, it got turned into condos. So, parks and recreation is really, really important. as you heard tonight from all the people talking about South Boulder Rec Center and um retaining these lands is really part of it and and creating a space in Boulder so that people actually want to come here especially since you've got 10 years of obligation that I do not support Sundance um do not absolutely and you know read my lips as this proceeds this is going to be a disaster for Boulder So this this extraneous intense development is very consequential to the open space that we have because people use this open space

[88:00] and it needs more and more maintenance and operations and we don't have any money for that just like we don't have money for South Bold Rec Center. um you need to plan ahead and so of course I'm approving this project um and free Palestine and free Gaza done. >> Stay on the topic. All right. Thank you. Now we'll go to Katherine Sunval in person and then Laura Gonzalez and Edward Spac online. Katherine Sunball. I live at 5419 Lii Way. >> Can you get into the mic a little more, please? >> Okay. And that's in Green Belt Meadows. And I'm a coordinator for a group that's putting together a proposal for a botanic garden based on the historic use of the area by the

[89:04] Cheyenne So 200 years ago, the Cheyenne um inhabited this area and they had um some sacred stories that have been passed down for the last 200 years and written down in various ways to um describe the Prebble jumping mouse and the leopard frog as sacred. sacred animals to them. So, the proposed um botanic garden would emphasize the Cheyenne story as the foundation of an art um interactive art exhibit at the Botanic Gardens. Funding for the project would come from the descendants of the San

[90:02] Creek Soldiers and they have committed um $7.5 million to fund this project. 5 million to purchase the pro property from the city so that there can be a private public or public private partnership so that the um various um organizations like the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Denver Botanic Gardens, the Denver um zoo and the um the butterfly pavilion could participate in the p in the private side of the um combination of money from the private sector to fund the botanic gardens with

[91:04] the city in the public. And the best outcome for this would be use of the East Boulder Rec Center by the Cheyenne to have um for example um traditional GLA dance classes in the um in the aerobics room. Um storytelling and meditation in the yoga room. Cheyenne Children, >> your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Now we'll go online to Lang Gonzalez, Edward Spac, and our bachelder. Laura, your mic is open.

[92:20] Lara, you need to unmute in order to speak. All right, why don't we come back to her at the end? So, let's go to Edward Speedback. >> Mayor, I do not see Edward online. >> All right. Our bachelder then. >> I also do not see our bachelor online. >> Okay, let's give uh Lara Gonzalez one more try.

[93:07] Laura, you can unmute and speak if you would like. All right, looks like that's not working. So, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Thanks to the folks who spoke to us and come to council for any comments about the applications in front of us. Do you want to start, Matt? >> Start with a motion. >> Go for it. >> All right. Um, I can make a motion to adopt resolution 1370 setting forth findings of fact and conclusions regarding the annexation of approximately 24.04 acres of land generally located at 5399 Kwani Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road and including 55th Street right ofway to the city of Boulder. second. >> Do you want to speak to that, Matt? >> Um, good due diligence and finally

[94:02] making do on I think this property and best use of the land given the restrictions that were placed on it in 2019. So hopefully parks goes forth and does righteous work. >> Very good. Anything to add? >> Just that I'm really excited about this project. Um, when I was on the parks and recck board, we definitely had a der of tennis courts and pickle ball courts and so this is great news. >> Good. Any other hands before we go to a vote? Not seeing any. A roll call, please. Elicia. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for resolution 1370 with Mayor Pro Tim Winer. >> Yes. >> Council member Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. Mayor Brockett, >> yes. >> Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. >> Shuhart, >> yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> And Wallik, >> let's make it unanimous. Yes.

[95:01] >> Resolution 1370 is hereby adopted unanimously. >> Continuing, I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 8734 annexing to the city of Boulder approximately 24.04 04 acres of land generally located at 5399 Kwani Drive and 5697 South Boulder Road and including portions of 55th Street right ofway with an initial zoning classifications of public P and for a portion of right ofway and initial zoning classification of residential low to RL2 as described in chapter 9-5 modular zone system BRC 1981 amending the zoning district map forming a part of said chapter to include the property in the above mentioned zoning districts and setting forth related details. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Can we have a roll call, please, Alicia? >> Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of ordinance 8734 with

[96:00] Council Member Adams. >> Yes. >> Benjamin, >> yes. >> Mayor Brockett, >> yes. >> Council member Kaplan, >> yes. >> Marquis, >> yes. Shoe hard, >> Ryan. >> Okay, >> that's a thumbs up. That's a yes. >> Spear, >> yes. >> Wallik, >> yes. >> And mayor pro Tim Wer, >> yes. >> Ordinance 8735 is hereby adopted unanimously. All right, Charm. I make a motion to change the Valley Comprehensive Plan BBC land use map designation on the 19 acre portion of the property west of 55th Street from lowdensity residential to park, urban, and other PK-O. >> Second roll call, please. Alicia. >> Yes, sir. We'll start the roll call for

[97:00] the modifications to the Boda Valley comprehensive plan land use map with council member Benjamin. >> Yes. >> Mayor Brock. >> Council member Kaplan. >> Yes. >> Marquis. >> Yes. >> Shuard. >> Yes. >> Spear. >> Yes. >> W. Mayor Pro Tim Winer. >> Yes. >> And council member Adams. >> Yes. The change to the Boliv Valley comprehensive plan land use map designations are hereby approved unanimously. >> All right. Fantastic. Well, congratulations to the applicant, which is none other than our own fantastic Boulder Parks and Recck Department. I'll just say that I was on council in 2019 when we purchased this property for flood control and parks purposes. And I'm so glad to see that second part of it coming to fruition and looking forward to seeing these lands serve the recreation needs of our residents for decades to come. So, thanks to the parks team for working on this, looking forward to the next steps.

[98:01] And that brings us to the end of that item. So, let's go to our next public hearing, please. Yes, sir. Our second public hearing on tonight's agenda is item 5B. It is the consideration of a concept plan review and comment request for proposed development of the Boulder Storage site at 4880 and 4898 Pearl Street with four residential buildings containing 281 apartment units and a new 85,000 ft commercial storage building. This is reviewed under case number LUR2025-000035. >> Thank you so much. Uh, council may remember that um you on November uh sought to call this up and so here we are again with the item and I will send it over to Chandler uh to get us started. >> All right. Thank you, Nuria. Um good evening city council members. I'm Chandler Vancock with Planning and Development Services. Um and tonight I will be presenting the concept review for 4880 Pearl Street.

[99:00] Um, just as a reminder, the purpose of concept review is to determine the general development plan for a particular site and to help identify key issues and provide feedback from planning board, council, staff, and the public in advance of a site review submitt. No formal action by council is being requested tonight on the project. Um, in terms of public notification, written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet of the site. Notice was also posted on the property. Um staff has received three written comments from neighboring community members to date, which I believe are also all forwarded to council. Um in terms of location, the approximately 7.1 acre project site is located just east of Foothills Parkway on the south side of Pearl Street and west of 49th Street. The site currently contains a self-s storage business with two large one-story buildings on the northern portion of the site and approximately 32 one-story storage buildings dispersed across the remainder of the site. There are a few trees scattered along the boundary of the site, but otherwise the site is completely paved with no natural features. Adjacent uses are a mix of

[100:00] manufacturing, car sales, auto repair, catering, gyms, and other small businesses, as well as the city-owned municipal service center, uh, formerly known as the city yards adjacent to the site to the east. The southwest corner of Elmont Park sits across the Goose Creek Greenway, which runs along the northern property boundary. There are no existing residential uses within close proximity to the site. The nearest being north of Almont and west of the railroad tracks in Boulder Junction. The BBCP or Boulder Valley Comp plan use designation for the site is general industrial. Um, per the 2020 BBCP, the general industrial land use designation is shown where industries are located or planned. Anticipated uses consist of more intensive manufacturing and may include outdoor storage or warehouses. The site is adjacent to community industrial and general industrial land use designations to the southeast and west respectively with the Goose Creek Greenway and Belmont City Park having a land use designation of park urban and other urban parks provided by the city um include pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and city parks

