March 26, 2026 — City Council Study Session

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[6:46] to tonight's study session and joint review with the planning board. Tonight is Thursday, March 26, 2026. I am Mayor Aaron Brackett and thank you all for joining us. I will note that our um mics now have a new label for us which is

[7:01] community of endless adventure which I think sums Boulder up uh in half a sentence very very well. So, we have two items on tonight's agenda. First, we will hear an update from our Boulder Valley School District partners. And our second item is the review of the draft Boulder Valley comprehensive plan with the planning board. So, the planning board members, uh, we're happy to have them with us tonight, and they will join us after the completion of our first item. So, uh, thanks so much to the BBSD folks for being here and joining us, and I will hand things over to our city manager, Nuria Rivera Vandervide, to do the welcomes and the kickoff. >> Thank you so much, mayor. And I just want to really appreciate our BBSD partners. Um I will say that we uh have really tremendous uh partnership and open doors and I just appreciate all the collaboration we have had uh over the past few years and I'm excited to hear uh the today's presentation. So with that I will pass it on to the superintendent of BVU Rob Anderson. >> Thanks Neria Mayor Brockett council

[8:00] members. It's uh great to be here with you all this afternoon. Thank you so much. Um it's been a while since we've been together. I think it was maybe a year year and a half ago that our board and council were able to come together and have a really great conversation. Um at that time we talked a little bit about declining enrollment and this evening uh we're here I'm here with our assistant superintendent of operations Rob Price and our district planner Glenn Sugru uh to give you a more depth um overview of kind of where things are, let you know uh kind of what the data is looking at and then talk to you all about how we're engaging our community in the timeline for action. Uh I think that that you all are well aware um and we've been very transparent that uh we're going to have to do something if we want to continue to maintain the quality of supports and services for our students in our schools. Um with declining enrollment means declining resources. Uh and so uh we will be engaging our community over the next six months and making taking action next fall. And so here to talk to you uh about that and then have conversation is

[9:00] our team. And with that I'll turn it over to Rob Price. Sorry about that. There we go. All right. Uh, thank you, Dr. Anderson. I want to just give you a quick overview of tonight's presentation. So, we are entering a challenging but necessary period of planning um for the district's future. And the reality is, as uh Dr. Anderson just mentioned is our limited resources are stretched thin thin across the growing number of underenrolled schools and this is creating emerging inequities that directly impact the student programming and the opportunities that we can provide uh to preserve the highquality education our students deserve. Systemwide adjustments will ultimately be required. And however, before any plan is uh developed, our absolute focus is uh listening and

[10:00] engaging with our families, our educators, and our communities. And I'm tonight I'm going to walk you through a big picture look at district enrollment, closer look at the Boulder area, uh why enrollment matters, how in how BBSD has responded to date, and look at our path forward from here. Next slide. I'm not What's that? Yeah, I'm not getting it to work. Next slide. There we go. Um, want to just say I appreciate the comprehensive plan that identifies a sustainable, resilient, equitable, and inclusive uh community. And these values are important because they align with our values. We strive to be a district where every student feels valued, listened, supported, and we're excellent educators and strong programs

[11:00] help students reach their potential. And through our current work to respond to pressures of declining enrollment, we are trying to create schools that are sustainable, resilient, and >> that does it surprise >> these shared values are important because they'll guide this uh difficult but honest conversation ahead of us. Next slide. Before talking about challenges, I just want to ground us in something really important. Boulder Valley School District is performing at the highest level we ever have. We are currently the only Denver Metro School District accredited with distinction. Our graduation rate is well above the state average. Student performance in English and math is the strongest it's been in over a decade. And the reason I share this slide with you is one simple reason. Declining enrollment is not the reason or is not the result of failing schools. It is simply a demographic reality that we are facing just long as

[12:02] other districts in Colorado and other districts across the country. Next slide. Across the state, K12 enrollment has been declining for several years. This past year, we saw the largest single-year drop since the pandemic. Uh BBSD is not unique in this. What we are seeing is driven by a combination of forces including declining birth rates which really leads to fewer kindergarteners. An aging population, low inventory of housing opportunities, high cost of living, families finding more affordable housing in surrounding areas. And what this really tells us that we have to plan differently than we did during the decades of growth. Next slide. This slide looks at the demographic changes in Boulder using the 2010 and 2020 census data. It really helps us explain the broader forces driving the enrollment trends we are experiencing. And the important takeaway here is that

[13:01] the age makeup of the community is changing. This is for age uh profile for our entire district. We are seeing fewer younger children under the age of 10 uh under the age of 10 and a significant increase in residents over the age of 60. And we all know that that shift matters because it affects housing and how it's occupied and how many school age children are living in our community. The data also shows us that we have a decline in fertility rates in the Boulder region, dropping from 1.4 children per woman to one. And over time, we all know that means fewer kindergarten uh fewer fewer children ending uh entering kindergarten and moving through our schools. Um taken together, these trends again point to a clear reality. The enrollment decline we are seeing is driven largely by broader demographic trends in the community. Next slide. This slide shows our enrollment trends

[14:00] from 2015 to 2025 and ill and really illustrates the reality of our sustained decline. Since 2017, our enrollment has declined by more than 3600 students. This year alone, enrollment declined by about 525 students, which is roughly double what we projected. Again, it shows the decline is real. It's sustained, accelerating faster than we had expected. Next slide. Looking ahead, we are projecting an additional decline of about 1,700 students. While all grade levels are affected, elementary uh schools continue to drive the biggest facility and programmatic impacts. Very crucial point as we all know that elementary schools are the foundation of our educational system. Next slide. We currently have the capacity to serve more than 14,500 K5 or elementary students and our non-charter schools. Charter schools are not part of the study. Today we serve

[15:02] about 9,700 students. And that means we roughly have 4,800 open seats projected to grow to about 5,100 open seats in five years. Clear takeaway from this slide is that we are maintaining a significant amount of underutilized space which is really diverting dollars away from the classroom in those direct student supports. Next slide. Now I'm just going to turn our focus specifically on the Boulder region which really faces some of our most acute enrollment challenges. Uh next slide. across Boulder Elementary School. You can see we have the capacity to serve about 600 6,700 students. We have about 4,200 students enrolled in Boulder schools. Our utilization rate today is about 62%. In five years, it's projected to be at 59%. Next slide.

[16:00] This slide gets really detailed, so hang in there with me. All of this can be found on our enrollment dashboard uh on our website. But what we see here is the enrollment in North Boulder and South Boulder separately and we broke that out geographically just to get regions of similar size. Two main points I want to highlight on this slide. First, the graphic on the left shows the number of elementary age BBSD students who reside in those areas of Boulder and where they attend. And this graph distinguishes students who attend their own neighborhood school. students who attend another neighborhood school, attend a focus school, etc. The graph on the right in each set shows who is attending elementary uh schools located in Boulder and what portion of that enrollment comes from within the attendance area versus those who open enroll into the area. And when you look at these two visuals together and then the bar charts below, you see the same pattern from really two different angles. Since 2018,

[17:02] the population of resident BBSD elementary students has dropped by nearly 800 in North Boulder and by over 500 students in South Boulder. And that decline in the underlying population is the primary driver of what we are seeing in our schools today. It's really about just fewer elementary age students living in the city of Boulder and BBSD overall. Next slide. This slide looks at how many students live in each attendance area. So this is just neighborhood schools, not our focus schools included. And it shows whether they attend their neighborhood school or they attend another school in BBSD. So we also start referencing here classes for grade level which is a metric we use to understand how enrollment might be impacting the student experience at schools and I'll explain that more here in a moment. That was a metric established by our long range advisory uh committee. The key takeaway here is that only five of our

[18:02] 11 schools in Boulder currently have enough resident students to support more than two classes per grade level. Next slide. This slide shows the enrollment composition of each school and where enrollment is projected to be uh by 2030 which is illustrated by the red diamond. And the main point here is that many of our schools are already small and most are projected to get smaller. So 10 schools are expected to continue declining over the next five years. Currently 11 schools are below two classes per grade level. Five schools are currently above two classes per grade level which again will shows that unevenness that we're starting to see across the district. And I'll explain why that's important here in a little bit. Next slide. This slide is a forwardlooking snapshot of enrollment across Boulder Elementary

[19:00] Schools over the next five years. And I'm going to walk you through how to read this slide, but across the top you see projected enrollment and rounds or classes per grade level by school year by year. On the left side, you see the school listed with its building program capacity and its current enrollment. And the percentages reflect building utilization. In other words, how full the buildings are. The color shading on this slide is what is important. When schools drop to two classes per grade level or below or less than or equal to 60% uh utilization, it's shaded in yellow. And when schools drop to one and a half classes per grade level or below or less than 50% capacity, it's shaded in red. And those uh thresholds again matter because they start signaling programmatic stress amongst our schools. So again, as schools fall below two classes per grade level, it becomes harder to sustain stable staffing,

[20:00] strong collaboration amongst our teachers, and the robust programming that we strive to provide. And what this slide also shows over the next four year or next five years is that more schools in this region, city of Boulder specifically, are projected to move into those yellow and red zones. So this is not about a single school experiencing a dip. It is definitely a regional pattern that you can see playing across the slide. So key takeaway from here is that without action, we will continue to see more schools operating at enrollment levels that strain programming and create the inequities amongst campuses that we talked about on the previous slide. Next slide. This is why we're having the conversation. The most important slide of the slide deck. We've talked a lot about numbers, but ultimately the core impact of declining enrollment is on the student experience. So, as schools move from three classes per grade level to two classes per grade level to now one

[21:01] class per grade level, we're seeing that. Now, we're even starting to see multi-grade classrooms. We know that programmatic offerings begin to suffer. Um, the majority of our schools were built for three classes per grade level or in some cases four uh classes per grade level. Just to give you a little bit of context. So in smaller schools, you can see this shows up as traveling specials teachers, complex scheduling, limited teacher collaboration that we know is so important, reduced access to other enrichment uh experiences. That's somewhat contradicting. I talked about how well this district is performing and you ask how was because we got amazing educators and principles that are working extremely hard which isn't sustainable and we know that. Um, if we do not take action to address declining enrollment, we know the impacts are not abstract. They show up in students daily experiences and how we are able to use our limited resources. Without action, families will continue

[22:01] to see reduced access to learning opportunities, including fewer specials, uh, limited instrumental music, less intervention support, and fewer advanced learning opportunities. All core parts of a well-rounded education. We will continue to see fewer adults supporting students, including counselors, librarians, instructional specialists, all who play a key role in student success and well-being. Without action, we will continue to see more multi-grade classrooms, traveling teachers, which reduces stability and instructional consistency. We will see an increase in grade levels with only one teacher in lie of a team of teachers, which really reduces that opportunity for teachers to collaborate and have shared planning time. And over time, these impacts really have led to growing inequities across schools and will continue to do so and continued spending on underutilized buildings and diverting dollars away from classrooms and direct student support services. A

[23:00] student's experience, as we all know, should not depend on where a student goes to school. And without action, access to programs really becomes increasingly uneven across Boulder Valley School District. And as we talked about guiding principles in action will continue to erode equity, stability, and ultimately that student experience over time. Uh, next slide. This slide illustrates that this work did not begin recently. In 2022, our board of education uh created a long range advisory committee to advise the district on this matter. And since that time, uh, the board of education, the long-range advisory committee, uh, our board, Dr. Anderson staff. We've been studying enrollment trends. Uh we've been developing metrics. We've been updating our board of education policies. We've been engaging our communities. Um we have done a significant amount of work over four years. The pace of this and the scope of this work really reflect a

[24:00] sustained board of education interest on this topic to uh put a plan in place. This work also shows uh that we have pulled every available lever to change enrollment trajectories in this district and we slowed enrollment for a few years but what we couldn't anticipate is a pandemic. What we couldn't anticipate is some some of the federal immigration policies that have impacted enrollment across BBSD. Um I would just say this work has been very deliberate over four years. Uh but we have not reversed really the underlying demographic trends that we are seeing across the district, across the state, across the nation. Uh next slide. This uh slide really frames the goals as we work through this process. Future decisions must maintain improve learning outcomes uh for all of our students. That will continue to be our northstar and that will continue to drive us. uh we must distribute students so all schools have the right level of students

[25:00] and resources uh to maintain highquality learning experiences for all of our students. This process is also about stabilizing overall enrollment by retaining our current students and attracting new families to the district. And then finally, we must maximize all of our efficiencies to address our ongoing uh fiscal challenges created by declining enrollment. Uh the options on the right side are typically the tools that districts use to combat declining enrollment. Uh one thing that our board of education has made very clear to us that allowing schools to stay small is not an option because of the impacts to the student experience. Uh some of the other options, I'm not going to walk through them all. For example, if you had two schools that are in close proximity, maybe one is too big to consolidate into the other, you could look at great configurations, doing a K2, three, five. If we have two K8s next to each other, you could do an elementary school and a middle school, for example. We can

[26:00] consolidate schools and we can close schools. Um, what I uh what's frustrating is you look through this and even the second slide, I believe I shown the headline usually is is a district is closing school. It's never talked about that a district is trying to improve learning outcomes for students. Um, so as we move through that, those are some of the tools in the toolbox, but I will make it very very clear, we are listening first and we're going to listen intently before any plans are made and before any decisions are made. Uh, next slide. I'm now going to just turn our attention to uh, the critical phase of community engagement. Our commitment here is to ensure every stakeholder is informed, heard, meaningfully involved as we begin uh potential or as we begin shaping potential paths forward. Uh the phase is about listening first, creating space for really thoughtful structured input to help really guide the options for the

[27:02] board to consider as we move forward. Next slide. This slide sets expectations for the engagement process. Engagement will build understanding. It will gather input on values, priorities, and trade-offs and inform our board of education's decisions. It will not guarantee specific uh schools remain unchanged. It will not delay action indefinitely. Or will it transfer decision making away from our board of education? And my hope is that by setting up these boundaries upfront, we're being transparent about the process and what it can and cannot accomplish and the clarity hopefully will be important to maintain a productive conversation with our community as we move forward. Next slide. Uh the engagement structure is really designed for focused regional input. We're organizing this work around three regions. This is where we're seeing declining enrollment uh at the most. Those regions are

[28:01] Broomfield, Boulder, and Lewisville and Superior. Um, each region will consist of our community partners, uh, families, our educators, um, our district advisory committees, and I would hope that city staff will participate in these engagement sessions and, uh, uh, participate in that that work as we're moving forward. I will say our board of education remains center of this process. Also, as we move forward, uh, next slide. We have announced dates for the community engagement sessions. Uh, sessions in Boulder will be held on April 13th at New Vista High School, April 16th at Boulder High School, and then we will have daytime sessions and weekend sessions held at the BBSD Education Center on April 15th and 18th. Times are there. I will say the times 30, which they will. We have expanded those from 6:30 to 9ine for the evening sessions.

[29:02] Next slide. As we look at the overall engagement process, uh this process began with Dr. Anderson and board members meeting with every single principal and every elementary school educator uh to better understand their concerns and what they will hope come out of this process. That work really started in January and just wrapped up right before spring break. We are also engaging our district advisory committees and beginning conversations with municipalities as we are doing tonight. Uh phase two, as I just talked about, is when formal community engagements uh takes place as presented on the previous slide. This work will start on April 13th. In May, we will be doing some surveying or polling. Um, we'll have that wrapped up by the end of May. And then once that is completed, we will package that information and present the feedback that we've received to our board of education in June. From June through

[30:01] August, staff will uh develop school adjustment options and then we will present those options based on again the community feedback that we received, the board's established goals that I presented tonight uh back to the board in August. Uh, next slide. This uh slide here just really outlines the final phases of the engagement decision making uh timeline. As I mentioned, August uh staff will present those school adjustment options in September. If the board is supportive of those options, we will bring those back to the board for study. And then in October, uh staff will present a final plan to the board of education for action. Um the timing here is intentional. Innesota and um uh any approved changes align with our open enrollment window which runs from November through January. And I will just state that each of these stages there will be opportunity for community

[31:01] input. Uh and then beginning in November, our uh attention would really shift to supporting our educators and our families through the uh transition. The key takeaway from these last slides is this work is deliberate. It is transparent. It is a multi-step process that begins with listening and then really moves forward thoughtfully uh towards action. Uh very similar to the work that we have watched the city of Boulder do uh historically um and a lot of the work that we have done as a district. So transitioning uh from the timeline, I guess my message would be this to council is demographics are not a problem that we can solve. Um they are a reality that we're going to have to plan for together. Uh we do all know that strong neighborhoods and resilient schools require shared awareness, uh shared planning, um shared stewardship from us all.

[32:02] So our ask I should have uh next slide. Uh next slide. So our ask is just a partnership in supporting a thoughtful transparent community centered process. Um that includes uh participating in the engagement sessions as we've outlined and really recognizing the link between school sustainability and community vitality. And that concludes our presentation tonight and uh we will open it up for any questions or comments. >> Well, um Rod, thanks so much for that presentation and for sharing this information. It's some sobering demographics that that you're sharing with us, but important to keep in mind and uh we promise to stay engaged through the process. Um, we only have a few minutes left in our half hour together, but I might look to council if anybody has one burning question that they'd like to ask our partners at the

[33:00] school district. Ryan, >> I'm going to need a moment to narrow it from my five. Um, so thank you. Come back on this. Yeah, I guess maybe the the biggest one then is so I hear you this is an anticipation of future trends. Um, and so my thought is, do you expect to come back to do this again or or do you feel like you have a grip on long enough term trends that this is going to be a generational kind of a change or can can you say anything about yeah needing expecting need to come back to this again? Thanks. >> It's a great question. I think that uh you know for us as we start to project uh student uh enrollment after five years gets pretty fuzzy and so you know our hope would be that that any decision we make would hold for at least five years uh and then revisit it at that point in time. Uh and I and I also think that the the the conversation with our community is going to matter, right? Um

[34:01] if if our community engages in the challenges and the issues and knows and understands that, you know, the the more that we do now could potentially prevent having to do more later, then I think that that would that's that's that's something we would we we hope to to learn as we go through and engaging. Um but but for at least five years and and the other thing that we'll have to think about is right now it's an elementary school problem. could be a middle school problem in five years. Uh we feel like our high schools are pretty stabilized. They're high performing and and lots of high schoolers are actually able to drive. So it helps kind of stabilize those populations. But uh for at least five years, >> I've got Tina and then Matt then Mark. >> Yeah. I just had a quick question. we get this from the community is if you do end up um having to dispose of a building, what is the role of the city of Boulder in that process? you know, as as we go through this process, uh, and, uh, and if there are,

[35:03] um, surplus facilities that we might have, I'm certainly thinking, uh, that that we'd be engaging with both the city and and other community partners to see is there a viable community use? Um, is there another use that the school district might want to use the facility for? It's hard to to really say depending upon what the what the the the property might be if that were the case, but we are in talks with the city. uh and city staff to um to understand what that might look like as we move forward. >> Matt, >> thanks Aaron. Appreciate you guys being here. It's apppropo that we're talking about school enrollment and schools and the impacts on neighborhoods given we're talking about our comprehensive planning process tonight. And I guess my question really centers on how can we be as early to the table in understanding any changes the school district makes to a neighborhood because our planning process sort of requires us to know that so we know how to adapt to those changes

[36:02] and how we plan for those neighborhoods and the community hubs that are such a focus there. So I'm I'm really my question is how can we be at the earliest stage of even if you're leaning or whispering at something that we can start to really know that and start to plan for that because that planning process takes a lot of time. Uh so our first um our our first presentation is going to be in August. So not that far away. I think our timeline has has gotten a lot of support as we've gone through um with our community. not too slow but not too fast, giving us an opportunity to to really engage. And so so come August um is when we will present that to the board. Then the board will provide us feedback um and then we will take that feedback back and then bring it back for study in late September uh and action in early October. >> Mark, thank you for being here tonight. Um, have you projected the expense of making these changes and and uh uh how will you

[37:00] fund it? >> Uh in terms of expense in terms of how much it'll cost or how much it'll it will save or >> Well, will it be saving or or will there be expense involved in in the closure of the buildings and reallocation of resources? >> I think I think both can be true. I you know if if we're able to consolidate close um reimagined schools I think that there potentially if we're having to reconfigure a building to be able to take on new students there could be a cost there. Um and then as we consolidate and and have efficiencies within staffing there could be resources that we could redeploy to schools. I think that the commitment that that I'm making is that um once we once we take these measures, the dollars that we recoup will be reinvested in schools. And this is really why it's important for us to to listen to our community because we want to know what where folks values lie and what it is that they want for their kids. Um, and so the way the

[38:02] the the thing that makes BBSC different than other school districts around us that are going through this is that what we've seen happen is districts get into a deficit um budgeting situation where they're spending out of reserves to pay for things because of declining in enrollment. We haven't done that. So, we're not trying to close or consolidate schools because we can't pay our bills. We're actually fiscally sound. But what's been impacted is the is the student experience through reduction in services. whether it's part-time counselors or traveling teachers. And in five years with 1,700 less kids, you know, the idea that that almost every school in our district gets impacted with multi-age classrooms, less resources for the kids who need it the most. Um so, uh so, so the dollars that we recoup, right, and we'll have a better idea of what that looks like once we kind of know and understand what the plan will be. Um how do we drive those to the things that our our community is prioritized is these are the things that we want. We want counselors in every school. We want smaller class sizes. We

[39:00] want um uh more intervention supports. We want more uh um planning time for teachers. You know, what whatever that might be. It will allow us actually have dollars to drive to those priorities. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for that. Um so, not seeing any other hands, I'll ask one final question, which is I know there's a great deal of community interest in this. When community members ask us how they can engage with the process, where should we send them? >> bsd.org. >> Easy enough. Resil resilient schools is the site. Uh again, we we are going to have six engagement sessions. It's really important for our community to come out and engage. I will say um the last time we did this, we took a much different approach uh the last time the school district did this for those that are around. And one of my biggest worries, Mayor Brockett, is that folks will think that that's how we're going to do it again this time. And that's not the case. Uh the last time is that we rolled out a plan and asked people to tell us how much you love it or hate it. And then we opened up our our gymnasiums and put two microphones in the aisles and and people rotated yelling what they

[40:02] didn't like. Um what we're trying to do now is more of an engagement experience. It's going to feel for participants almost like participating in a small focus group in a big environment. We've got some simulation activities that are going to go through the trade-offs. And so if folks don't know, I think they'll learn a lot about the issues and challenges that we're going through. But within those focus groups, we'll have facilitators to be able to collect information that's going to be really meaningful for us. So, um, so we will be pushing out communications to our community. Hope that folks uh stay engaged and and and as you know, as Rob had shared, you know, this is a these are community challenges that I that I hope that we can lock arms and face together as a community because uh the demographics is is not something that that that we have much control over, but what we can control is how we respond and how we come together in in this time. >> Thanks. Thanks so much. Well, I appreciate your commitment to genuine engagement with the community as you move through the next steps. It's not an easy topic, but so we really appreciate you spending some time talking us through it. And with that, I'll thank you for your time and uh we'll keep the

[41:02] conversation going, but have a good evening. >> Take care. And we can now invite the planning board to come join us here.

[42:53] We'll just give it one more minute for folks to file in.

[43:26] All right, we got our last couple planning board members filing in. Very good. Okay. So, our second work plan item is the review of the draft Boulder Valley comprehensive plan with the planning board. Planning board folks, so good to have you with us tonight. >> Welcome. >> Good to be here, Mr. Mayor. >> And um I have to acknowledge that the planning board has put in a big week because they already had a long meeting on Tuesday and now here they are back with it us again on Thursday. So, thank you for your dedication and your service.

[44:00] So um before we get into it, here's the outline. We will have 45 minutes for a presentation and clarifying questions. 45 minutes to then discuss the questions, first and second questions that staff has for us. Take a short break and then spend the rest of the time on discussing question three from staff. Um, so we please do um hold all questions until the end of each or the end of the presentation and then maybe I'll turn to uh Chair Mark McIntyre if you wanted to say a word or two. >> Um, just welcome all and yes, we did have a um eventful and meaningful meeting and but we're we're here and ready to uh be part of this and uh grateful to be um in the presence of you all. It's good to have you here. And with that, I will hand it over to city manager Nuria Rivera Vandermi to kick us off. >> Thanks so much everyone. Uh and so good to see uh the collective group here as we're talking about what seems to be our

[45:01] favorite topic of late, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Um and I will uh send it over to our director of uh planning and development services for some introductory remarks. But before uh I do so I just want to a thank this incredible team who has put in a tremendous amount of work uh for uh the past it seems five years but I know it's been a little bit less than that. Um but behind this team too and the extraordinary work there are um so many folks in other departments uh that have been working behind this. This is not uh just the work of one department. it is the collective work of an entire organization led by um some amazing people that you're going to hear from today. So I just want to give a shout out to everybody who's been so involved in making this uh the tremendous document that we have before us now. So with that Brett I will send it over to you. >> Well good evening everybody. It's such a pleasure to get together and while this uh is certainly not the first time you

[46:01] all have gotten together or that we've talked to you in various settings whether they were open houses or study sessions um somehow it feels like the very first time as well. So, uh, you know, I've shared with the staff that this, um, we might want this to be the beginning of the end, but it's really the end of the beginning. And now you have a draft in front of you. And, uh, and we appreciate all the feedback that's led up to this moment from you, from the community. You're going to get a bit of a summary about that. Uh, yes, thank you for the acknowledgement of the great work the team has done. I get to watch most of it and maybe have one idea, you know, a month or something. So, uh, it's wonderful to see this, uh, room together. Uh, we're excited to hear your feedback this evening. Uh, this is really what collaboration looks like and extends, as Nura, you acknowledge, well beyond this room to colleagues, to the community, to your counterparts at the county who have been amazing partners with us throughout this process. So

[47:02] collaboration and um really compromise is the reality of uh an endeavor like this too. I had a chance as I do several times a week to share that a comprehensive planning update is an effort to try to capture not 105,000 because it's the valley so 140,000 people's collective vision which of course is not a real thing because everybody has different opinions but trying to get common themes trying to get common values and really exercise democracy and compromise is is a challenge and one that uh Boulder and and Boulder County have uh embarked on for almost 50 years now. So, we're privileged to be part of that legacy. We look forward to working with you tonight to help um funnel funnel even a little closer and we'll give you some uh of course overviews of upcoming deadlines and such as well. Um but we do hope to focus on major themes tonight. Um we

[48:02] appreciate the feedback again before this and uh excited to hear about your uh collaboration, your consensus where that exists and and items that we go back and and work just a little harder before bringing you what we're calling the recommendation uh draft which will be the one that is going to you for for actual hearings and we'll elaborate on that as well. So, I'm uh turning it over either to Tess or Sarah. I think Sarah. Yes. So, uh really appreciate them and we'll continue from there. >> Okay. I might repeat some of the same things, but good evening everybody. I am Sarah Horn, senior planner on the comprehensive planning team and planning and development services. Um as you know, I'm joined by Brad, our director, Christopher Johnson, our comprehensive planning manager, and Tess Sha, an amazing planner on our team. We're also joined, as Naria mentioned, by other members of the comprehensive planning team along with colleagues from various city departments out there in the audience. Thank you for being here. And I just want to shout out to Kathleen