[101:01] as defined in the parks and recreation master plan. The land use designation for the area across the Grease Creek Greenway to the northwest is mixeduse industrial. uh existing residential is located to the north of this MUI or mixed use industrial area. The project site is located within the boundaries of the East Boulder sub community plan which identifies the future use of this area as general industrial. Adoption of the sub community plan resulted in a Boulder Valley comp plan land use map changes uh for approximately 250 acres that were previously designated as light industrial to mixeduse industrial and mixeduse transit oriented development. These areas are identified in the sub community plan as areas of change and are intended to bring new opportunities for integrating residential, commercial, and retail spaces and places with existing subcommunes and workplaces. Um, the subject property is not located in an area of change. In describing the industrial land use areas outside areas of change, the subcommunity plan places

[102:00] strong emphasis on the value of land designated for general industrial use and specifically calls out the mixeduse industrial land use designation to indicate priority areas for integrating residential uses into industrial neighborhoods while preserving community light and general industrial designations for areas of the city that will continue to offer primarily industrial manufacturing flex and supporting service uses. In terms of zoning, the subject property is zoned IG or industrial general, which is defined in the land use code as general industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses including research and development, manufacturing, service industrial uses, media production, storage, and other intensive employment uses are located. Residential uses and other complimentary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. Adjacent zoning includes industrial service one or IS-1 to the west, IS-2 to the south, IG to the east, and public to the northeast where Valmont Park is located. Residential uses are prohibited in the IS zones. The area to the northwest, Valmont Park West, is subject

[103:01] to the East Boulder form-based code overlay, which was adopted for the areas of change identified in the sub community plan. Um so in terms of zoning in the IG zone, dwelling units may be constructed only on a lot or parcel that meets one or more of the following requirements. Uh one is residential use is consistent with the land use plan or map in an adopted sub community or area plan or at least one sixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel proposed for development is contiguous with the residential use that includes one or more dwelling units, a residential zoning district, or a city or county owned park or open space. This contiguity has to be established for each parcel or lot that is developed. Uh this could be done by creating new contiguity within the same development proposal provided that each IG or IM lot or parcel that is created and developed with residential uses under this code section can independently meet the contiguity requirement when constructed in this location. For the purposes of establishing contiguity, city staff has

[104:00] determined that only Valmont Park is considered a city or county-owned park or open space. The northern channel of Goose Creek is primarily a storm water and flood conveyance channel. While it is under city ownership, the Goose Creek channel is not a designated park or open space per the 2022 parks and recreation master plan and staff therefore finds that it cannot be used to establish contiguity although it does not affect contiguity to Valmont Park to the north where this contiguity exists. Uh this will be discussed in further detail in the following slides. Um, so currently the project site does not have 16 contiguity to Valmont Park or to any existing residential uses. The proposed project would redevelop the existing 7.1 acre site with an arrangement of five buildings containing 281 residential units and an 85,000 foot commercial storage space. Because the site does not currently have one6th contiguity to Belmont Park. This would be accomplished via subdivision of the site into three lots and a phase development approach wherein the first

[105:00] lot would establish contiguity with Fmont City Park. The second lot would establish contiguity with the first lot and the third lot would establish contiguity with the second lot. The applicant has requested that construction of each phase be contingent upon building permit issuance for the previous phase, which would effectively allow for all three phases to be under construction prior to phase one residential units being completed. The residential buildings are organized around a central green spine while the new storage building is along the western property line to provide a buffer to the northwest neighbor. The green spine runs north south through the project providing a residential open space and community gathering as well as connecting the community to Valmont Park and the Goose Creek Greenway. Parking is atgrade and much of it is located inside an existing Excel easement. The open space is shown primarily along the proposed multi-use path and within two central plaza areas located between the residential buildings. The site plan depicts a swimming pool in the southern open space plaza and seating and other amenities along the multi-use path as well. Um, these are just some architectural.

[106:01] Oh, have the slides just not been going? Oh my my goodness. I'm so sorry. Been staring at my notes. I don't know why it's not moving anymore. It's moving on my screen. Um, anyone have tech support? >> Yeah. Um, next slide, please. >> Oh, wow. That must have been really confusing for you all. I'm I'm sorry. There we go. Yes, I can. So, no. Okay. >> Yeah, this was this was the slide where I explained the phasing in the subdivision portion, establishing contiguity between the phases. Um, next slide, please. Uh this is the slide where I described the project and the open space amenities. Next slide please.

[107:01] Uh these are architectural renderings provided by the applicant um which just show the general scale and size of the buildings. Next slide please. Uh here's a massing model provided by the applicant showing the overall scale of the proposed development. Um the buildings are shown up to four stories and would uh require a height modification. The buildings uh with yellow and brown are the residential units and the blue building is the um new proposed storage building. Next slide, please. Um at the public hearing on October 28th, 2025, the planning board heard presentations by staff and the applicant and asked questions following each presentation. Uh one nearby business owner spoke during the public comments portion of the hearing, expressing opposition to the project based on concerns over potential traffic and safety impacts and neighborhood combatibility issues. Uh the five members of planning board in attendance discussed three key issues at the public hearing. Uh one is the proposed concept plan consistent with the BBCP land use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the BBCP particularly those that address the built environment. Two

[108:01] is the project generally consistent with the East Boulder sub community plan? And three does the board have any feedback on the proposed use and conceptual site plan? Next slide please. Uh regarding key issue number one, three board members uh felt that the proposal was not consistent generally with uh Boulder Valley comp plan policies. Two board members uh felt that it might not be consistent, but also that the site was not an objectively unsuitable location for housing. Regarding key issue number two, um in general, the board agreed that the project does not appear to be consistent with the desired land use outside of areas of change designated in the East Boulder sub community plan. And regarding key issue number three, the board agreed that the conditional residential use standards and IG zones are intended to provide incremental development on lots with ones contiguity to existing i.e. occupied or occupiable residential units. Uh but did express a desire for more information on the potential impacts citywide of allowing the Goose Creek Greenway to count city-owned Parker open space for the purpose of establishing contiguity. Uh next slide, please.

[109:02] Um so I will be presenting the same three key issues tonight for your discussion. um whether the concept plan is consistent with Boulder Valley comp plan land use map and goals and policies. Uh is the project generally consistent with the East Boulder sub community plan? And um finally, oops, does city council have feedback on the uh to the applicant on the proposed use and conceptual site plan. Uh next slide, please. So for key issue number one, um key takeaways from this discussion would be whether council finds that this project complies with Boulder Valley comp plan goals and policies that address the built environment. Um and whether there are any other BBCP goals or policies with which council finds the project either consistent or inconsistent. The following considerations Oh, next slide please. The following considerations should be taken into account in the discussion of key issue one. Uh the GI land use designation is the most intensive of the industrial designations in the BBCP and is the most limited in terms of characteristics and

[110:01] anticipated uses. There are only a few locations in the city where this designation exists. Uh the area and in including and immediately surrounding the subject site and then several large parcels along 63rd Street which currently contain an XL power station, the Boulder County Recycling Center, and the Western Disposal Waste Management Facility. Uh policy 5.01 01 of the comp plan specifically calls out the East Boulder industrial area as being appropriate for revitalization efforts that support and enhance the area, minimize displacement of users, and reflect the unique characteristics and amenities of nearby neighborhoods. Next slide, please. In addition, uh policy 2.21 21 of the BBCP includes policy direction for light industrial areas and supports housing and retail infill in appropriate locations while emphasizing the need for analysis to guide appropriate places for housing infill within areas zoned industrial general that minimize the potential mutual impacts of residential and industrial uses in proximity to one another. Light industrial and mixeduse industrial land use designations are the

[111:00] only designations that mention residential uses and their definitions. Next slide, please. Uh because the site is not currently eligible for residential development under IG zoning standards, has a land use designation of general industrial and is surrounded by manufacturing, light industrial, and service uses with residential uses being prohibited in the IS-1 and IS-2 zoned areas to the south and west. Uh the proposal to redevelop the site with 281 residential units is likely unable to demonstrate consistency with relevant BBCP goals and policies. Next slide, please. Uh key issue number two is whether the project is generally consistent with the East Boulder sub community plan. Next slide please. In terms of how consistency with the sub community plan relates to the site review process, uh the site review criteria require that in addition to conformity with BBC policies and land use designation. Uh quote, if the project is subject to an adopted sub community or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project