[49:01] King, who's a principal planner on our team who couldn't be here tonight, but is definitely here in spirit. Um, and before we get started, I also just want to thank all of you for your time and your dedication to the future of this community. um the amazing people as I've mentioned who work at the city, our county colleagues and county policy makers and the clerk's office, Alicia, Emily and Le and Lisa for making sure we all get to do what we do and make us look good while we do it. Um and most importantly, Boulder Valley community members for helping us get to this huge milestone and we're really excited to share the draft with you tonight. So, we have three hours together and a lot to cover. So, we're starting with this presentation to give you a final overview of the update process and touch on major components of the draft plan. And you'll have the opportunity to ask clarifying clarifying questions. Then, we're going to spend about 45 minutes on the first two questions of the night looking at alignment with community feedback and elements of the draft you strongly support. We'll have a 10-minute

[50:01] break, as the mayor, I think, mentioned. Then we'll come back and spend the rest of the meeting discussing our last question related to any potential revisions or refinements you think are necessary. So, as I mentioned, we have three questions. Here they are on this slide. Please keep them in mind as we go through the presentation. First, do you find that the draft plan reflects the community feedback we've heard? Second, what elements of the plan do you strongly support and want to keep? And third, are there any elements of the draft that still need to be refined or revised? Um, and we have a good bit of time set aside to discuss this and a clear understanding of any substant substantive changes from you will be really helpful as we head toward the April 13th for body meeting and final revisions to the plan. And while individual comments are very valuable and welcome, at this phase of the process, we're really kind of shifting um to focus on where there's consensus, especially around major revisions or additions that you suggest. Um and anything that needs additional

[51:00] discussion, just be assured, or that involves the county, will carry forward to April 13th so we can continue talking. Okay. So, I'm going to reiterate it one more time. Our main purpose this evening is to get consensus direction on revisions or additions to move them forward. and to identify anything that might need further discussion in April. Okay, start with a quick look at the update process and how the community has helped shape the plan. The draft we're sharing tonight is grounded and shaped by community input. As you all know, over the past year and a half, we've host we've hosted 69 engagement opportunities ranging from small conversations to large community events. And a key focus for this specific update process was that it be the most inclusive to date in outreach and how we engaged with community members and how we developed and considered policy and land use updates. So we'd again like to take a moment to thank community members to any of you here tonight to those of you watching and everyone who participated along the way. Whether you

[52:01] stopped by a booth on bike to work day, came to a pop-up event, served on the community assembly, or wandered into one of our open houses, um we're so grateful that you shared your time and perspectives, and we really do hope you see yourselves reflected in the plan. With that foundation of community input in mind, I'll walk you through how the update unfolded. We kicked off the project in October of 2024 with a kickoff event at the Dair Arts Center. This first phase of Boulder today, focused on understanding current conditions in the Boulder Valley and what people are experiencing today. One message came through loud and clear from the community and policymakers during this phase. Be bold and think big as we move forward with the update. We built on that input, published existing conditions in early 2025, and quickly moved into a bolder tomorrow. We worked with the community to define a shared vision for the future and identify emerging themes and major priorities for the plan to address. In the spring of 2025, we entered a

[53:02] bolder direction, the longest phase of the process. This is when we developed and explored policy options across key community areas of focus to get us closer to the vision we developed in phase two. This is also when the community assemblies work began. They first met in May of 2025 for early learning sessions, then reconvened after the summer through October of last year to develop the recommendations, helping shape policies around 15-minute neighborhoods and the broader land use strategy for the valley. They shared the recommendations as you remember um last December with both of these bodies and staff have incorporated their input into the draft and your memo includes an attachment related to this. This phase also gave the community a chance to propose changes to the plan. In total, we received 34 requests. 23 moved forward for consideration and have been included in the draft. The 18 land use requests that moved forward were inside city boundaries and included changes to mixed use or higher density

[54:01] housing in areas with existing infrastructure and services. Two minor adjustments based on planning area map requests were included for properties directly adjacent to the city. Um, and these requests align with the plan's focus on infill, housing opportunities, and efficient land use. So, those are incorporated as well. And we included three suggested policy revisions, and those relate to wildfire resistance and agricultural viability and um, water systems. And more detail again on each of those requests is included as an attachment in your memo. During this long phase, the community also weighed in on key policy choices and helped inform updates staff made to the draft land use framework. And now we're in the home stretch, to borrow a baseball term, and I don't know if any of you know, but yesterday was opening day, a bolder future, our final phase. We've taken all we learned from community members throughout the process and have prepared a draft plan that is now being reviewed by you community members and um we did just complete our

[55:00] board's road shows. So various city boards and county policy makers and the draft has been available for comment online since March 3rd and we're continuing to gather input across all components of the plan. We've also been hosting office hours and later this month we'll facilitate an equity review session with community connectors and assembly members to help us look at the plan and do a final check and answer the questions. Did we hear you and did we get it right? And we're here with you tonight for the final round of joint feedback from both bodies before we refine the draft and bring back a recommended plan in June. Okay. So with that, we'll actually dive into the plan. Whether you're familiar with the current comprehensive plan or new to it, one of the first things you'll notice is a simple and intuitive structure. The documents organized into six chapters, including two new ones, an implementation chapter and a glossery. We've also refreshed the Boulder Valley's planning history section and added feature spreads throughout the plan that highlight topics of interest

[56:00] that were raised by the community. We also took a fresh look at how the plan is presented and have focused on making it easier to use. That means clearer, more accessible language, supportive graphics to help visualize key ideas in the written content and local artwork and photos throughout. And because we heard easy navigation is key, we'll be moving the plan to an interactive website after adoption, offering multiple options to sort and explore content by specific areas or topics of interest. With that new structure in mind, we'll now walk through each chapter. Starting with chapter 1, it introduces the plan and update process, reflects on 50 years of planning, both successes and challenges, and provides a key snapshot in time context that help inform the update. We have heard some feedback that the trends and snapshots may be better housed in the Boulder Today materials online. So, we're considering how best to refine that piece as we move forward. Chapter 2 reaffirms the community's core values and includes the updated vision

[57:00] statement. Um, and we developed that during a Boulder tomorrow. It's centered on, as we've shared before, belonging, opportunities for everyone, and sustaining the health of the valley for future generations. So, from the vision and values, we move to chapter three, the policies. They're aspirational and describe how the community wants to evolve over the next 20 years. When we drafted them, we were guided by three key principles. The first two being clear and straightforward allowed us to limit redundancy, conflicts, and complexity. They also led us to reducing the current list of 210 policies to 102. The last principle, resiliency, allowed us to focus on what policies are and why they matter to the community. This leaves space for departments, policymakers, and the community to best determine how we get there through other tools like the citywide strategic plan, other department plans, and the capital improvements program. These tools can help us propose the most effective

[58:01] approaches to meeting our policy goals at their at the time they're needed in a world that's constantly changing. Tess will talk a bit more about that later when she goes over the implementation chapter. Um, but I just wanted to touch on it quickly. Um, and then when developing the policies, we took a careful and comprehensive approach. All the existing policies were reviewed and evaluated by city and county subject matter experts and leadership for their applicability, usefulness, and clarity. Some were removed because they were either duplicative or outdated or better suited to other planning documents, especially if they spoke to specific actions or operational decisions. Many policies were carried forward, but were refined to better align with the goals of the update, especially those around clarity and language access. You'll notice that while much has been updated, many core policy foundations of the original 1977 plan remain strong. These themes came through consistently from the community throughout the update process. We continue to value a compact community surrounded by open space.

[59:01] Strong neighborhoods and a sense of place remains central. Leadership in climate action and environmental stewardship guide our decisions and continued collaboration between the city and county remains key ensuring our planning is coordinated and serves the Boulder Valley effectively. Another foundational element that carries forward is the planning areas framework which ties to the first foundational piece I mentioned a moment ago. Policy number five and the associated planning areas map continue to define the valley's complex compact, excuse me, urban core and surrounding open and rural lands. We've updated the names and definitions for the areas defined in the map to make them more understandable because they're a little confusing right now. Ensure they clearly describe the planned future for each area and create better consistency and definitions. The boundaries, just so you know, of the planning area remain the same except for two minor revisions um that were made in response to community change requests. Okay. And now new ideas. We've kept many

[60:00] of the foundational elements like I mentioned, but we do introduce several new and updated ideas we're excited to share that we think are that to share with you that are based on that be bold and think big feedback we heard at the beginning of the process. We're advancing the 15-minute neighborhood concept and better integrating the policy with land use through our first community assembly. The plan expands the potential for housing supply and diversity across neighborhoods through key policy and land use updates. We're adding new policies related to economic vitality, including nighttime activity and planning carefully for visitors. The plan explicitly recognizes the role the role of biodiversity and natural systems in the city's ability to manage climate change, support climate resilience, and help with hazard mitigation. The draft introduces a new social infrastructure policy that recognizes the value of social spaces for community members to gather, sorry, to gather with others. Um, we're strengthening support for various components of the local food system from agricultural land to the

[61:01] structures and transportation networks needed to maintain access to healthy food throughout the community. And finally, the plan includes a restructured and simplified future land use strategy and framework that emphasize the potential for infill and redevelopment that can achieve multiple community goals without straining resources or infrastructure. Okay, so with that, I'm going to hand the presentation over to Tess, who's going to go through the last couple chapters and finish us out. Hello, good evening. My name is Tess Sha and I'm a city planner here on the team. I'm going to walk you through the latest updates to the future land use in the draft plan and then in the end I'm going to talk about some upcoming milestones as well as the implementation chapter. So we met planning board and council multiple times as we worked through updates and iterations to the future land use strategy and the proposed

[62:02] approach to land use and f and the future land use map represents a shift from prior versions of the comprehensive plan. We've redesigned the land use strategy so that we're now working with four classes and 12 designations. This approach is intended to rightsize the vision for land use across the Boulder Valley. Prior iterations of the plan took a more parcel by parcel approach to the land use map. And this new strategy intentionally looks at the neighborhood scale um to set the vision for how places should evolve incrementally over time across uh the whole area. The 12 designations now provide clearer distinctions between expectations for future land uses, urban design characteristics, as well as mobility features. The updated approach is intended to be adaptable to changes in future conditions by describing a wider

[63:00] range of possible outcomes that still contribute to the goals of the plan. As the plan moves forward into implementation, we will continue to work with our colleagues across the city to use the updated strategy as one of the components that can inform the future of transportation planning, hazard mitigation, and integrated water supply plan, economic development, and many other components of the vision for the future. Within this chapter, each land use designation is now defined more clearly and describes what it is, why it matters, and what you can expect, including the types of uses, urban design elements, and mobility characteristics of each designation. The future land use strategy is closely tied to comprehensive plan policies. Here's an example of how these two components, policy and future land use,

[64:01] are linked to create a future that reflects the community's vision. This example is along Broadway and includes the new western city campus and ideal market area. It envisions an active community hub supported by neighborhood 1 and two and includes greenway and park systems. This approach creates the opportunity to place more people closer to goods and services, transportation options, and other amenities. This makeup is supported by and helps implement policies on 15minute neighborhoods, integrated land use and transportation, vital and productive retail base, housing diversity and supply, as well as many others. We can also evaluate how the draft future land use strategy is implementing the policies of the comprehensive plan when we look at the potential capacity of this approach in comparison with the

[65:00] current land use map. I want to emphasize these next few slides are models of the total capacity of the future land use strategy. Capacity is not a goal of what is desired or a projection of what will happen. Capacity is a mathematical calculation based on assumed mix of uses, level of intensity and other basic assumptions. It is simply a useful tool that you can use to compare the current system with the proposed approach. You can see here that overall the draft future land use strategy offers uh a potential 35% increase in housing opportunities. The amount of single unit detached and multi-unit housing capacity is essentially the same. However, the amount of single unit attached and other types like ADUs, live work units, and others is greater under the new proposed

[66:01] strategy. These opportunities are also better distributed across the entire city rather than only in a few locations. This slide takes the same data and represents the housing options as a percent of the total. You can see how the current comprehensive plan has an outsized capacity for multi-unit outcomes more so than any other type. This is something that has been mitigated in the proposed new strategy. The draft future land use plan creates a much more balanced mix of potential housing opportunities as you can see on the right. Other ways the draft future land use strategy supports the policies of the plan is by creating more job opportunities than the current approach. In fact, it is an increase of about 11% over the current plan. Even with that potential increase in housing opportunity mentioned on the previous

[67:01] slides on a per capita basis, the draft future land use strategy results in more efficient use of our resources like water and energy and reduces potential impacts like vehicle trips and greenhouse gas emissions. This is broadly due to a better distribution of a wider variety of housing types and lo and locating more people near a range of goods, services, transit facilities, and job opportunities. While these improvements appear modest, they are based on our existing programs and data assumptions. So, future changes and implementation steps could further enhance some of these estimates. The overall message is that the draft plan strategy has the potential to provide greater opportunity, more efficient use of resources, and fewer impacts on the community than the current plan. Importantly, the draft future land use

[68:01] strategy is capable of meeting the state demographers's anticipated growth for the Boulder Valley over the next 20 years, both in terms of population and jobs. The state demographer uses past trends and other datas to forecast change in our re region. Their projection represents a very modest pace of change of only about one and a half or one half of 1% chance change each year. Um mouthful. The population estimate is driven by changing demographics and slowing growth due to reduced migration, lower birth rates, and other factors. The job estimate is reflective of expanded economic opportunities in many more front- range communities and other locations across the state that may draw jobs away from Boulder. It is important to recognize that these estimates are based on historic trends and anticipated future