[112:00] is consistent with the applicable plans and guidelines. unquote. As previously mentioned, the site is designated as general industrial in the sub community plan and is not located within an area of change where community members supported a combined residential and industrial redevelopment. Next slide, please. Uh, as previously mentioned, adoption of the sub community plan resulted in reszoning of nearly 250 acres of IG, ISIS1, and IS-2 areas to mixeduse industrial, a zoning district intended to indicate priority areas for integrating residential units. uh residential uses into industrial neighborhoods while preserving community light and general industrial designations for areas of the city that will continue to offer primarily industrial manufacturing flex and supporting service uses. Next slide, please. In terms of potential impacts of allowing residential on this site, um the surrounding parcels uh which have uh GI land use designation and IG zoning and total about 12 and a half acres are either publicly owned um such as the

[113:01] municipal service center or currently ineligible for residential development. The proposed development would open three adjacent acres to residential. That's uh combined with this site that's about 50% of the total IG area between Pearl Parkway and the Goose Creek Path. Uh the potential impact is that approximately 16% of the total GI land area in the city could become eligible for residential development. Considering the uh East Boulder sub community plan policies and implementation measures related to housing in industrial areas as well as the broader context of the area surrounding the site, staff finds that because most of the site is not currently eligible for residential development under IG zoning standards is not within an EBSP area of change. Sorry, that's East Boulder sub community plan area of change and is surrounded by manufacturing, light, industrial, and service uses that the proposal to redevelop the site with 281 residential units would likely be unable to demonstrate consistency with relevant East Boulder subcommittee plan goals and policies. Um, key issue number three, does sorry, next slide, please. Uh, key

[114:02] issue number three, the city council have feedback for the applicant on the proposed use and conceptual site plan. Next slide, please. Um considerations for this issue um include that the intent of the conditional use standards is to allow for incremental residential development to occur on IG zone parcels with one sixth contiguity to existing i.e. occupied residential units or city-owned parks or open space. Uh only Valmont Park is considered a city or county-owned park or open space and the site does not have6 contiguity in its current form. The proposed phasing would create contiguity between lot one and Belmont Park, but would not establish contiguity to a residential use for lots two and three unless each phase was completed prior to commencement of the subsequent phases. Next slide, please. uh by allowing a site that is currently ineligible for residential development under IG zoning standards to develop a residential project in overlapping phases through the site review and subdivision process. The city may create a scenario where any parcel with any

[115:02] amount of existing contiguity is eligible for residential development simply and only because it is eligible for site review and able to be subdivided to create additional contiguity between lots. Staff's interpretation of the conditional use standards in section 963 is that a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units means an existing occupied or occupiable residential use. Therefore, staff finds that if council determines that a phased approach to residential development on the site is supportable through site review. At a minimum, issuing permits for construction of any buildings in phases two and three should be contingent upon first issuing a certificate of occupancy for one or more dwelling units in the previous phase. Um, in terms of next steps, uh, sorry, next slide, please. In terms of next steps, uh, again, no formal action is requested by council tonight. This is just for, uh, feedback. Following the hearing, the applicant may either proceed with submitting development review applications or may submit a second concept review application. A site review application will require a public hearing and final

[116:01] decision by planning board, which will be subject to call up by city council. Next slide, please. And now I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thanks, Chandler. Questions for city staff? Rob, then Mark, thank you for the presentation. Um, I'm curious. It says um I'm curious about the um contiguity with uh the one or the 16th touching the parkland. Um is it I'm confused with this. It seems like there's a greenway which is not park. There's Pearl Street, which is not park, and then Belmont Park is on the other side. >> Can you explain that? >> Um, yes. The code basically exempts right away from uh barring contiguity. So, if there's a street in between a park and a parcel, it's still considered contiguous. Um, so for the purposes of establishing contiguity, um, we determined that the greenway does not count as park or open space, but

[117:01] essentially as right of way. So it also does not uh block contiguity between the parcel and the park. >> Okay. And then um in theory the first phase needs um uh certificate of occupancy to do the next phase. Is that correct to create that contiguity? >> That's that's staff's interpretation of the code. Yes. >> Okay. Can that I'm literally picturing a uh I always get it wrong. Yatsi the game where you have the >> Tetris. >> No, the where it just keeps going and going. You just have to add on. Can you just keep adding on to that um phase? Can you do phase one, phase two, phase three? I'm not saying this one is, but in theory. And can that just keep going because that one uh first phase touches? >> Yes, essentially. >> Okay, I'll let some other folks ask some questions. Thank you. Um,

[118:01] do we have any inventory of how many existing small businesses would be displaced by this project if it goes through? >> Well, they're they're proposing to essentially rebuild the storage facility, but now in a a multi-story building. So, the only businesses that are currently on the site are the existing storage units. >> Okay. >> Um, so that wouldn't really be displaced. It would be it would be moved >> and I was a little confused. I understand how phases two and three could theoretically establish contiguity, but I thought you had said that phase one does not and and therefore I I assume that would apply to FA that would invalidate phases two and three if phase one cannot establish contiguity. Well, um I'm not sure I understand the question. What they're trying to do is essentially the first lot would be

[119:00] created um in such a configuration and size that it would now have contiguity to Valmont Park. >> But but if they don't have contiguity, then phases two and three cannot proceed on that basis. They they couldn't piggy back off of phase one because phase one lacks contiguity. Is that is that correct? Well, they would so phase one would have contiguity because they would subdivide it to create a lot that had 16 contiguity to Valmont Park. They would then develop that with residential and assuming the residential was completed and became an an occupiable residential use. Then phases two, phase two would have contiguity to that lot. So that would now be eligible for residential development. And then once that was developed with residential, phase three would have contiguity with phase two. >> No, I I understand how that works. I I just maybe I'm misreading the the memo. I thought that phase one lacked contiguity. >> Chandler saying phase one does have con

[120:00] contiguity. >> The existing lot does not have the required contiguity, but if they subdivided um to create the phase one lot, that lot would have contiguity, which is what all they would need to establish. >> I think we answered the question, Brad. >> Okay. >> Is that it? Yeah. >> Okay. Terra's done. I got Nicole and then Matt. >> Yeah. Thanks for the presentation. Um and we'll have a chance to ask the applicant questions too, right? Okay. Yep. Then let me just uh let me know if any of these are not staff questions. Thank you. Um so one of the questions I have is um if you know this project were to move forward, is there any way to structure later approval so that we're preserving um flexibility around industrial use? So, for example, um could we require like a minimum amount of uh industrial floor area um have like a reversion clause so that if a residential use ever ceases, it the the first default would be to go back to um industrial. Is is that anything that >> ever happens or could be done? >> I don't think so. Um because really if

[121:00] if they meet the conditional use standards in 963 um then they're allowed to build residential and there's no kind of additional use requirements in the code. >> Okay. Thank you. Um that was it. >> My question center centers maybe around some legislative intent. I know that skiolder sub community plan was passed with some of us there and there was a certainly discussion about preserving some of our industrial spaces but also having a park there preventing that park from actually being adjacent to any housing was sort of self-defeating from a park and so I'm kind of curious if you can reflect on what was the intent around having any of this around the park was there actual intent to at some point allow housing to be adjacent to this park. >> Um, yes. And there is I mean the whole area to the east of the park was reszoned to MUI um or re sorry the land use designation was changed to MUI and

[122:00] the formbbased code overlay was applied there. So I think the intent was definitely to have residential in the whole area north of Goose Creek and east of the park. Um but this area with the GI land use designation was not included in that and they they determined that it was to be kept as industrial. >> Appreciate it. Thanks. Great. Let's hear from the applicant now. Oh, sorry, Miss Gina. >> Yeah. In this um in this case, if the residential units were to be built, would their presence impact what types of future industrial uses could be used in the surrounding areas? >> No. If there if it was still IG zoning, then any uses that would otherwise be allowed in IG zoning could still operate. >> Okay. So they could have a factory that produce food that might smell or lighting that's on all night and that's that those residents would not have any recourse to try to impact what's happening there. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then the second thing is so let's say all phase all three phases of

[123:00] this let's say this um project starts how soon could their neighbors start transferring their um land into residential so that because it's it would go up to 50% as an opportunity would they have to would the first projects by this applicant need to be complete or would other people start could they start applying and building at the same time. >> I mean, that's that's kind of one of the issues we're hoping um that you all will weigh in on tonight. But the way that we're interpreting the code is that the residential units have to be established. So, essentially, they're they have to either be occupied or occupiable. There has to be a certificate of occupancy. Once that happens, then any adjacent property that has 16 contiguity is immediately eligible to start construction on residential uses. >> Okay? Okay. So that would be true of any of this existing applicant's future buildings or of any other applicant surrounding who also establishes cont established contiguity. >> Correct. >> And then what's the process for subdividing the lot to get to the 16

[124:01] contiguity? Continued contiguity. Yeah. >> Um so that that kind of varies between different laws, but because this lot is of a size that requires site review, um you can't subdivide without going through site review. So in this case, in order for them to subdivide, they also have to go through site review. But for a smaller lot that maybe didn't meet the site review threshold, um they could just go through the subdivision process independent of any other development review process. Okay. And are there cases where if the city puts a high value on developing this into residential that we would try to accelerate some of these processes or is that not part of our process? >> That's not really part of our process. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, Terra's got one and then I got Ryan. >> I'm gonna make it quick. Oh, sorry. Ryan, you want to go first? Ryan, you don't care. Okay. I think I finally understand this contiguity thing. So, right now they have a parcel that is not

[125:01] a sixth contiguity. It's what, like a 12th. And so, if they subdivide it, it'll become a six. Is that the con the workaround that they're trying to do >> or something like that? >> I'm not sure on the exact fraction, but yes. Okay. Yeah. So, it's a workaround check. >> Ryan, >> thank you. Hopefully mic's working. >> Yeah. Great. Thanks. Um, question about the the multi-use path and the context there. Um, it's almost always the case if you're moving along a multi-use path in in Boulder that if there's some kind of a building you're going by, you're facing the back of it. There a few exceptions. Rayback is one where there's actual parking there that's designed to to approach from the path. Um I'm just wondering if um staff's able to share any anything more about discussion about the unique opport well the unusual opportunity um to have a commercial

[126:00] space facing a a multi-use path like this either came up with planning board or does staff have any other I don't know perspective on this as far as I don't know just that this being a kind of an unusual opportunity and that there are things we ought to do to really be thoughtful about. >> Um yeah, I mean that was definitely something that came up at planning board and I think uh several board members um also felt that you know greenways are in effect open space and should be treated as such. Um right now in in the code in the land use code and in our other adopted um policy documents, greenways are not considered parks um or open space. They're generally considered more flood channels. um they tend to be managed by utilities um and engineering. Um so they do provide a transportation network. Um and I think everyone recognizes the value of them, but currently the way the code is written and the way our policy documents are written, they're they're not on the same um they're not considered in the same way that established parks are.

[127:04] >> Okay. Thanks. So I think I'm hearing there's not really a like a policy basis or basis for staff to have an opinion on the you know desiraability of integrating um with the bike path the commercial space with the bike path from the standpoint of transportation access or like transportation related access. >> That's correct. >> Super. Thanks. >> All right. I think that's it for council questions. Let's go to the applicant for a presentation, please. There we go. Hey, I'm Pete Weber. I'm with Coburn. Um, we have been working on this site for a couple years now, trying to find a path. First, I just want to thank everybody, all of you for calling this up. Um, I think this is a complex enough project that it really required your input. So, thanks for listening to us. I think that the fundamental question here outside of all the lovely

[128:02] pieces of code that um Chandler shared is is residential appropriate on this site. I think that's the fundamental question. If we can answer that question in the affirmative, I think there's paths to get there through the code. Next, so the first thing I want to point out is the the residential industrial zones has resulted the idea has resulted in a number of code changes over the years. most recently in 2003 uh 2023 when more density was allowed specifically in the IG zone. So we've been looking for more residential and industrial zones and this is one of those opportunities. Of course each project has to be judged on its own merits. Next. So our site um I think Chandler pointed out well the characteristics of the site. It is a self- storage facility. Um the red bar there shows the uh Excel power lines overhead that prevent any building in that area. And then you can see the adjacency to Goose Creek and Velmont

[129:01] Park. Next, so I want to talk a little bit about this neighborhood. It is a remarkably interesting part of Boulder. Uh it is uh it does contain a lot of uh car service as you can see in this photo here, but there's many other things going on there as well. Next, this is the Parkway Restaurant. I've got a buddy who um visits Boulder regularly and he likes to meet for breakfast and he wants to go to the Parkway. Uh met him there a couple months ago when we were right after we had been seen by planning board and uh and I said, "Dano, what tell me about the Parkway? What is it about Parkway that that you love so much?" And he said, "Well, first of all, they've got great bacon and eggs." Um but then he said, "This is where the people are." And he said, "It's still a little bit weird." And that really struck me as uh as an interesting set of comments about this neighborhood. Next, so there's many other things here as well. There's a gym right next to the parkway. Next,

[130:00] Liberty Puzzles is around the corner. Next, this is a new business. Um it's called High Steepen, I think, is what it is. And I first thought it was a um like a line dancing kind of place. Um I don't think it is. I think it's hard ginger beer. uh which just speaks to the um kind of entrepreneurial nature of of this neighborhood. Remarkably interesting stuff. Next, there's a little coffee shop um right across from our project on 49th Street. I think what they do is they roast their own coffee and largely they deliver it uh by bikes. It's called Coffee Ride next. And then this is Front Range Carbo Bikes just across Cruz Creek from our site. I'm hoping that the coffee place gets their bikes from these guys. I'm not certain of that. Next. So, this neighborhood is super interesting. It's vibrant. It's it's messy. It's uh it's super colorful and getting more and more so. Next, uh Roots Music Project uh just moved in here recently. They sort of grassroots music organization that again speaks to

[131:02] sort of the entrepreneurial nature of this neighborhood. Next, so there's this excitement happening here. These murals are all relatively new. There's just a ton of really interesting, vibrant energy and it's messy. A dumpster. I notic they painted the wall the same color as a dumpster. You know, they're trying to create something in this neighborhood. Next, and this is Vision Quest Brewery. I think this actually is a great um kind of microcosm of what's happening in that neighborhood. If you haven't been there, Vision Quest is a lot like what it says it is that like they have this vision for what beer might be like. And their beers are different every single time I go there. like almost their entire menu and they have a big menu of beers and they are really interesting. They're always trying something new. Sometimes they're really good. Sometimes they're a little weird. Next. So, there's all that energy, but but this is our site. It's a bunch of storage containers. It adds nothing to this neighborhood except

[132:00] for the ability to store your stuff. Next, it's a parking lot on the corner. And you know, no one's riding their bike down Goose Creek to go drop off their stuff at the self- storage place. They're they're driving their cars over there. Next, then this is this is what it is. But, you know, we do have stuff. People have stuff and sometimes they can't fit it in their house or their apartment. They got to put it somewhere. Next. So, our project does have a replacing the self storage as was mentioned um in the northwest corner. So, essentially that that use can stay. It's then surrounded by largely residential uh with a little bit of commercial that's right adjacent to uh Goose Creek. And then there's some lighted uh live work or some kind of maker space that we're trying to create along 49th Street. Next, this is first pass at some architecture. I don't think we're quite there yet to be honest with you, but you can see an attempt to create something a little funky and interesting. Next, and then I'll walk

[133:01] you through the site. So, the vehicular circulation is around the outside next so that we can leave the interior for pedestrians. And we're trying to do here is really connect the whole project back to Goose Creek because Goose Creek is where we can move east and west and get get east to the open space um in west down to the center of town next. So, there's a series of green spaces along that pedestrian connection, and I'm going to walk through walk you through those one by one. Starting at the uh north side next, there's a little plaza that's between these L-shaped buildings. Next, and you can see some of the potential character of that here. Next, then in the middle of the site is sort of mo like a mobility hub, a mini mobility hub where we can have some is where the street does come and kind of connect. So, we can have cars in that area. And this is where the pedestrian peach kind of touches that. So car sharing, ride sharing can happen at that place. Next. And here's what that could look like. Next.