[69:02] conditions. However, they can and likely will change over time. The plan and future land use strategy is designed to be more flexible and resilient to those changes if they do occur. In addition to analyzing future land use strategy in terms of uh implementing policies and capacity for change, we're also looking at how the land use strategy addresses citywide equity goals. The draft map creates benefits by locating future opportunities for mixeduse development and transit in many of the areas with the highest racial equity needs. This increases ac access to affordable mobility, reduces commuting burdens, supports more inclusive housing options, and promotes options for nearby goods, services, and employment. However, because these areas are also where reinvestment is most likely, um

[70:01] the potential for increased land values and therefore displacement is very real. A complimentary element of the draft strategy and map is to also allow for a wider variety of housing options and economic activity in the large areas identified as neighborhood one. Meaning opportunities for change are being applied across the entire city rather than only on the focus locations. Also to mitigate displacement risks, the plan contains multiple policies that work towards a a more equitable future. Starting with a the very first policy in the draft which is worth identifying. The city and county work to dismantle institutional and systemic racism and are committed to ensuring all voices, experiences, and needs of community members are fully and equitably heard and considered, including those of communities that have been historically

[71:01] excluded from local government. The city and county will work to reduce the vulnerabilities of people most susceptible to natural or human cause stressors. Equity is a primary consideration for city investments in engagement, infrastructure, programming, and maintenance. Other policies in the plan also described new or renewed support for those with housing challenges, transportation burdens, and/or service needs. um and new or renewed support for small and local businesses. The implementation chapter recommends consideration of equity impacts through plan implementation and encourages the asking of questions like who benefits and who is burdened. Speaking of imple implementation, uh the plan includes it as a new chapter describing how implementation happens, what tool the city uses to implement policy and land use strategy, as well as

[72:01] expectations for equity and measuring progress as the plan is implemented. We have heard that some feel the comprehensive plan should include instructions and specific targets or goals to understand progress on comprehensive plan policies and the future land use strategy. Progress on plan policies will be measurable. However, it is important to recognize the scope and purpose of a comprehensive plan. A comprehens a comprehensive plan is about the community aspirations for the future. It sets a long-term vision and describes the community values that should guide decision-making as the Boulder Valley evolves. The planning horizon for the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan is 20 years. Major updates happen once a decade and typically take approximately two years to complete. This means that a comprehensive plan guides decision-making over a very very long

[73:00] period of time. Predetermining specific actions and outcomes can create unintentional conflicts in later years if conditions change. Once the community has established its vision in the comprehensive plan, there are suite of other city plans, programs, and tools that will bring that vision to life incrementally and over time. These are the more appropriate places for topic specific goals and targets to be identified. Here is a hypothetical example related to the city's future land use strategy which includes uh the a future land use designation for greenways reiterated by this policy here. Um, the implementation of this could include prioritizing interdep departmental coordination on greenways through the citywide strategic plan, updating the 2011 greenways plan, and then using those updates to identify capital needs, budgeting, and other next

[74:01] steps that would help realize the long-term vision for greenways across the city. As noted earlier, we have used equity as a foundational element of the entire update process. We also included it throughout the draft plan and provided clear direction in the implementation chapter on how to carry this forward through work to come once the plan is adopted. An important component to highlight is the clear direction that equity consideration should be incorporated throughout the entire implementation process and in all the decisions. The plan begins with equity in mind at the vision statement and ends with expectations that equity will continue to be addressed throughout every implementation step. And that represents the major components of the comprehensive plan um that we all wanted to walk you through. And next we're just going to talk about some milestones to be aware of um in the

[75:00] coming months. So the public review and comment period ends April 6th. Then this group will be convening with the county commissioners and the planning commission for a four-body discussion on April 13th where we hope to resolve any lingering issues so that the bodies can move into adoption process in June. And as a reminder for anyone listening in um and you all here, please review the draft plan and share your feedback um in the next few weeks as April 6th is the deadline for that. And then um again, here are the questions to guide our discussion this evening. Um and just as a reminder, we'll focus on the first two for 45 minutes and then take a break and focus on the third. And thank you all for being here tonight and listening. And I will turn it back over to you, Mayor Brockett. >> Thanks so much, Tess and Sarah. Really

[76:00] appreciate that presentation. Information packed and also concise. So now is the time for clarifying questions. I would ask us to keep these questions focused and specifically to questions you need to get answered in order to answer the questions that staff is asking of us. With that in mind, do we have any clarifying questions, Nicole? And then Tina. Um thank you so much for the presentation first of all and all the work that this reflects. Um my question is is around thinking about this as a vision document, right? And looking for this the policies in particular to not be overly prescriptive or operational. And um I'm I'm wondering about um just some things that still seem a little bit operational that are in there. And I was wondering if you could explain um just just more thinking about why why um why some things do seem more operational. uh in particular uh like policy 76 describes some really specific current uses of the municipal airport. Um the

[77:01] what's the other one? Policy 62 lists some really specific financing mechanisms. Um whereas policies like 7986 um seem to have a a more general level of guidance um and and flexibility. So, I was just wondering if you could expand a little bit on why some of them seem like they're more operational if I'm just reading them that they're not actually. Thank you. >> Yeah, sure. Thank you for the question. Um, you know, so as as we developed this um this draft, we worked very closely with subject matter experts across all of our departments. And so, we we were reconciling a lot of feedback from multiple locations. We've done our best in this first attempt to try to, you know, make that a very singular voice and bring everything up to the right level. Um, I will say that there are some specific aspects where we do have a little bit more um clarity or information particularly around some operational elements or some specific

[78:00] targets like around our affordable housing target um and vision zero things like that. So, those do include a bit more specific language. We do still attempt to be broad in the way we're describing it of you know using language like such as or including but not limited to. So we provide some examples so people have a concrete understanding um of what can sometimes be some some very sort of obscure um topics but but also want to make sure that we're leaving room uh in there for potential changes or or um uh different you know different approaches as as we live into the document over time. Tina. >> Yeah, thank you. That was great. I really appreciate the presentation. Um, I have a couple of questions. The first is in the estimated population growth on that chart. Do we know what percentage of that growth would come from CU students versus non- studentents? I do not have that breakdown at my fingertips, but I do know that the

[79:01] population the overall population um count and then the trends and the population growth does include the university. It does include students. So um you know we would have to do some balancing and and looking at both the demographers data and then also the university's anticipated growth over that same time as well to try to reconcile that. >> Okay. And the I would be curious if that's possible to also understand then when we think about vehicle miles traveled or that measurement um that was there what percentage is attributed just to increasing the student population that tend to do a lot less vehicles miles traveled versus the non- studentent population. >> Yeah, that's that's a great question. So the the capacity model and the analysis that we did to ultimately sort of um weigh and compare the current land use map versus the future land use map um it it is uh independent or agnostic of of who is actually delivering those trips. You know it's based on assumptions around um the number of vehicle miles traveled based on different types of

[80:00] uses and things like that. So there is a you know there would be a sort of per capita vehicle miles traveled for a university use versus a housing use or a commercial use that kind of thing. So all of that data comes from um a variety of different sources. Um and and so it's I would say it's not really specific to the to the student population but is looking at this the city as a whole and and the the changes between again the current land use map and the future land use map. So I don't know if we can get into the level of detail of you know breaking that down by student population versus others and just knowing too that the the scope and the scale of that model is so large you know any number we would come up with is is going to have you know an order of magnitude that that might not be as accurate as we would want it to be. >> Okay. And then um another process question. We talked about implementation and the different plans that will follow this plan that might be adjusted. In what of those plans does council weigh

[81:00] in as a vote versus just a recommendation that we accept through a study session? So for instance, where there's a lot of interest in metrics around transportation, is there a time when we adopt a plan like the citywide strategic plan through a voting process that includes those metrics or are those done administratively through staff? Yeah. So, I I will also maybe defer to um my friend Teresa at the city attorney's office as to all of the the procedures um uh as to like when you know what what council does. But I do know that at least um at least on all of our like sub community and area plans both planning board and city council do play a role in approving that. I believe that is also the case for department plans as well that city council does have play a role. So partic you know as you mentioned that you know metrics around transportation. So the the next update to the transportation department plan um that would certainly be a public process. It would involve um the transportation advisory board and then

[82:00] ultimately city council as well. Just making sure I got that right. >> Just weigh in a little bit. I mean I I appreciate the question. I think that in general um some of what KJ says is true in the past and I will say that we have been veering a little bit about um some of those plans um in part because in the past some of those what traditionally were called master plans included too much of a combination of what is visionary and what is operational and as we have been on this journey and I know we have uh said this publicly many many times so you're sick of me saying it we have been on a journey of really rightsizing where those plans sit Um and so uh really putting in the right elevation. Uh as we looked across some of these plans uh in the past, we elevated some of those and you'll see that's why uh you see some of that touched upon in the Boulder Valley Comp plan. Prior to that, we did not have a strategic plan and that is an intermediary step that we have now uh have and uh I'm excited that soon you'll

[83:00] be hearing about um the next evolution of that and how you and frankly all our boards and commissions will take part in the next creation of the next strategic plan and then department plans per se will really be now more more operational in nature versus having that visionary component. And so as you'll see as we go into the future there will be a shift into how some of those previous plans have operated, but all of them need to tie up into the Boulder Valley comp plan. >> So, council will probably just vote on the strategic plan, not on the department plans. >> Yes. Uh and there will be we are figuring out how it is that is the appropriate touch point on that strategic plan. Um uh so that um we are asking you the right uh action when that comes to to play. Yes. Very good. Any other questions? I got one from Rob and then from uh Tara and then Claudia. Oh,

[84:01] thank you and thank you for the presentation. I'm just looking at um open space specifically and I don't see anything about um fuels mitigation. Is that baked into the plan someplace where I'm not seeing it? I'm not trying to get operational, but it just seems like it's >> overarching. >> Yeah, sounds operational to me. No, >> no, I I I'll have to look uh I'll have to look, council member, um look more closely at the policies around wildfire mitigation and disaster resilience, things like that. I I feel like we do reference that and if we don't specifically, it's something we'll consider. I I will mention uh one addition that um that staff is already um you know thinking about and working on is those those two-page topic spreads that dive into a little bit more descriptive detail around topics that are important for the community. We've already had some feedback and we're already actually starting to build out a topic spread specific to disaster um

[85:02] response and wildfire resilience etc. and possibly policy number 86. If I take a look at that. Um, thank you Dan Burke. So, yeah, number 86, fire adapted communities. Um, speaks to creating and sustaining a fire adapted community through coordinated regionwide approach to fire and wildfire resilience and prevention. So, strategies to address include the full spectrum of fire and wildlife risk while enhancing public safety, promoting equitable protection, and supporting efficient and effective response and recovery. So, it doesn't specifically mention um fuels mitigation within open space, but certainly that would be encompassed by that by that policy. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Tara, Claudia, Ryan, and Laura. >> And then in there, >> so maybe I'm not the only one that got this phone call from a community member. Um, but uh here's my question, and I don't even know if it's appropriate to ask right now or some other time or day.

[86:03] Okay. So, we're about to change our land use designations. The zoning is, I'm assuming, going to be somewhat incompatible with the new land use designations. So, the community member wants to know when we are going like they don't want to have to deal with changing zoning and pushing through things and all that kind of stress after the fact. So, they're wondering are we going to have like a 12-month implementation plan or a certain amount of months to catch up, etc.? >> Yeah, great great question. So, um to address the first piece of that, we we actually don't believe that there will be any major conflicts between the current zoning and the new land use map. Part of our approach has been to use the current land use map sort of as our baseline and then start broaden those categories. So if anything, each of the land use designation uh allows for the same and broader types of uses than would have been allowed previously. And

[87:01] so that underlying zoning should already be captured um within there. Um what it does potentially mean is that there could be more than one zone district that could now apply in the future in a particular land use designation. So that's something we'll have to work through. Um but ultimately, yes, there will be some strategic um updates to the code to make sure that if there are any conflicts, we can address those immediately um or very soon after adoption of the plan. But as far as any kind of a citywide reasonzoning effort or other things like that, we've not contemplated that at least not at this moment. >> Can I add just a little bit too? So, I've had a a variation on that question over the last month or so. And um part of that question comes from uh people confusing future land use designation with zoning. Um which is you know a very understandable and easy thing to do. Zoning is a property right that exists today. It exists tomorrow. It exists after and before the comp plan. You have to actively reszone something before

[88:01] your uh rights under the zone district um change. And almost always that's initiated by a property owner. Um, but really this land use designation uh approach creates bigger umbrellas for more opportunities for folks to come forward in the future and say, "Well, I'm this, but I'd like to be considered for reasonzoning um to this and and that umbrella is now bigger than it historically has been." >> Claudia, then Taiisha, Ryan, and Laura. >> Okay. I have two questions about the land use strategy and map. And the first has to do with um housing capacity, which you talked a bit about. So um in terms of increased housing capacity, how much of that that you're seeing is coming from having a more permissive neighborhood one category versus any expansion to what are going to be neighborhood 2 and various mixeduse hub

[89:00] areas. >> Yeah, great question. Um I don't have a specific breakdown, but I can say it is attributable to both of those things. Um, I would say it's there's also a component to the um what's now called the innovation and production hub, which is a mixeduse industrial type of um uh type of land use designation that allows for some housing uh infill to occur in those types of areas. But I would say broadly speaking and particularly because of the the um the type of housing that we see the greatest increase in terms of those other types like ADUs and live work units and then also our missing middle types of housing the single unit attached like duplexes, row homes, things like that. That that is a combination of both expanded allowances within neighborhood one and then also neighborhood two as well. >> Okay. Um, and related, I haven't done like a blockby-block analysis of the map yet, but are there areas where we're considering expansion of neighborhood 2 andor community hub