[134:00] And then the couple of other green spaces um further south, a little spot for a pool and then a um kind of wide pedestrian corridor that connects up to the north. Next. And these slides just show the character of what those kind of spaces could be like. Next. Next, and then some precedents that we've been looking at uh for what the architecture might be like. Next, trying to embrace some of that um more industrial look. So, what we heard at Planning Board, I think Chandler did a nice job of explaining um what we heard and there was sort of mixed support uh but not universal. And the things that seemed to be catching up were um the potential contiguity to um Goose Creek. and I want to talk a little bit about that, but then also the um East Boulder sub community plan. So, first I want to talk about um the potential for snowball effect. I think it was Claudia that brought this up. If you can go to the next one,

[135:02] the um the fear here was that by virtue of this project turning to residential, there could be the snowball effect where multiple other projects then have the continuity they would need and they can turn into residential. So, we tried to study that. Our project is in yellow there with our blue bar. Um, and notice the zoning that's around us. I think Chandler mentioned that in the is zones, residential is not allowed. So, we don't have any concern about those turning to residential. And then the city properties in the purple there. So, the only property that really could convert to residential if our project goes residential is the dark yellow, the four parcels that are in the middle there. So, if ours were to turn residential, those could as well. also point out that use review is required for residential industrial zones. So if they chose to try to go after that, they're going to come back to planning board and ultimately you would have the chance to take a look at that as well if you chose to. Next, the 16 contiguity. We would like you to consider to give direction to staff

[136:01] ideally to consider Goose Creek as open space. That would allow a larger portion of our site to have contiguity and it would allow us to do this project in essentially one phase. Next. So, Goose Creek is this remarkable green space, and I'm just going to kind of walk you through our thoughts about it. It it connects ultimately the um green space uh the um wetland to the east in and Boulder Creek all the way back towards towards the center of town. Next, and it is a, as Ryan pointed out, it is a fantastic multi-use corridor. Um it is a great thoroughare to get to and from town. And I actually ride this almost every single day coming to work. And I can, it only takes me a little bit longer to ride my bike than it does to drive my car because I don't have to deal with stop lightss. I get to go through all that on Goose Creek. Next. And then, you know, city chandlers talk about how the city views this, but even their own maps color the same color as Velmont Park. Next. So, this is this is

[137:01] Goose Creek. I'm going to start at the west and move east. These photographs were taken last fall prior to planning board. So this is at the far western end. Next. And just trying to show the qualities of this space, regardless of who controls it and who maintains it. That looks like open space. Next. And this one, I didn't put this on in there for you on purpose, Ryan, but this is one of the buildings that faces Goose Creek and treats Goose Creek like a main street. And it's parking is on the back. Um, and the front is on Goose Creek. It's a project we did several years ago. And we're proposing that this site we're talking about would do the same thing. Next, and here's here's what it's like down by our site. And just a couple more. Next, this is the wetland that's kind of at the end of Goose Creek. And then ultimately next we run into Boulder Creek. So again, a pretty remarkable asset. Next.

[138:01] And then this piece of um this quote here comes directly out of the East Boulders sub community plan where it talks about the potential for Goose Creek to be something more even than it is today. I won't read through this but it talks about how it could be a center of this neighborhood next. And then there is the East Polar sub community plan itself. I think you could read the East Polar sub community plan to support this project and I think you could read it to discourage this project and that's really why we're here to get your opinions on where it falls. Next, the plan talks about um again this is this is the piece of the East Ber plan that talks about Goose Creek. Next, this is the portion that talks about housing and encouraging housing in East Boulder. Next, and then this one has a particularly quote that we think is important to understand. I'm going read it on just the next slide. The plan represents the future vision for the sub community. is not intended in the near term to prevent property

[139:01] owners and users from improving or using the property in a manner that is inconsistent with the underlying zoning. IG does allow residential as long as we go through a use review, which is the process that we're proposing to do next. So, I'm going to hand it over to Justin uh Lunan. He's from the ownership team. Just want to say a few more things and then we'll wrap up. Thanks, Thank you, Peter. I'm Justin Lugen with DBC Companies. Um, we currently own the Pearl Storage facility. Couple things to point out and appreciate your all's comments. Uh, you know, currently this is our facility. We purchased this at the end of 2022 and you know we we talked to the city prior to purch purchasing the property to kind of understand um the East Boulder sub community plan,

[140:02] the new zoning code. Um obviously the demand for the need for additional housing in Boulder. Um it seemed obvious to us that this was not the highest and best use. Um, as a proud owner of over three million square feet of commercial real estate, this is by far the ugliest project I've ever owned and hopefully will ever own in our history. So, you guys talked a little bit about, you know, displacing business. We currently own the storage facility. We have one employee on site. That's it. Um, so when you talk about, you know, displacing industrial uses, employees, there isn't a whole lot there. There's a ton of storage in Boulder and we think this can be something much greater than what's currently there today. So, I just I I appreciate you guys calling this up. We as current owners truly appreciate you

[141:00] didn't have to do that. We, you know, appreciate the time tonight and um I know it's getting late so we'll try to make this quick, but a couple points I want to um hit on. One, Traml Crow is going to be the developer. We'll sell the property to them. Um they're going to create 280 units of much needed residential in this community, right? Um you need housing for teachers, police, firefighters. Your median home price is a million dollars. I mean, you guys need attainable housing in this city. Um, as part of this development, Traml is going to pay a $13 million cash inlue contribution towards the affordable housing fund. That is a huge win for affordable housing in the city. Um, currently based on our current use, we pay about $184,000 in annual taxes. with the redevelopment that Tremble is going to do, those will increase to approximately 900,000 a year in just property tax alone and then uh 1.6

[142:03] million in sales and use taxes annually. So think about the benefit of schools, city uh safety, police, fire again. Um and then I you Pete mentioned this, but we are not eliminating the industrial use here. We're creating a state-of-the-art fourstory storage facility. So, we will literally replace every single unit that is on the property, but we're also going to give you additional housing units. Um, to, you know, I know everybody looks at this as industrial and if you want this to be industrial today, to build a new industrial project, this would cost $400 a square foot. That is a huge number that does not pencil. If we were to try to develop an industrial project at $400 a foot, we would have to get $28 a square foot net rents. The absolute highest industrial

[143:02] rents in Boulder right now are I'll say on average about $14. The high water mark is 17. We would have to get essentially double that to justify penciling a true industrial project here. So, >> and I'll just note I believe you're a bit over your a lot of time, so if you could maybe wrap up soon. >> I'm sorry. Yep. Yeah. Yep. Absolutely. Um, and then I guess just the last one. You know, you talk about area change. We're not um directly in an area of change. That doesn't mean we're um specifically in an area of no change. So, I hope you guys will consider that. Again, thank you very much for hearing us out and hopefully you'll consider us. >> Thanks. All right. Thanks very much. Any questions for the applicant? >> Okay. >> So, I'm a blunt person, so I'm going to just be myself if that's okay. Okay. So,

[144:00] as a commercial real estate guy, that's what you are, right? Yes. When you change an area from a very like nominal uninteresting storage space to residential, you're doing it because you want to make more money because it will be worth more. So, I mean, I'm not saying that that's not a that's a bad thing, but it's not exactly a polyiana type of situation, is it? I would say based on the need for housing in Boulder, it's a very positive for everybody. >> Okay, that's fair if if that's the kind of housing it we want and where we want it. But that's I'll say for comments. So, isn't it true though that the the price of land is going to go up once we start putting in residential over there? >> You could speculate that, but >> No, you speculate it. Seriously, I don't mean it in a bad way. Yeah, I I couldn't

[145:00] answer that. And keep in mind, we're the current owner. We're not the developer. >> I know. >> Okay, that's fair. >> Nicole. Okay, Martina. >> Thanks for the presentation. >> Nicole, >> she was pointing. Go ahead. >> Okay. I was just noting that there were other people down there. Um, so, um, you mentioned that you would basically keep the amount of storage the same as as what you have now. So, I think 85,000 square feet is about what you have now for storage space there. Is that right? >> We have So, keep in mind we're talking about 7 acres that goes four stories up. And we have today roughly 900 units. So you'll make it more efficient, but when you go vertical, you'll roughly get the same number of units. Correct. >> Yep. Yep. So I think the pack has said like 85,000 square feet is is what would the new one would? And my question is

[146:00] just that's basically what you have now. Yes. >> Is that right? Okay. So capacity isn't really changing. Okay. Um and then um I was also wondering so um and I so I apologize I am not remembering your name. First speaker. So, um, you know, you mentioned, uh, the hope that the people who live here would be people who work in the industrial area, creatives, makers. Um, but then, um, Pete, you mentioned, uh, teachers, police, others, um, of that nature working here. Um, and I'm just wondering what what are you envisioning for who's going to, um, live here because that you mentioned the idea of live workspaces for creatives um, but that's different from, um, like teachers or or or other folks like that. Well, there's enough room there for a lot of different types of people. Um, and that would be actually my hope that it is quite a eclectic mix, not unlike everything else that's happening in that neighborhood. So, I don't think we get to dictate who lives there. But I think we, as an architect, I would be looking to design a place that would appeal to a lot of