[90:00] type uses? >> Uh, yeah, broadly speaking, yes. Um we did we looked very closely particularly at our transit corridors um and uh around those community hubs and innovation and production hubs to make sure that neighborhood 2 which is the the slightly higher intensity of the two neighborhood categories that that was very robust particularly around the hub locations and then along transit corridors where we have that frequent service already. So there are some areas that um you know probably fell in the in the medium residential category as the under the old plan or the current plan um that are identified as neighborhood 2 that could potentially be slightly higher intensity in the future. >> Okay, thanks for that because I actually read that a little differently along transit corridors. Um so I will go back and look at that with that comment in mind. That actually leads into my second question which was I my reading of the map you know said that it still reflects in large part current conditions particularly around what we're calling community hubs right so

[91:00] >> if there's a a commercial center there now it's there in the future um and not a lot has changed around them again by quick read so I was just curious if you've done any analysis to support this on the quantity andor distribution of community hubs that Boulder can support under various housing and jobs projections that you're working with? >> Yeah. Well, we've we've started at this point where, you know, certainly identifying those existing commercial centers and I would say the the the benefit of the new plan is that it expands the types of uses that can happen there under that community hub designation. It enision envisions a much more um much greater variety and mix of uses um particularly housing infill in those areas. So locations that today are really strictly drive-in commercial types of locations, those would have the at least the opportunity and the potential to really evolve into much more mixed use type of environments in the future under the new strategy. Um

[92:00] what we have been careful about doing is trying to identify any new locations and that was in part uh based on some initial feedback we received from all of you back in September where we if you remember we had those three classifications of local community and regional sort of in scale and some of the some of the conversation at that time was you know it's really hard especially at that local hub uh location to be able to pinpoint a corner on a map where things are going to happen right like all the ingredients are going to come together and the recipe for a great little node in a in a neighborhood is going to work. So, we backed off of that and made sure that at least the neighborhood one and neighborhood two designations allow for and encourage that type of economic activity to occur without actually putting a pin on the map to say it has to happen here. So, I I'd say broadly speaking, um I do think that uh at least at this point and we're cautious about like identifying too many additional locations for um particularly commercial activity just given some of the vacancy rates we see currently. We

[93:00] want to make sure we can support those areas, make sure that those are evolving and including a lot more activity in the future before we start to, you know, potentially draw more or add additional based on population growth or whatever. >> That's great. And I had actually forgotten we had that earlier distinction between local and community. Um yeah, >> thanks uh Taiisha, Ryan, and then Laura. >> Thank you. Um thank you very much for this tremendous work and it's wonderful to see the feedback already reflected um not only from us but also from community members. I actually only have two questions. Um, one is on the community snap community snap snapshot section. >> What is that? >> Got it. >> Um, I noticed that there were um differences. So, for example, it was wonderful to see change over time and trend data related to transportation, travel, housing, um, even age. um

[94:00] curious why there wasn't any mention of for example water and water availability uh certainly in the current state of emergency that we're in right now having that data would be very helpful as well as heat um just again curious about that section and kind of what was grounding it um I didn't notice any kind of trend data in the any other places in in the document as it related particularly to water and heat thank you. >> Yeah, great great question. >> That's my one question coming up. >> Yeah, there will be two. I know. Uh that's great. Um yeah, great question. Um you know, I that community snapshot uh section was really just intended to sort of ground people I think in some of the the basic elements around land use. But your comment is well taken that actually some additional information on climate or water would be um could be really useful there. We do have a a topic spread later, I believe, in the policy section that speaks to the future of water resource planning and climate, but sounds like yeah, there maybe is an

[95:01] opportunity to um allow for and and uh include some additional information up in the front matter so that it's top of mind as people get into the plan. >> Awesome. Thank you. And then the second question was um it was wonderful that there was a survey that was so specific to this process. was curious though if there was any kind of crosswalk with the 2023 community survey findings um primarily one if there was any similarities but if there were some differences I noticed some inconsistencies between 2023 and um this particular survey and again because I didn't get the level of democratic uh disagregated data as it relates to respondents it was hard to determine um where that shift was so just curious how the 2023 three community survey data was used. >> Yeah, another good question. Um, you know, I would say broadly we did try to do some some relative comparisons between the two. They they were different surveys. They asked different questions and so it was hard to get an

[96:00] apples to apples comparison between the two. And I think broadly speaking, there was a lot of consistency just in terms of obviously people's concerns around affordability and public safety and things like that. So we feel like that's well captured. Um but certainly if you've identified any specific um dissimilarities between the two would I'd be interested to to look at those and and try to dig in. >> Awesome. We'll send a follow-up. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mayor. If I if I may just uh um add something that um our team probably doesn't know because I had the benefit of meeting um with the team that's thinking about a strategic plan. I just appreciate so much the question, Council Member Adams. As we're looking forward to the creation of the strategic plan, one of the things we're doing is taking a scan of what we've heard so far and precisely the community survey, the um engagement that's been done here as well as some other engagement that we've been doing in recent. We are compiling together council uh will see some of that as we come forward um in the future with that. But just wanted to highlight

[97:00] that because we are going to do some of that crosswalking. Thank you. >> Got Ryan, then Laura, then Matt. Okay. Okay, I think I have two. Um, so you the team has received feedback so far uh from council members, planning board, presumably others I've met with you. Um, and um, I'm just wondering are are you collecting a list of edits that as you hear this feedback that you with the editor's pen are thinking, "Oh, yeah, we should just fix that." And you know, I I won't put words into your mouth from our meeting, but I did have an impression that some of my feedback was um that you were receiving it as like, oh yeah, that well, it seems like a good one. Not again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but more as a general matter, are there is there a list of things that you're not really asking for substantive votes on, but like you would bring forward to say we ought to make these changes, and if so, when when will we see that? Yes, we you know the community um the feedback online feedback we're compiling each week we have a ma a spreadsheet

[98:00] that has community feedback for body feedback board feedback subject matter expert feedback things we see so we're keeping track track of it all together and we're going to include our rationale for including it or not or you know all of those things and we will share that out with the recommended plan so you'll be able to look at all of those but we are taking everything and making sure that we're including it in one location. It's taking some work, but does that answer your question >> partly? So, will does any of that come tonight? Like reflections on here's what we've heard, you know, as as you're asking for feedback, are there things that you might say, you know, you don't need to do a vote on this thing because we already thought about it? I'll start and then KJ you. Well, I think like KJ just mentioned when um council member Kaplan asked about um the fuels mitigation um that um we're creating a spread about wildfire and probably about transportation based on the conversations we've had. So yeah, when we have those in mind, we'll try to mention them as we continue talking. >> Yeah. And I was I was just going to add

[99:01] I think broadly speaking, yes, if there are things that we already are aware of, we'll we'll try to raise them tonight as part of the conversation. Um the other thing that we anticipate doing is at that fourbody meeting on April 13th is really raising any uh you know any substantive changes that we feel like need some resolution right and and that will kind of include any major things that staff have identified as well. So this is you know we're going to be taking really any major themes that we feel like we need some reconciliation on um to make sure we have a consensus support before we go and make those changes. at just a little bit more too. So, um the balance of tonight too, we we are listening. Uh it's something I want to always emphasize is we're hearing the feedback and we're going to hear where and see where there are nods about any particular topic and we're going to hear if there's like oh there's some scratchiness around this topic or not. Um so we will incorporate all that. Uh much like other decision making uh one

[100:01] or two comments have to be taken in context. So, um, at the end of the day, those may whether it's from a council member or from a commissioner or from the community. So, we will have to balance that reality just like with any decision- making and compromise. Um, but that certainly is the intent of tonight and the process between now and April 13th. >> Thanks. Okay. And then my second question and final one uh is on transportation. So, one thing that stays the same from the the currently enacted draft currently act enacted policy and the and the draft we've seen is a um a declaration that land use and transportation are closely connected. So, that that stays the same. Um but the the way that transportation appears in the new draft is really quite different in a lot of ways. And I know a lot of that is intentional, but for example, there's no transportation section. It's not in the table of contents. There's

[101:00] throughout a number of the elements, it's just it's um a little more abstract with what it's saying. So maybe there's, you know, there's reasons for that. Um but my question is when we went when you went through the introduction, you you showed some of the the changes. Um I saw a number of I I would I would think like maybe less kind of smaller things than transportation. I didn't see much on like here's here's how and why transportation is different. Um and so I'm just wondering has is there any thinking on the philosophy of transportation with the land use integration or any any changes with transportation big picture or could you speak to I'll stop there. Yeah, it's a good it's a great question and I know we do have transport uh transportation staff in the room in case they want to add, but you know throughout the process um we've had really really great conversations with our transportation staff and with the transportation advisory board and you know broadly speaking the transportation

[102:01] policies we have um in place today are amazing and they're working and a lot of a lot of a lot of things are happening and and so we're we're trying to reinforce the great work that we've we've already done. Um I don't think the plan anticipates really any significant shifts in a lot of those things other than just to try to reinforce and re-emphasize the value of safety and making sure that vision zero is top of mind. Making sure that alternative modes continue to be prioritized and and moved forward so that people can move around. Our 15-minute neighborhoods policy, you know, begins to reinforce that idea as well. Um but again, broadly speaking, a lot of the policies we have in place and a lot of the conversations we've had with our transportation staff, you know, ultimately they are the ones that really drafted those policies and helped us um you know, craft that message. Uh and so, you know, certainly we are open to additional changes and revisions and other things like that um as we continue to talk about this. Um you know, if

[103:00] there is consensus agreement that those are significant and substantive changes we should make. And just one quick thing I'll add too is that the uh land use definitions now have mobility more embedded than they historically have. So really moving towards that larger trend of transportation and mobility. So right we got Laura then Matt and then Mark and we are over time on questions so please be concise. >> Thank you. I have two quick process questions and a couple of substantive questions. um processwise. So, I was really wondering about this statement that you're using tonight to look for consensus. So, is it my understanding that you're going to measure that by like body language and nods in the room? Like, I don't think it's very efficient if we say, "Oh, I agree with this and I agree with that and I agree with that." Or do you want to follow up with us afterwards like with a list and say, "Which of these do you agree with?" Like, what what's your process there? >> Yeah. Well, >> yes, actually, that's that's a great that's a great comment for our chairs of the meeting. Maybe you can help describe

[104:00] describe that for us. >> I I have thought about this. When we get to question number three, when there are recommendations for refinement or revision, if there are specific requests for changes, I will look to the two bodies and ask for a kind of a show of like maybe does anyone disagree or does everyone agree? So, yes, we will be checking in tonight on proposed specific revisions. >> Great. Thank you. Um my other process question is about how do we give you specific written input? Um maybe about things that are too small to mention tonight. >> Sure. Yeah, you can send that information to us directly. You can also use the use the online format to fill those out. Um, as Sarah mentioned, any any sort of one-off or individual sets of comments that we're receiving, we're actually putting into our feedback forms anyways and and doing it, you know, putting them all into the into the spreadsheet that then we can look at later and have that transparency um as

[105:01] we as we go through and sort of evaluate each of those. But yes, you are you are more than welcome to just send us your thoughts and information at any time up until April 13th at the very latest, preferably April 6th, which is when the community comment period period closes. But we're re we are really looking for really all comments to be received by that April 13th date because then we'll have about a month to turn around our final recommended plan. >> Thank you. That's helpful. um the substantive questions. >> So just to clarify, we will then have access to all of the feedback that has been given thus far. >> Yes. Alongside the recommended plan, there will be a list of all the feedback we've received um on the draft on the draft plan, including yours. Yes. And then a sort of line by line assessment of whether it was included or not. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you. And substantive questions. Uh first, the imagination areas. Um, I saw in the language it says that the city will explore locations where out of the box

[106:00] thinking, imaginative architecture, cutting edge technologies, and creative rule bending that provide special benefit to the community are allowed and encouraged. Can you speak more about that? Because I don't think I've seen creative rule bending in a policy document before. >> Yeah, I might I might defer to you on this one. We bend but don't break is my is what I always say. >> I I owe Teresa a lunch too, I'm sure. >> Yeah. Right. >> So clearly we did not say creative rule breaking. We were very specific in uh you know making sure that we didn't do that. But this was this was really in response to feedback we've received about you know people's concerns that Boulder is losing its edge, losing its funk, losing you know the the great things that make this community unique. And so part of part of what we're trying to do is at least open the door to situations where yeah there might be an outofthe- box thing that we need to

[107:00] think about and consider. And so you know there are no details there are no operational uh you know ways in which we will actually enforce or or apply this policy at this time. But again it's it's intended to be the free spirit of Boulder and really think about how we might do things differently in certain locations. >> Okay. I might have a comment about that later, but thank you for clarifying. Um, second question is around the industrial areas. So, you've got your um, innovation and production hubs which very clearly include residential and encourage that. And then later in the plan, it talks about the special purpose industrial areas and preserving those and residential is not included on the in the discussion of the uses for that area. However, policy 83 says in areas identified for industrial land use, residential uses will be limited and should not displace established businesses, etc. So, I'm unclear on whether the industrial special use areas

[108:02] actually are meant to preserve industrial. Will residential be included? Can can you help clarify? >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, great question. So the um the proposed land use map is intended to try to be more clear and distinguish more um directly areas where we feel like housing and industrial or manufacturing types of uses can be combined in those hub spaces and those areas that really should maintain their industrial and commercial activity character and and continue to do that into the future. There are some locations that are in that proposed industrial land use that currently under our zoning code would potentially allow for housing because of the contigu they may meet contiguity requirements. So we are in a situation where um the plan is going to really have some policy drivers that are intended to make those areas more um uh more protected for those

[109:02] industrial uses going forward. there is going to be a little bit of a um conflict with the zoning code for an interim period and we're going to have to consider whether or not a a change to that is um is intended and and would be beneficial. The reason why that exists though is that because we feel like through the innovation production hub, through the other hub categories and the other expansions of uses in the neighborhood categories that that housing need that was identified for certain industrial lands before through that code change, we feel like we're capturing that need elsewhere. And so that's why we're thinking about and trying to be very very clear about those areas that are commercial and industrial today. We need to preserve those going forward. >> Okay. Thank you. And then just one more quick question if I may. Um, in the previous plan there were policies around the built environment that talked about things like human scale and breaking down massing. Those are gone from the policy section in this draft as far as I could tell, but there is still um some