[147:01] different types of people. But but in this location, do something that's unique to this location, which I think is the funkiness and the imperfectness, the lack of preciousness, which when you're making things and you're doing those kinds of things, preciousness doesn't really work very well. That's maybe for other parts of town. So, there's an opportunity to do something that's that's different and sets this apart. And maybe that draws a type of person that might prefer that. >> Thank you. Um and historically, right, this this the way that we live now with um people living far away from the places that they work, this is very different from from how cities have traditionally been um historically um where they've integrated living and working spaces much better, especially for um trades people, for creatives um before we we started doing all the zoning and the suburbanization that separated them. and your concept really seems to lean into that tradition with the idea of these live work um units and

[148:00] maker spaces. Um and I think that that's that's what I'm trying to get at is sort of how how much of this space is is meant to be that space for creatives versus um space for others who who may be able to find um uh say an an apartment or home closer to the school that they teach at or something like that. >> Yeah, I don't I don't think we have a firm answer for that yet. The plan that we submitted does have a yellow yellow yellow bar which we called live work. The city's definition of live work is pretty problematic. Um, and if you gave us some positive feedback, I think we would ask Chandler and staff to help us think about what this could be and what use category it might fit in and whether or not there needs to be a new one or because I it's imperfect. We're not getting the work the way that it's defined because it's not a very good definition. So, but the the dream would be that there are people living there and working there and ideally kind of making things in the same place. >> Great. >> And what how we get there, I'm not sure

[149:01] yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Mark Tina Rob, >> um other than the cash and loo payment, uh is there going to be anything that is a restraint on rent prices? >> No. I think we'll let Daniel answer that one. >> So, this will be market rate housing. >> It'll be market rate housing. Yes. I'm Daniel Pinger with Treml Crow Residential. We would be the developer on this. >> And did you say that Treml Crow was going to buy the property from you? That >> Oh, we would be intending to purchase the property. Yes. >> Okay. >> From DPC. >> Uh then I assume that there is a proform out there that uh uh indicates what those rentals are going to look like. Right now there's just a dream. I mean, we're trying to find out if this site's even feasible. So, we're probably best case scenario if everything goes the way we hope. Two and a half years away from

[150:01] even starting construction. So, right now things are pretty uh pretty in flux. >> Okay. So, you're saying you have no idea what what these things could rent for? >> Oh gosh. I mean, I can tell you what city municipal fees will be in two years. I mean, I could tell you what rents are in the subm market today, but yeah, we don't have uh I mean, we don't even know if we can do residential at this project. >> Okay, thank you very much, >> Tina. >> Yeah, I am just trying to um I have one clarification. uh it was mentioned that the area after this is developed that could also be developed through contiguity was in fact very small but I had understood from staff that it was a bit larger and I'm just trying to understand how much industrial we might lose to residential through the contiguity piece >> and I was going to ask this question as well can we bring that slide back up Pete that >> sure if we can or staff >> then I should note that we did this late in the game haven't had a chance to run this by Chandler so he hasn't seen this yet So, um I can try to explain my

[151:01] thoughts. Anyway, it's going to be forward about halfway through >> a little further. >> It was earlier. So, do you mind if I I think the only the only thing missing from the map is the um translucent gray parcels on the other side of um 49th Street would also become eligible because they're not uh because the right of way doesn't affect contiguity. >> I agree. But I measured each one of those and none of them meet the 16th requirement because of their perimeter and their long nature. So, okay. The one that the northernmost one is very close and we don't have a survey so I was just measuring off the city's website. That one's very close. >> Although if they use the technique that you're proposing with this property, they they could do it. >> Sorry, say that again. >> So if they're using if they use the

[152:00] methodology that you all are proposing for this project, they could like if they subdivided and then got the >> Yes, that's true. >> And what about what is the the dark purple? What why are those not eligible? >> That is also zoned um IG but is city owned. >> Okay. So because well the city wouldn't put residential there but zoning wise they could but just >> zoning. So if the city wanted to convert that to housing they could and then that could create its own cascade. >> Thanks for clarifying. Tina, did that answer your question? >> Yes. So So then it would just cascade up anywhere gray would ultimately be eligible just through cascading across, right? Or Yeah, the um just to be clear, the area that is west of Belamont Park, that's also gray on the north side of Goose Creek, that has the land use has already been changed on that one. Um so that one, if folks wanted to reszone, they

[153:00] could actually reszone. Chan was talking about this yesterday. Um or it is IG and it could be residential by virtue of its contiguity with Vmont Park. So, we're just so assuming that that's already could happen. Um, we just looked at the area south of Goose Creek. >> Okay. Thanks. >> I just want to make sure this is proper. Can I give um like my opinion how this could work out and this what it's all about? >> Not yet. >> I'm gonna hold on. Any questions? >> All right, no more questions for the applicant. Thanks for your presentation and answers. So, we will now go to the public hearing. We've got two people signed up to speak. Both of them will get three minutes. They are Lynn Seagull and Laura Gonzalez. >> Yeah, Lynn. Um there's a

[154:00] um heard one guy say 280 residential. That's not correct. It's 218 to my understanding. Um let's see. It sounds like a leaprogging thing could be going on here. Like if they reszone that place across the other side of Goose Creek Parkway, then connect it to Mel Park and then we can squeeze in this residential. And what is this residential for? If we've got weather vein, the example, the horrible of example of an islanded crawl. I remember years ago going through P planning board uh anchored on a brew pub, no grocery store in sight. You know, this is the same thing. I couldn't believe it. How did I miss this in

[155:00] planning board? Yes, it somehow didn't go through there because I generally go to planning board. But um this is this is really I mean Chandler it seemed like Chandler was making the case for us to not accept this project which is very interesting because generally staff is pushing these projects. Um so I'm kind of miffed. Um, it seems that this is another way that we're just, you know, squeezing more residential when we can't do our South Boulder Rec Center. And this is on the topic, Erin. It really is. You know, this is why Gau is on the topic. Climate change is on is behind every >> Please address the specific item in front of us. >> The specifics of this for climate change are more people. We do not need more people until we can manage the people

[156:00] that we have. We aren't managing them very well. They want their South Boulder Rec Center. And let's see what's the formbbased code wasn't discussed on this. I guess it's not at that point yet, but all we need in Boulder is more pilgrims um you know, more um Boulder Junctions, you know, with no place to go cuz at least Boulder Junction can go to the grocery store nearby there. But, you know, we've got National Geographic. It's related, Aaron, because it's like this. It's stuck out there in the middle of nowhere with no nothing to support the people and you know yes it might have a nice greenway going back and forth there but a greenway it's not a grocery store and you know the loss of these um businesses in this area that >> up but thank you for your testimony. Our

[157:02] final speaker is Lara Gonzalez. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. Uh, first of all, I want to start with like the council members not laughing at the people that are coming here. We're paying our taxes so you guys can listen to us. Also, there's an echo. Can you fix that? I pay enough taxes for you guys to have good audio. Hello. Anyway, so please don't be laughing at your constituents that pay taxes and live here is very disrespectful. Your job is to listen to us. Your job is to listen to us. all of us that pay taxes. Which brings me to the issue of development. $50 million. Please stop developing. Why don't we have Aaron Brockett disperse how many vacant offices you have? I want to know how each city council member, what property do you own? And if you make business out of it, I want to know how many are

[158:01] empty. And we need to pass a vacancy tax because we have an issue with house. Why are we not >> Please address the item in front of us. This is about this issue, Erin. Like, please stop the ignorance. This is about this issue. This is about stopping development when we don't need more development. We have so many vacant stuff. Like you, Erin, you own office buildings that are vacant. Why are house still living in the streets? So, I am demanding that every city council member discloses how much property you own and which one's empty. >> Address this >> warning of what I'm talking about. The development. stop developing. We don't need more development. This is going to impact climate change. There's an echoite going in Gaza that you continue paying for. This United States is an illegal settler colony just as Israel and you guys continue >> this public hearing item. >> All right. So, that wraps up the public hearing. So, that's going to bring us back to council. Um, Chandler, can we

[159:00] get the key issues up on the screen, please? So my uh keep in mind that um >> we're not making a decision tonight. We're not voting on anything. Instead, we're getting feedback. We are giving feedback. So I'm going to address I'm going to ask us to speak to each key issue in turn. Um keep in mind, not all of us have to say anything about each key issue, but we'll go one by one through those three and get council's comments for the applicant. And is there a point where I could ask um council members who were here during that process when they talked about general industrial just to weigh in on what the intent was with that? >> Sure. >> Thanks. >> Do you want to just ask that now? >> I would like to probably ask you. >> Do you mean about the East Boulder subcommittee plan? just to provide some more context about what the values were there and what the intentions were, why there was the contiguity loophole um but also why there was this industrial general use.