[110:01] language about design and I'm sorry I can't design of the built environment on page 110 that includes some things that are policies and some things that are not in the policy section. Was there a reason why that kind of language was removed from the policy section? >> Our our original intention was um because that design of the built environment, we wanted to try to draw that that um that through line to the urban design qualities that are described in each of the different land use designations. So that's partly why we moved it to that section as opposed to being up in the policies. I think there's probably an argument to be made that this may be better as a as one of those topic spreads in the policy section as opposed to in the land use section just because it it does get lost a little bit. Um and so that that is actually one of the things that staff had already identified as kind of wrestling with of that's really critical and important information for our development review team and other staff

[111:01] and also community members or developers that might be proposing projects to have that available and visible very easily. So I think I think that's one of the elements where it's it's a it's a positioning in the document that we have to figure out. I think the the a lot of the content is mostly there but we have to make sure that it's um you know that it's there and in the right place. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. I got Matt and then Mark and then I think we're done with questions. >> Appreciate it. And some really good feedback in here. So this is helpful. Um I I want to out of the discipline of not doing a colloquy. So, I'm going to follow up way after the fact to something Council Member Winer said and and her line of inquiry uh kind of centers around the the inevitable tension of making such a bold leap with this change in land uses and then widening the gap in terms of how our zoning and land use code are then um aligned with the new land use. And we've

[112:00] never changed every land use before if I recall. So that kind of necessitates us to really think about the implementation aspect. And so something that Tara went into and I want to maybe follow up on from a question is when we do neighborhood one, we clearly are saying that and I know you answered a little bit that we're interested in maybe some commercial uses in some form or another. Current RL1 strictly prohibits any of that. So there's a reconciliation and an inherent conflict that gets created. And so I guess really the question is how do we and what is the time frame and pathway for which we really more or less urgently reconcile those tensions and those conflicts and I think maybe that's a little bit about what Tara was asking and that's and so hopefully I'm refining that question a little better but that's really the core of what I'm trying to understand is I don't see and then I don't see that in the implementation of how are we how are we aligning the regulatory consistency that this land use code then creates states. And so that's really what I want to get to is

[113:00] why doesn't the impleation implementation state that inconsistency and the pathway to achieve an aligned zoning and land use code to be commensurate with the land use? >> Yeah, I I appreciate the question uh council member Benjamin. I think really kind of the the question has a premise behind it and I think that premise is based on re really the evolution of the comprehensive plan that exists today and kind of decades of recognition uh that the change to zoning uh should it ever happen meant a change to the land use guidance map and there was this very close synergy between the two and and and they almost became synonymous with each other and that's not a criticism And that's just an observation of its evolution over time. But what it has created is an expectation that one naturally follows the other. In fact, the land use guidance map is a future land use vision. So by definition

[114:02] there's no disconnect because if uh this different paradigm that's shown in the future land use map even if it were dramatically different let's say now the staff's done a really careful job to make to sure to crosswalk old and new and we can go into the the technical aspects of that but even if it were radically different nothing changes today because people's zoning still sits and so if you're zoned R3 or whatever you're zoned R3 regardless of the future maps as industrial or spaceport or gardens because that's your property right today there's a vision towards these other things and that will be played out over time as people come and say well I have this particular use now the future map suggests that the vision would be this and I want to do that thing and I'm going to move towards that we can't compel people to change their existing rights under zoning

[115:00] Some are going to do it slowly. Some are going to do it quickly. Um, some will be very much supportive of the market. Some will be com maybe not aligned with that. And and we hope that that is the that we've done a good job of projecting that. But it's a vision of the future. And so there there is I would submit really no disconnect because those rights exist today. And it's about moving towards a future vision. How we promote that future vision is through policy, through encouragement if we want that residential to change to commercial. Then we would need as a city, as policy makers to find ways to really compel people to do that. But they still would need to come forward and say, well, we want to make this change. I have a fundamental problem with that. Um, but we can reconcile that at another point. Um it maybe begs the question why we need to have land user zoning and why it can't just be one thing altogether but that's a separate question in it. Okay we will circle back to that. Um my

[116:01] other question has to do with community values. Um, I've heard from a number of folks in the community that there's some things perhaps missing from this that we've been very clearly being hearing and communicating and in particular centers around economic vital economically vital things that we are seeing currently under threat like being an innovation and knowledge economy. And so where do we state that that is a value that we want to not only foster, preserve, and enhance things like culturally and artistically vibrant? And so these things that we know are so fundamental to our community are kind of absent in some of these values. And I meant they're meant to be high level, but sometimes when you go so high level, you say nothing at all. Um and and so I just want to be mindful of some of those pieces um that that we sort of maybe do allow space for those to be mentioned since they are so fundamental to our community in those ways. So that'd be something I'm just sort of curious about as to how do we get that sweet spot in the values so people that hold something

[117:00] true feel like their value is imparted in the stated values because I think some folks maybe feel that the thing they care about is kind of fundamentally missing. So that's a question wrapped in like I don't know the answer but how do we fill that gap? I'm still I'm still percolating on on the question there. And just in terms of I think I I mean I think the the criticism is is fair if people feel like some of those things may not be represented. I think that if you take a really close look at the plan, you'll actually be surprised at at how often those those things show up. Um you know we may not make a specific reference to our um you know to life sciences laboratories or you know certain kinds of you know certain kinds of industries but we speak very very highly and broadly about the importance of maintaining our innovation economy and introducing new ideas around the

[118:00] visitor economy and the night economy and things like that. So to speak to the economic piece and the arts and culture um the arts and culture piece is is really really um emphasized certainly over the current plan. The current plan is fairly silent to some degree on a lot of arts and cultural aspects. It shows up really in in many many locations throughout. It's got its own spread uh topic spread within the policy section. There's a number of policies. I just did a very quick word search and arts shows up 30 times. Economy shows up 30 times. So I mean I think these things are in there. um maybe we can, you know, maybe there's ways for us to try to make sure that they're more clearly articulated or people can find them uh more easily, but but um that's absolutely in there. And we've just broadly speaking, we've received some very positive feedback from the chamber as an example on the economic piece. And then our arts and commission uh board road showing was last night that all went great. So, we're getting really positive feedback um from other groups. >> Thanks. We'll wrap up with questions

[119:00] with Mark. >> Okay. Uh in deference to our mayor, I'm going to restrict myself to one quick comment and one question. Um the comment is I just want to congratulate you on the on the drafting of the community SAP snapshot and local trends. I thought it was just outstanding and and extremely useful. So, thank you for that. Uh my question is I I know we don't want to delve into the operational but there are a couple of what I consider elephants in the room that um might be referenced maybe we we don't want to but um they are enormous issues for this community. One is our troubled relationship with Excel and the manner in which we are obtaining our power. uh and I would think we might have some aspirations along those lines. The second uh of course is the project we call CU South and its impact on the community. And the third is something of uh recent vintage

[120:03] um which is the threats being posed to the Encar facility and the use of that land. And I don't know if any of that um is sufficiently um policy oriented, but it seems to me that that to have a plan that doesn't address any of those is is somehow lacking. >> Yeah, great question. So, um related there's a couple of things um that may at least begin to touch on some of those topics. um maybe not to the level of detail but um there is a policy that speaks to in particular energy res resilience during emergencies. So that tries to attempt to um talk about and set a foundation for how this community can respond to power outages and other things that can occur during emergencies. I um you know there's also a lot of uh conversations or policies around um just broadly speaking energy

[121:01] and and resource um you know management. How are we how are we going to address that going forward? Um overall electrification that's a bit you know it's a bit of a chicken and egg in terms of like the city wants to move towards electrification but that means we need to have a resilient and um uh uh an energy system that we can rely on. um CU South, you know, is not addressed specifically. It it is annexed in it is it is implemented. The land use does apply um to those areas. And so over time, we'll continue to of course work closely with the university to manage that as it as it moves forward. Um and then the last item on uh ENCAR the the land use map itself specifies or identifies the the building and the parking lot itself as facilities in the future land use designation and then the area surrounding it has an existing management agreement with OSMP and so that has been identified as open space going forward. So that at least sets

[122:01] from the degree that we can knowing that that's federally, you know, federally owned and and operated. It sets it sets a vision from the community's perspective that we expect that to remain a facility surrounded by open space. I I I just don't know that the plan clearly expresses that aspiration for Encar. Um it doesn't discuss I mean CU South is going to be uh probably go beyond the u the termination of this comp plan. We're still going to be doing this 15 20 years later and um excel we have specific policies for achieving levels of um carbon remediation and they're tied into performance by Excel. And so I think the community would would have some interest in understanding how we're going to get from here to there in light of our existing relationships. >> Just Okay, that's my thought.

[123:01] >> Thanks, Mark. Okay, that wraps up. Oh, Curt's got one more. >> Possible to get in one more question >> you haven't asked any go ahead. >> Uh I wanted to follow up on implementation. I think it's really on Tina's question and it's more though about the time frame. So ca with KJ with your help um I had went through all the master plans that we have found 13 adopted master plans. The average age of those is 8 and a half years. The arts plan is just being adopted I think hasn't quite been adopted but is about to be. So really the question is since the the rationale for keeping the policies all extremely high level and non-specific is that things will filter down through the citywide strategic plan and into the master the departmental plans. What is the actual time frame for that? Like is it going to be another eight and a half years before we get to all of those? In

[124:00] which case, in a 10-year plan, you know, we'll have one and a half years worth of benefit and then we'll do all this over again. >> Yeah, I'll be happy to answer that. That Thank you, uh, Councilman or Coo, I just about uh gave you a new title there. Just about promoted you there. Board member Norback. >> Okay, this is where everybody puts on a different hat. Um you know I think Nura gave a good outline of where that is. We are going to be looking as an organization differently at implementation uh particularly at the strategic uh citywide strategic plan level and also the department plans or thematic plans. Um I recognize at the department level sub community plans are things that we've traditionally taken quite a bit of time and and uh effort around. Uh there was a desire identified prior to the pandemic to try to both do more of those and speed them up. That desire has not gone away, but

[125:00] how we approach it is going to be different. At least that's the the vision that I've kind of shared with the team and and uh leadership of finding something that um does allow us to do that on a on a predictable rotation in a meaningful time frame. So, we hear that concern and you've heard the theme tonight on on many of these that implementation is the key. Um, uh, it may not always appear this way, but we as staff are just as impatient as the public are to see all things change, uh, tomorrow. Um, but there's good and wonderful policy and and law in place that's been developed carefully over the years, and we want to make sure to make those changes thoughtfully, but also be um nimble and responsive to the vision that you all are laying out in this plan in the community as well. And I don't know if you want to speak more about kind of implementation. just the timing because I know um there has been great excitement about the strategic the citywide strategic plan and really want

[126:00] to get um so much more involvement. Last time we asked a little bit of forgiveness uh and this time we are very much um trying to make sure that everyone has an opportunity council uh board and commission members um as we think about it. We will uh be coming to council first um uh sometime in the next few months I imagine. Um but we plan to have a touch point um and a larger community conversation um with boards and commissions with council members and uh some uh of our community partners like CU for example. Um we are hoping to do that in uh November of this year and then coming back uh to uh council for um sort of a final review in February March of 2027 so that we can finally have our strategic plan in place. So we are actually thinking about this very quickly um and having a series of touch points by which to get um your input on

[127:00] such an important document. >> Thanks for that question, Council Member Nordback. Okay. So, thanks for all those fantastic answers to all those questions. Um, we're now going to move to answering the questions that you're asking us. We are uh dramatically behind schedule. Um, so what I'm going to say is I'm going to ask for people to answer questions one and two at the same time and uh I'll read them here again so they're on our minds. Uh, do we find that the draft plan align with the community feedback collected during the update process? and what elements of the draft plan do we strongly support? And I'll just say like for number two, I could go through and find 38 favorites easy, but maybe just keep it to your top couple um in your comments. So with that, folks can I'll throw the floor open and people can start answering the questions. Mark, I'll try to set an example of brevity. Um answer. So question number one, the

[128:01] answer is yes. And to number two, I'll broaden it just enough to say that um in regard to transportation issues, I completely support councelor Shuhard's suggestions for edits regarding transportation. I thought those were great. Um, and finally, I am hopeful that by elevating greenways to a system that's on par with open space, parks, and wreck, that once this process is complete, that our greenways get their due with departmental administration and guidance because they're short changed now. And I hope that the planning and development and all the departments that are currently do the administer that come together and give them their due. That's it. >> That was exemplary. Thank you Nicole.

[129:01] >> Thank you. I will try to follow Mark's excellent example. Um yes to the first one. Uh for the second one, the the things that I strongly support are um more overarching perspectives on it. Um one is the depth and the breadth of the engagement and actually including the feedback that we received. Um you've elevated a lot of perspectives that have often been included from all city processes. Um and I know it's only going to get better from here in future updates. Um, I appreciate that the plan is committing us to a fuller and more honest understanding of our past and present, including the unintended consequences of past choices. And I actually really like that we put this information up front. Um, the second overarching theme is enhanced flexibility. Um, especially given that we're living through a period of rapid compounding change, economic shifts, climate pressures, displacement, inequities, and the ongoing impacts of harmful policies. Those most harmed by historic policy inequities are also the ones being most impacted by the

[130:01] instability and change that we're experiencing today. And our attempt to have less prescriptive policies and really lean into our overarching sustainability, equity, and resilience framework to me is the way that we will be able to um avoid exacerbating some of these disparities as our crises escalate. Um, and then finally, I really appreciate that we are explicitly in the plan acknowledging um the idea of trade-offs and competing values. Um, this draft was refreshingly explicit about um the the competing values that we're going to have and the trade-offs that are inherent in planning. Um, not unlike what we heard from BBSD's leaders earlier today. Um, I just really appreciate that we're being transparent uh with community about the values that are going to be guiding our decision. um I think that's going to help them um understand and help us come together as a community as we're contemplating some of the trade-offs um in the coming decades. Thank you. >> Thanks. Yes, Laura. >> I will also be brief here on questions

[131:01] one and two. Uh yes, for number one. And specifically for number two, I want to point out a few things I think are new and innovative and I absolutely adore them. So coming out of the community assembly, you have made sure that all future land use designations that support housing also support the things that were identified as essential to the 15-minute neighborhood. Every every zone in the city that supports housing can be a 15-minute neighborhood. And I love that you have aligned that. And that includes allowing group living uses like senior housing or assisted living in all areas across the city that include housing and including the ability to have more smallcale commercial uses in those same zones. That is so aligned with what we heard from the community assembly and it is such a a brilliant insight for our city and I love that you've included that. Um, and then I will also name check just three things quickly or four things that you are new in this draft that didn't exist in our previous comp plan. So, the natural

[132:01] infrastructure policy focus, the social infrastructure policy focus, and the night economy and visitor economy. All of those are wonderful additions to our comp plan. Thank you so much. >> Thanks, Emil. >> Thank you. And um appreciate this is like the third time I've seen the presentation, but you added some cool new stuff, so thank you. Um so number one, yes. Number two, um I I think one of the most brilliant changes or possibilities that have come from this is the 15minute neighborhood. Um but I strongly um will back what Matt was saying. These will not be possible unless there's zoning change because the biggest land use all that you know yellow does not allow plexes and does not allow um small commercial or work from home types of things. Um and yet I think it's part of what's driving the capac the capacity numbers of we now

[133:01] have more capacity to build housing and to and to create the desired end result. Um but we have to expedite the zoning to support that. So uh I encourage that to go into your thinking about how will we implement the 15minute neighborhoods given the power that they have in on so many um scales uh to make significant change in our city. >> Thanks Matt and Mason. >> So question one absolutely and as I said to KJ this has happened at lightning speed in our subprocess committee. credit to the speed. This has never been done this fast and I think this well. So, just bravo. Fantastic. So, love that. Um, the thing that I'm I'm probably most strongly supportive of is how the diversity of housing types is really dramatically unlocked in our community. And I say that fully aware of

[134:00] what we just heard from BBSD. and that our biggest challenge maybe external with some things, demographics, all of that is we need families in our community and unlocking a diverse set of housing types is the best thing the city can do to do that. So that's the thing I support the most and then I'll just double back at the only way that that happens is if we execute this vision with the greatest of urgency knowing that we're working against the tide of demographics and families. And so, um, those changes have to happen as fast as possible in order for us to stem the tide. >> Thanks, Mason. Yeah, I'll just second that. Um, what a great job you guys have done. This is a huge, huge task. So many so many balls to balance. And I'm mixing metaphors at this point, but you get what I'm trying to say. Um, as far as the number one, yes, I'll have some comments when we get to number three about where I think we have slightly missed, but all in all, I think you all have done an amazing job.

[135:00] Uh, and number two, if I were to pick a couple, I would really like to focus on um the neighborhood designation changes. Um, I really appreciate the supplation, the co-mingling of of commercial and residential. The ability to do that I think is huge across the city. Um, I mean, the possibilities that unlocks for um, even just making our our community spaces more vibrant if we were to have some of that mixing, I think, is just amazing. It also allows for a really natural and um incremental evolution of the the housing types that we have and for us not to be too prescriptive about where those changes happen. Um I really think it could make those changes organic and more uh useful and sustainable for the community. So I

[136:00] really appreciate those changes. Um, and my last thing that I really love about this, and that's policy 27 and 29, the integration of land use and transportation. Of course, with the the changes that Ryan have suggested and others have already talked about, but I really do think that this creates a a mandate to to colllocate density uh the investments in density and transportation, which I really appreciate. >> Thanks. I got Tara, then Claudia. every um one yes and two um I just want to say that my favorite is that it so simplifies um the uh future the future land use classes and designations are so much simpler and smarter. I think they're fantastic. My biggest fear is that we're going to have like Matt said and also ML giant fights between people that just for us

[137:01] saying oh well it's in the comp plan they'll be like oh great so change it nobody's I can't even visualize it ending well so but besides that my question will be while we have that break um is how are we going to like 15-minute neighborhoods sound great but not every 15-minute neighborhood could support a supermarket and other retail. And so I don't exactly understand yet. Like I get we're pushing it, but we can't like socially engineer like we want a new bodega in the ex neighborhood or we want coffee shop unless we have the population to be able to um you know support the coffee shop that Nicole and I want so badly. Isn't that right, Nicole? We both do. So, I guess that's I'm going to ask for three, but I'm just giving you notice on that. >> Thanks, Claudia. And then Ryan. >> Okay. Uh, number one, yes, I see so many

[138:00] through lines here from the community feedback. Um, for comments on number two, I'm going to focus on land use strategies rather than policies and just go through quickly four things in the draft that I strongly support. So echoing Laura and Matt and Mason and others, um this expansion of uses in what we're calling neighborhood one, I think this is absolutely critical to expanding housing access citywide and also creating and maintaining more of the fabric of some of our best both new and enduring neighborhoods, places like Holiday and our older neighborhoods surrounding downtown. So the thinking you're doing there around neighborhood one is fantastic. I think uh secondly land use designations based on function rather than fixed uses and building types is a great um evolution here of our plan. I think you've done a great job of describing expectations in these new land use zone uh not going to call them zones land use designations for both

[139:00] structures and mobility right in both pictures and words. I think that's a great part of the plan and it really brings it alive and I think we could probably argue as a group about how we actually go about mapping those spaces. Um but the approach is really clear and intuitive and captures experience which I think is helpful to non-professionals. Number three, um we haven't talked about this yet. This idea that there can be fuzzy boundaries on the land use map, right? Uh transition areas I think you called them. I think this is something we we kind of batted around at Planning Board early on in the process. Um, and I thought it might have been a pie in the sky ask at that time because it's a hard thing to do, right? Like how do you get concrete about something that's inherently fuzzy and you did it. Um, so I really like that. But I think in addition to providing flexibility, you know, going into the future, it also it captures this idea that streets, which we're usually treating as boundaries on

[140:00] things like can and should be active parts of neighborhoods, right? Like they're they're centers of activity and not just boundaries. And then uh a last fourth thing um just briefly because I think it's likely to be overlooked and it's a little smaller here and subtle. this thing that you've done to kind of absorb public facilities into the neighborhood designations, right? And so I think even in the context of like the conversation you had earlier tonight about BBSD and schools, what's happening there? Um we're dealing with things in the city like replacing and reconfiguring um public buildings, institutions, fire stations, recreation centers, right? And so if you if you treat all those things as being appropriate in neighborhoods, it provides a lot more flexibility for how and where we provide those services in the future and really recognizes that even at lower densities, um, community spaces are actually what brings neighborhoods alive. So love that. >> Thanks, Ryan.

[141:00] >> Okay, number one. Yes. Number two, I'll name a few. Um, so the overall setup and introduction, um, similar to what Nicole said, I I think it's really good and I think it's great the way that it discusses the our our community's troubled early history, which is still with us and we don't discuss enough in our planning. And um, I want to acknowledge Council Member Adams for being a champion um, throughout this and other processes. and I see her handprints on this and I think it's really great. Um, secondly, the vision and values that come from the strategic plan and the the nexus of those things. I think I think this is a really good um evolution that will um have a vision values here, give more space for um some of the detailed decision- making with a little more flexibility because it can come more often. It's a little scary. this is a new thing we're doing, but I I think it

[142:00] it seems like the right thing to do for a governance perspective. Um, third, just the sort of overall commitment and innovation around the land use to create more h housing options that are more affordable, efficient, and relevant for more kinds of people as we age. doing that with land use uh that mixes with 15-minute neighborhoods and then the mobility types distinguished around that that whole kind of nexus I think is really great and a year or two ago it was hard to imagine how this is all going to come together and um yeah I think you get you get an A for that for that um the night economy I think it's a it's a it's a clever innovation uh it makes a lot of sense with uh a heating climate the need to be more creative financially and so on. So, I like to see that in there. And then the final thing, um I do agree that it's overall it being more more high level makes sense. Uh it

[143:02] helps to reduce um conflicts and friction that are um and creates more flexibility both from a planning perspective but also for people um as as we go. Um leave it at that. Thanks. >> Thank you. All right. I'll go ahead and call on myself and say yes. I think you've aligned with community feedback very well and in particular I want to call out the way that the community assembly was used and that that feedback was incorporated so directly into the plan itself. So they did phenomenal work and it's reflected in the plan very explicitly. So thank you for carrying that through. And then in terms of what I strongly support, there's so much I'll try to keep it brief. Um, number one is number one that our very first policy is equity, racial justice, and social resilience, which was not present to nearly the same extent in the previous version of the comprehensive plan. And I'm very glad to see our values reflected in that policy number one. Um,

[144:00] and then I'll call out like some of my colleagues have about the allowance for additional housing types that previously almost uh the only things that were allowed were the um single family detached and the multi-units. And I really love seeing how the new potential um still allows for those things but primarily additionally allows for the single unit attached and the other types of housing. So really excited to see that. Um so there are so many other things. It really does turn our comprehensive plan into a model modern planning document and uh greatly appreciate your extraordinary work on that. That's what I got. Any other comments? Tisha, >> thank you. Um so for question one, I think at the aggregate that um it does align to the uh community feedback that was obtained. However, there is one area that is glaring in the misalignment um and that is with our tribes and indigenous our tribes specifically. So although I do

[145:02] appreciate and I agree um with the incredible history of the area pre- Euroamerican um being added there, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up that it's more than just a quote deepening of understanding or acknowledgment, but rather these are broken treaties. And if you actually look at the treaty signatures, they're all the same the same handwriting. And so these are not valid treaties and even the treaties that were created were broken. And so we actually owe a debt and I go back to the racial healing. Um and I'm not seeing atonement and I'm not seeing repair. There was no mention of land back at all in any section. Um and so therefore I would be remiss if I just said at the a you know in total that it was uh aligning with the community feedback that I have been hearing in my 14 years of living here 12 or however long. Um so

[146:03] I just wanted to lift that up as as an as an acute opportunity that is glaringly missing from this community. And also just in general, I notice even how we're using the term community. It's very human- centered. I think that water is our community. I think that soil is our community, air is our community, wildlife is our community, and I don't feel like they're as sufficiently represented as humans in this plan. Um, and then as far as what I love is, and this is where I think the plan does address some of that, I feel like it's moving in that direction with the natural um landscapes and the natural infrastructure. I think that moves us into that area. Um, and I absolutely love obviously the food systems components in there as well. Um, and then the implementation section where you're crosswalking with the other plans. We get tons of questions around that and also have find it quite challenging when it's time to make decisions. So, those are some of the

[147:00] things that I especially love in addition to the night economy aspect. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tisha. All right. Not seeing any other hands raised. That's going to bring us to the end of answering these questions. So that gives us the chance to have an 8minut break to catch up a 00 p.m. Thank you.

[156:33] borrow that for planning board. >> It's all It's all yours, Mark. Go for it. >> Um, no, the the gavl lives up in the cabinet, I believe. So, um, >> they've hidden it from me for my entire year as chair. >> I'm going to bring it out now that you're finished. >> All right, everybody. I hope everyone enjoyed a little bit of

[157:00] a break. Um, so we are now going to move to the final phase of the meeting tonight, which is when where we answer question number three. So I'll read that out here which is what elements of the draft plan do we recommend for refinement or revision. So if we want to see any particular changes now is our chance to highlight those. I know we've certainly already gotten some great feedback over hotline which you all have already registered and noted right and is already in the pipeline for consideration. So, no need to repeat previous suggestions, but if there are other ones that you think are important to be made to the plan, now is the time to surface them and then we can do um a check-in about whether there's general support for any proposed revisions. >> So, with that, >> can I just reiterate one thing we mentioned at the beginning too? Um I I know you all appreciate that this is not a word smithing exercise either but we do want that and so the input as KJ

[158:02] mentioned in response whether you send in this email or whether you send that ver via the portal I mean we we will gladly capture those and even larger kind of nuances and and and um nuances and language and things like that. We're really hoping to hear on the core concept of the policies. >> Thanks for that clarification. Yes, if you find a typo, no need to surface that now. You can send in an email to to note the typo. With that in mind, who would like to put something out there? I see Kurt over here. Thank you. Um, yeah, I didn't uh get a chance to respond to these, but uh that's because um the number one and two, but that's because other people covered my points there. uh in terms of recommendations for refinement or re revision. First of all, uh one of the core concepts that we talked about at the very beginning sort of um cohering

[159:04] everything behind the comp plan update was this idea of connections. And I'm not seeing that as clearly in the plan as I had hoped because that to me is such a key thing. Um, and such an important thing for for the community. Um, so I I would just I would love to bring see how we can bring that forward a little more. Um certainly we've heard a lot about the question of implementation and I think that's going to keep coming back around. How do we make sure that implementation happens as expeditiously as quickly and as effectively as possible? Uh so that's going to be really key. Um the next one is the actual land use map.