[160:00] >> I could take a first crack at that. Um so I think in the um East Boulder sub community plan process I think we talked a lot about the need to both have areas of change so opportunities for redevelopment um into denser housing but also to preserve industrial in that part of town so as to not eliminate all of it. And so I think there was an attempt to strike a careful balance between the areas of change um and areas that were not slated for change um with the idea that we would still have a good quantity of industrial in this part of town for the future. The 16 contiguity thing that uh those rules predate the East Boulder sub community plan. They've been around for a long time. So I don't think we really tackled those as part of the um sub community plan. Those just remain from before. >> Chandler, did I get anything wrong? Um, I believe so. We also have Kathleen King on the line. Um, I don't know if Kathleen has anything to say. She's was also heavily involved in the East Ber sub community. >> I would certainly value Kathleen's insights and memories on this >> and I could turn to other council

[161:00] members who are there too. >> Well, so after Kathleen. >> Sure. Hi, Kathleen King. Uh, principal city planner. Um, and I worked on the Eastbuilder project which started I think we started in 2019. Um, and I I think Aaron did a the mayor did a great job summarizing um kind of the community work and feedback around wanting to be specific about preserving certain areas for industrial uses. Um, and part of that discussion and conversation was a recognition that once industrial land is um, uh, lost or displaced in communities, it's a really hard use to put back. Um, so being really specific about um

[162:00] identifying areas where we wanted to see uh industrial use and and that type of use into the future and areas where um an evolution of uh more industrial areas that could include residential and commercial spaces would be supported and and that's where those areas of change are. Thanks. And well, does any do any other council members want to weigh in on what they remember with that, Nicole? >> Yeah, I won't um add to what what's already been said. Um but I I will admit that um when we were having this discussion, I never thought about a case like this where we would be um basically preserving the industrial use that's there, right, in a a kind of a way that then opens up the possibility of other things. So, so I I would just add that this this kind of project really I I had never envisioned that we might do something like this.

[163:00] >> And then >> Yep. I remember that um Lauren, Council Member Folkitz and I were I don't know if any of you were as concerned, but we were really worried about losing the industrial um sections when the East Boulder sub community plan came out. That it was our one worry. your followup. >> And I was just going to ask also is when you were working with the different owners of industrial um property out there, was there a hope to eventually be able to convert it into residential or most people looking to maintain the industrial nature of the area? >> I I might look to Kathleen. We did a lot of outreach to property owners, but I couldn't summarize it myself. Kathleen, do you do you want to weigh in on that? Yeah, I think um there was probably um mix of concern and um support. So, a

[164:00] lot of the businesses that are in that area um rent their space and so there was concern about how um that type of evolution would impact rents or the availability of their space. Um but yeah, I think um on the with property owners, not business owners, um a mixed a mix of support um across the sub community. >> Did Nicole, you had something else? was just kind of following up on um Tara's point, but some of those discussions we were having particularly um with former council member Fulkurtz was uh really around the creative space that was there and the artist space and the um the Mark I remember you talking about the auto repair kinds of places, right? Um these these were the kinds of places that that we were talking about the sort of smaller ones less about the like a giant manufacturing facility or something >> or storage even.

[165:01] >> So thanks for that T. I think that covers maybe some of the legislative intent around the East Boulder sub community plan as we experienced it. So I'm going to actually go back on what I said before. I'm going to ask us to consider key issues one and two at the same time. So key issue number one is is the proposed concept plan consistent with the BBCP land use map and on balance with the goals and policies of the BBCP particularly those that address the built environment. And then key issue number two is consistency with the East Boulder sub community plan. >> Is it consistent with the East Boulder sub community plan? So maybe if people can target those remarks to those two areas for our first go round. Who would like to get us started? >> Tara and then Rob. >> I mean I can I can get us started just because um I don't feel well I watched the planning board. I listened to the planning board twice. This once wasn't enough. So I decided I'd listen to the whole thing again. Um, and I think it's not consistent with the um BVCP because

[166:00] we in the BBCP we talk about saving um our general industrial land use and I really feel strongly about that and I can't see we we were worried then that things were going to just fall. I I know like I talk about unintended consequences, you all laugh, but I can't imagine that it's not going to happen because you just make more money on residential and that's no fault of uh that's no fault of the owners or Coburn or anything. It's just just the way it is and what we've always been worried about. So I don't think it is consistent in that way and I appreciate staff's presentation as well bringing that out. And for key issue two, it is not an area of change. I know that the I think it was the applicant might have said, well, it's not not an area of change, but it is not an area of change. Um, and we have a lot of areas of change. I know that we have uh we talked about maybe four years ago how that far

[167:01] pharmaceutical company remember it's like it's going all night and there's lights and there's noise and we do get letters right now complaining about that. by the way, that it's too noisy. And with every residential that that gets too close to industrial, it it it's hard to live. It's hard for the two to live together closely. And so I want to protect the people and I want to protect the industrial. Um, and I want and I want us to do what the East Boulder sub community plan asks us to do, and that is to find uh what is the phrase that you use? The thread the needle. thread the needle between um industrial and residential that they would live happily together. So >> Rob and then Mark, >> I I agree with what Tara said. It just it feels like that place um if there was some kind of change, it would integrate arts, trades, diversity of services so

[168:00] that we're not going out to other municipalities and we do have that. And it just feels like it opens up the door to even more change because if my notes are correct, um 50% of general industrial generals in that area and if uh this happens then 60% of all general industrial could become eligible. So it feels like there's maybe an unintended consequence with this project, but I'll wait for three for my feedback. >> Um I I recall some of these debates and conversations and our concern with preserving um certainly light industrial and I think it is simply an axiom that if you permit the residential to start every adjoining property owner is going to want to take advantage of this. every

[169:02] business who's a tenant is going to be opposed to this. Um, and the issue for us is do we want that to have that vibrant um sort of light industrial uh neighborhood? Um, I know for me I I don't really relish going to Fort Collins to get my shoes fixed and and that's kind of what you're looking at if you get rid of all of your light industrial. But if if the economics are such that um that is the the choice presented to property owners, they will all choose residential because it is a much more profitable endeavor. And so we have to decide what our value is in terms of maintaining our light industrial neighborhoods and whether that's a a benefit to the community. Um and in an environment where it's simply going to be another project of market rate rentals. Um I'm a little

[170:00] hardpressed to see that as the best outcome. So thank you >> Nicole. Um, so the East Boulder sub community plan uh obviously represents years of community engagement and I don't want to um see a project that would undermine that work. Um, at the same time I see a lot of flexibility and creativity here. Um, live workspaces are something that I hear a lot of creatives and um, trades people interested in. It's really hard to be a local maker or start your own creative business when you can hardly afford rent for a room in a house, let alone rent on um, an industrial space. So that type of almost enhanced industrial use u that attracts more builders, artists and other creatives who need industrial space um to make things into this area feels very consistent to me uh with the Eastbuilder sub community plan. Um residential for the sake of residential doesn't um doesn't seem to um meet uh address these key issues. Um,

[171:01] but in my opinion, to be consistent uh with the East Boulder sub community plan and the Boulder Valley comp plan, any housing would really need to enhance the industrial uh character here. Um, while also delivering uh some of the ecological and livability benefits that we talk about in our comprehensive plan. Um, and I do see potential for that in this concept. Um, and uh just a side issue about the contiguity thing that seems to seem to be getting hung up here a little bit on that. Um, in my opinion, uh, I would like to see us consider our coniguity policy as a separate issue at some point, but I hesitate to let it stifle, um, potentially creative uses on, uh, individual properties. >> I can uh, call on myself and go next. Um, Nicole, that was well said. I thought the um, because I I thought staff's analysis about whether it complied with the BBCP and the East sub community plan was well done. I think in particular with the sub community plan that this is not what we were envisioning for this um part of town. So

[172:01] we did pick some really large swaths of East Boulder for dramat areas of dramatic change and with really large zoning changes in those um including points just a little bit to the north in that Valmont Park West section. um and did not designate this for that kind of large-scale change. Um but I do see this proposal as being a pretty large scale change. Um so it I and it I don't think it does strike that balance in terms of the preservation of industrial versus um areas of change. That being said, that storage area, like you said, um not not in great shape and not the highest and best use of that property. So, um I would certainly be interested in some kind of a proposal that did something interesting here and which is where I think Nicole said some good and positive things like I think about um another Coburn project steel yards that has some really interesting combinations of residential and light industrial spaces in there um in terms of live work and

[173:00] other things like that. So to your point there is okay it wasn't designated an area of change is it an area of no change? Well, no. There there's some change that could be contemplated here, but I think it would need to be something that kind of was more deeply integrated into that industrial character of what's there right now. Um, I also do think that the attempt to do the simultaneous subdivision and um develop the whole parcel, all three parcels all at once um is not really what's contemplated by our code. So, I think that kind of an approach I don't think is probably going to be an appropriate one. So, I I would consider you all to think about something pretty different for this site. Um, I think there's something interesting that you could do. Um, but I think it would need to respect the intent to um still have industrial more industrial uses in that area. Matt, >> um, for one, I actually really like the comments that I've already heard. You know, this project coming at the very front end of redeveloping East Boulder sub community plan. I think the timing

[174:01] of this maybe changes. If we had already built out everything else and all the residential had been gobbled up in the way that it maybe would and we've maxed and then this project came along, I might have a different assessment of it because we've seen how that's evaluated. But given this this would be first out the gate, I think that's maybe there's maybe some reticence of of the commitment to housing here in this instance. So I think the timing is a little off given where we are in the East Boulder sub community plan. Um I I'm I'm I'm leaning towards some of Aerin's comments on this. I think if you were to lean more into the industrial, which the presentation did a great job of talking about the funkiness of it and I think leaning into that and and and pulling back on the on the intensity of the residential and leaning more into the industrial, more into the work, I think more on balance of those two things might I think conceptually um blend in that community I think a little bit more especially given that it's the first out the gate and I think that might be what's working against you is it's an it would be brand new. it's the first out the gate. That rest of the area hasn't really been developed in the

[175:00] larger vision and it might be evaluated a little differently if there's a lot more housing in that area. So I think there's a timing challenge that's there. So I think on balance of industrial to residential could use a little bit of retweaking to kind of fit with where that concept resides. I did just do a 67 for all of those watching. Hopefully none of the teenagers are actually watching. >> Anybody else on this one? uh I'm just seeing if anybody else wants to give input on issues one and two and I'm not seeing any other hand. Oh, there we go. Taisha >> and I think I'm the only one who haven't spoke but I don't think there's much more that needs to be said. I really concur with my colleagues on this. um there is so little um light industrial and I agree with Mark's comments around as soon as residential starts to build noise, sound, smell will continue to be will be an issue that will be prioritized and potentially push this out. Um although again I do love the

[176:01] idea of the live work and it did look like there was a little sliver of that. I think that there's an opportunity. I'm also curious how does that dovetail to the work that's happening with Bim Mocha moving um and some of the artwork you artist um residential housing there and then of course Sundance I think there's definitely some some light industrial opportunities um and in addition to that as our city is um working hard to keep um our federal labs and the work that we do in science and tech. I think it's in our best interest to continue to preserve our light industrial as an opportunity to diversify um the types of businesses and the types of work. Um and I know right now uh we're saying things like well residential is more you can make more money that's today but I don't know if that's going to be the case 10 15 years down the line. Actually light industrial might make a comeback. Who knows? Um, but the trajectory for for residential

[177:00] is not looking great like right now for a variety of different reasons and I think it's in our best interest to keep this property as an asset. Thank you. As an irreplaceable asset. Thank you. >> Thanks. All right. Can we get um key issue number three up on the screen then please? Next slide. Does city council have feedback for the applicant on the proposed use and conceptual site plan beyond what we've already given? Rob, >> thanks. I I liked when um you showed all the neighborhoods and the funkiness of um Gateway and some of those um really cool places there. I know that area intimately and I really think it gives Boulder a lot of character. If you could integrate that into yours, that would make me personally a little more apt to

[178:02] uh look at it favorably. But specifically, when I look at your numbers, out of um the 281 units, eight are live work. 52 are studios and 121 are onebedrooms. Those aren't going to capture firefighters and police and and staff. It's a different kind of housing that we're really looking for. So, if you could flip those numbers and if the majority was like 70% live work where people could actually work and you could have ventilation systems and you could do art and and create exactly what you showed us in the area that um the residents could go to. If you created that and the residents could live there, I would be much more excited about the project. Uh yeah, I echo a lot of what my

[179:01] colleagues are saying and um and and I also agree that the the storage unit lot use is not a great use of space and and could see changing that somehow. Um, the other thing I I hope that we do as a council is really think about this one six contiguity rule because it's it's an interesting message where we have a way for um property owners in the area to go to residential but in this case it sort of works and it kind of doesn't and then we don't really want residential. So I think if we are going to have these mechanisms we need to support that use as well or get more clarity um and maybe we can do that through this comp plan process. So, it's just it's a little um it's it's interesting that we haven't it's like we haven't exactly made up our minds. I guess in some ways we're giving that feedback now, but I hope that we can clean that up so we're not sending mixed messages to people who are purchasing properties and wondering if they're going to meet this one six contiguity criteria and if they did they

[180:01] could just do residential, but if they don't, we have to really talk about it and um so I' I'd love to get clarity on that. Um, but I agree uh particularly with what Erin had to say and um but I I have some concerns about changing the fundamental core of the feel of this neighborhood and especially when you talk about things like Liberty Puzzles which are a brand a Boulder brand and Vision Quest and they are here because of the space that was provided to them and I don't want to lose that kind of new business. >> Nicole and Tara. >> Yeah. Um, I just had a couple uh more things. I um I I just want to say thank you for bringing kind of a really creative idea um here. I I love the idea of consolidating storage use this way and truly never envisioned the idea that that we might be able to consolidate and then do more. Um but for me, as I mentioned before, the more really does need to be about enhancing the industrial nature of this area. um that

[181:00] that's really critical to me um uh to to to be aligned with um with what our community worked really hard to plan for this area. Um and also just kind of a side comment, I am not opposed to thinking about Goose Creek as open space. Um it already feels that way to me whenever I'm uh walking or writing in that area. So just wanted to note that. And I actually want to apologize to the applicant and the developer. Hello people. I'm apologizing to you. I was too blunt and I feel bad about that. But I do want to say that I that's what happens when you're from New York. I don't know what to tell you. But I do appreciate what Nicole said and I and actually what all my colleagues said and I hope that together everything that we've said as a body, you know, meshes for you and gives you some sort of a vision going forward. And um so I hope you accept my apology for being too blunt. Ryan,

[182:00] >> thanks. I just have uh one or two small comments. First, to also say thanks um to the applicants for coming in here and trying something new and and bold. Um I I think if you if and when you re-imagine some of the ideas that my council colleagues have said to think about you come back. Um, I really do think it would be exciting to see the the what is it the north facing aspect that is facing the multi-use path to be more more integrated and more of a of an open front to to the access for from multi-use um users, people on people who are walking, people in wheelchairs, bicycles and so on. I think if you think out 10, 20 or more years, um there's the

[183:01] potential for this this path to have a lot more um a lot more users and we just have so little I mean pretty much zero um that I can think of commercial space like civic oriented commercial space that's that's facing multi-use paths. And so, um, that's that's my main comment is I just think if if you come back, I'd love to see even a little more focus on that. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ryan. Any other last thoughts from council before we wrap up? >> Well, I'll add my uh seeing none, I'll add my thanks to the applicant for uh bringing this to us and allowing us the chance to talk it over and uh give you a chance if you had any uh clarifying questions that you wanted to ask of us before we finish up.

[184:01] There it goes. I don't think we have anything else. Thanks. I think your your uh input was pretty clear and appreciate you again calling this up and hearing from you was really useful. Thanks. >> I'm glad to hear it. All right. Thanks. Okay. And that brings us to the end of that item and also brings us to the end of our agenda for the evening. So, unless anybody has any final words, I will go ahead and gavel us closed here 29 p.m. 21 minutes early.