[160:00] you talked I think it was um when Sarah was talking you were talking about putting neighborhood two along the the high frequency transit corridors but I'm not seeing that for instance most of Broadway an awful lot of Broadway remains basically the way it is in the current land use map with just the new designations. So, I think that there could be a lot more neighborhood 2, for instance, along Broadway where the skip is going um and potentially around some of our um the like our parks and so on. Um some of the other real community focus areas. So, uh, and and certainly more around the university, you know, we, uh, the the University Heights or whatever that area is to the east, that's that was a requested change. So, I appreciate seeing that change, but we

[161:02] have tremendous demand for housing around the university. And, um, so I think that that could be all be neighborhood 2, you know, within, I don't know, 300 feet or something like that. um and around downtown. Um Gloss Grove is really at the core of the city. It's within the triangle formed by downtown CU and the BBRC. And for that to be remain relatively low density to me doesn't make sense. So I think there are a lot of areas there that could become neighborhood two instead of neighborhood one. And then finally one detail um in the definitions you have a definition for vehicle related I think it's called and that includes both motor vehicles but also um bicycle shops basically and micromobility and to me that doesn't make sense

[162:02] because the well I appreciate the recognition that micro mobility and bicycles are transportation or vehicles Right. But in terms of their scale and impact, they're totally different from motor vehicles. Right. And so I think that those should be put under retail. I think that that would be more appropriate. >> Thank you. >> So there were a few things in there. Steph, do you want to respond to any of any of that on the fly? >> Uh I don't Yeah, I think we've captured all of it. I don't know if we have any reactions or comments. Um, all great feedback. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Okay, if it's noted then got it Nicole and then Tina. >> Um, I just had one one thing um which is around uh my question earlier around why some policies seem a little bit more detailed and others um a little more

[163:00] general. Um it would be that we're consistently centering values rather than prescriptions throughout the policies. Um this would mean reframing any policies that are drifting into operational details or specific tools to desired um outcomes and values. Uh I think some of the community requests that we've seen for more specificity in some areas maybe due to the fact that some policies are broad and values-based while others are quite detailed. Um so I think if we are calibrating them all at the same level of specificity that would avoid confusion about what the intention of this document is and how we use it. um where we need to or want to keep specific details, I would recommend that we briefly clarify why why why are we going away from that um or seeming to go away from that um in that particular policy. Um I think that would help help create more consistency in the level of guidance across the policies. hopefully minimizing um confusion uh or or um

[164:00] differences in understanding um which would hopefully in turn increase transparency and strengthen the understanding of how this document connects into our other guiding documents and processes and frameworks. >> Staff, is that clear? >> Okay, great. Tina, >> yeah, I just have a couple of things. Um, one, um, aspect that I was looking for that could maybe be highlighted better is emergency communication and specifically to people who are impacted by a disaster. And just thinking about the the our cellular networks and different modes of receiving information to individuals. And um I know that there's references to disaster management and coordination and county city coordination, but I feel like that didn't quite pop um enough uh and that is certainly a concern in the community is how do we get information? What are

[165:00] the different modes? Um the other question I had was in the park description. And I don't know if this is the only one, but it talked about how the parks are there for community members to enjoy and to aggregate. There was something off for me about using the word member. It's as if you had to live in the community to be a part of that space. And um just making sure that an exclusive term like that um it felt a little too clubby. I I know that is word smithing, but it also was um struck out to me. And then um the other piece is whether we should clarify in the document where council votes as part of the implementation and where council does not vote whether staff creates the plan. Um and similarly the in the water overview on the page that talks about our water supplies. One of the pieces of information that you gave us during our water overview was about the service levels and what

[166:01] we're striving for. It might be nice to include our SLAs's in that area and also talk about what the process is for changing those SLAs's. Um, you know, I don't know what it is, but I don't know if it's through council or if it's through the, you know, what kind of processes again water use is top of mind. Do you want to just explain an SLA, Tina? >> Sure. A service level agreement. So that's about and I think in this case we were talking about we would um have droughts a certain percent of the time we would have restrictions and if we were to change that agreement with our community, what is the process? Do we vote? I think that's something of high interest like right now but in general. Um, and then the last piece is is kind of where what Nicole was talking about with policy versus implementation. Just a remark on the experiential night and visitor economy. I'm not sure those are

[167:00] policies or tactics that fall under economic vitality. I do appreciate that they're new. Um, but I would wonder a little bit if that's a 10-year policy or parts of an overall economic approach that has different ways of creating those economic outcomes that we're looking for, even though some of those have other outcomes underneath them which might be tied to other policies. It's just a they stuck out a little bit on that page, but not a big deal. Staff staff, was that clear? Okay, looks like you got that. I've got ML and then Matt. >> Uh, thank you. So, um, I'm going for the diagram because I'm an architect and I like visuals. So, um, on the implementation diagram, um, I am suggesting that there be a two-way arrow between BBCP and development standards and zoning.

[168:02] uh and in an inter interactive BBCP online to include a means to track code back to policy and policy to code. And um I bring this up because on planning board we're tasked with um holding criteria from the BBCP accountable in an application and right now it's incredibly fuzzy. So any policy or a whole bunch of policies can support something and a whole bunch of policies cannot support it. and we don't really have a a direct relationship between say a a a zoning move or um a neighborhood criteria that leads back to the BBCP and gives us a means to um hold the values of the community uh in check with the application review process. >> Got that?

[169:01] Okay, I got Matt and then Mark. >> So, big surprise. I'm going to settle back on implementation. Um, it's kind of a centerpiece in my outline. I'm sort of drilling in on it now because a plan without implementation is simply a promise and our community deserves a plan with a roadmap how to deliver that promise. And so in order for that to happen, we have to sort of reflect back a little bit to know how to think about doing things differently. The current BBC plan has aspirational language that title 9 never caught up to. Our staff have become experts at navigating this minefield and we should commend them for the manner in which they navigate this in the time that they do. But in many ways, that's not the reason they're here to do the work is navigate the minefield that we have and past councils have created for them. It's to liberate them to do the creative work from a free and

[170:00] consistent land use and zoning regulations. And so in order for us to deliver a different outcome, we have to think different at this stage. And that means that in this moment we put in the implementation a roadmap for how we implement the very land use to make this vision a reality. And I think that that's so critical at this stage. You don't have to be prescriptive, but we can say something really basic about the desire and recognition of the conflicts, the tension, and the need to urgently reconcile that so people have the clarity to meet their own personal vision, whether it be in their home or their large-scale development to build 500 units of middle-income housing, whatever it may be. So, I think we have to recognize the tension that's created and set a roadmap to implement that. Um, just for the record, I I submitted some language as an example of how we could add a guiding principles paragraph to the implementation section that effectively in a more succinct manner says what I just said verbally. And so

[171:02] that's my goal so that future councils, whether they're a mix or none of us, can look back and go, yeah, we're here to implement and make this vision a reality. And we have a mandate to do it with the greatest of urgency that we can do to meet our community needs. So that's my hope. That's my goal and and I'm really hopeful that there's a desire from everybody to see that come to fruition. Thanks. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah, I think so. And we got the language. Great. So, you've got proposed model language to consider for >> Great. Excellent. I got to um Mark and then over to Ryan and other Mark. >> What was your Okay, you're first. >> Okay, other one. >> All right, thank you. Um, I have one very specific uh issue and that is I find policy 24 addressing neighborhood

[172:01] character is in direct conflict with two other critical policies. Policy one, equity, racial justice, and social resilience and policy 29, 15minute neighborhoods. The term neighborhood character that we frequently use is neither defined in the plan nor in the glossery. This lack of definition has allowed it to become a polite but effective cudel uh to slow or stop us from reaching our stated and adopted goals. It is a polite way of saying don't mess with my street or my neighborhood. I don't want renters. I don't want retail or small offices or multi-living units integrated into my neighborhood. I don't want to change. Let's be strong enough to clearly define what we mean when we say

[173:01] neighborhood character or let's remove it from the plan. Does that register? Got that? Okay. Very good. Uh Ryan and then um other Mark and then Mason. >> Okay. So on the subject of being high level aspirational broad I am on board. Um but I I also think we need to apply more to what we're trying to do with with terms or phrases or expressions of intent. It should be clear. It should be objective. We should be um expressing outcomes. Um we should be thinking about those coming later who are going to be making looking at this to make criteria based decisions and those who are going to be wrestling with trade-offs and reading what we gave

[174:00] them to to to work um on that with. And so I I think there are a few uh places where there's some chewing up of language that that are in order to to to meet that um that balance. um a few of them are in the transportation section and I I won't restate I did send a hotline and I won't um restate that but I did want to call out just a few um examples here that I would propose that you look we look at um so one is on policy number 69 there's reference it's it starts with joyful joyful in fact joyful is like the first adjective as this set of transportation concepts comes out I really like the movement towards making this subject matter being about human well-being. But I think um we're at a little bit of a risk with jumping into that word I not being rooted in what we're actually talking about the objective function of transportation. Um I think somebody

[175:00] could look at that and say joyful. What does that does that mean whimsical? Does that mean whatever I want it to mean to make me feel joy? Does it mean that the city will provide efficient and effective access to provide everybody that what they need to get where they have to go to in an affordable way? You know, the So, I think there's there's a functional um clarification about what we're trying to create with transportation that I would put ahead of the of the word whimsical. I've offered a suggestion in the hotline, but I just I wanted to zero on that word. I think I think it's a useful word, joyful. Um, but I I don't think it goes first. I think I think we should describe functionally what we're trying to do in a way that a like I said a criteria based um decision maker could could look at it and make sense of. Um I think there's a few others. If you were to look at um number 70 multimotal transportation strategy down into it, it talks about our system focuses on improving walking, rolling, bicycling and transit and so on. I think

[176:00] we should be more um outcome focused when we talk about what we're trying to do. We should be doing something like guaranteeing a safe and and great experience for everybody to use those modes or something along those lines. It's not just about improving. Improving could could mean anything I think to um so that's one I think then if you kind of go on you see a focus on um at the end of that sentence it talks about moving people. People is a good word to put there. moving I think is a little bit of a um kind of a vest message of a an earlier era. I would think about access. It's not just about mobility but it's about access. Um and then in the next sentence it talks about providing the city and county provides seamless connections. I think seamless again I guess that's part of it but we haven't yet even we haven't yet said we are seeking to provide a great transit experience you know in terms of high frequency ubiquitous um spanning morning to night I think we should say those things these

[177:01] are outcomes they're high level principles and they create clarity that would help somebody to understand what what it is we're actually trying to say those our terms some of those that were in the previous BCP people. They're not they're not here. So, I would just chalk this up to Oh, yeah. Maybe we should just add some of that back in. Um, and then in 71, transportation safety, vision zero. I think this one's pretty good, but I This is one where there's just trade-offs. Like, when we do work to make our streets safer, there are trade-offs. And if there weren't trade-offs, nobody would be dying and nobody would be seriously injured each year. So, there are trade-offs. Um, we therefore should talk about that. We know that to really take death and serious injury to zero, we have to implement a safe systems approach. You could define that, but that's a term of art that we, you know, that we use. We know that kinetic energy is the culprit and kinetic energy is something we can work we can we can work down. And we know that vehicle miles traveled is is a

[178:01] statistical driver of danger. So these are these are these are concepts or principles um that could help us to manage the trade-offs needed to achieve vision zero. I'd suggest that that you you put those in. Um that's mostly it. Oh, there was an email today that came from um tab member Michael Adesma and he he pointed out on the um innovative one that's number 72. It's I you could kind of read anything into this. So um innovative we will transportation system that are innovative and adapt. So does that mean like bring on the robo taxis? Does that mean um we're going to be have a human- centered approach and we're going to be very judicious about you know what kinds of new technologies and corporate you know plans or we're going to wrestle with. So I don't actually think that one does much. I think it's kind of a anybody could read anything into that. So I would suggest either make that one and more principled or maybe you don't you don't need it. Um so those are the the specific ones and I

[179:01] just had one other thing which is um kind of bigger picture land use transportation um is is the subject of parking. So, you know, both the city and the state and the nation are undergoing this huge revolution in how we think about parking and we just did like a big policy change and an experiment and um that will create a lot of great new opportunities hopefully. Um it also raises questions how how is my car parking going to work? It also recognizes that parking is extremely powerful for bicycling and other modes. And I would think that um somehow just putting this context into what we're doing or putting putting what we're doing into the context of the document that we're kind of going through this big parking experiment and we need we need to we we should address it. We don't have all the answers but we're going through this thing. Here are some things we we believe about parking today. Um I think it would be good to try to lay that out. Thank you. So there was a lot there. Do you feel

[180:02] like you've been able to capture it and able to? >> And we have >> And we have the recording if you need to. Okay. Thanks, Ryan. All right. I've got Mark Wallock here. >> All right. Uh let me start with the um uh the reference to uh public safety. That sentence strikes me as a throwaway and requires a little more uh definition and substance to it. We don't need a two-page uh treatise, but it needs a little more than we have. Um next, um you know, the plan well addresses the typology of housing in our neighborhood areas and the way in which we are expanding it, but it does not address really the the affordability of that housing. Obviously, you know, small units such as ADUs are going to be uh less expensive than three-bedroom apartments or or single family homes. Um

[181:02] but we have a need for middle inome um housing that is that is accessible to um people who can't afford a $ 1.3 million home. And the plan does not really bridge that gap between creating the housing and making it accessible to more people. and I I I would like to see that addressed. Um third, I am going to take a little bit of issue with respect to parking. Um there is a relationship, we may want to minimize parking, but there's a relationship between um parking and economic vitality at least in our in some of the areas of this city and we do not seem to acknowledge that that is the case. um if you eliminate the parking at the 29th Street Mall um you will have a ghost town. So I I think there has to be some recognition that parking still exists and still has a uh

[182:01] utility in our overall transportation plan. Um and lastly, I'm going to u well second to last um I I think we ought to have a little bit of detail on some of the strategies we are using um to become a more fire resilient community such as undergrounding. Um I know that gets into more detail than you might want to uh have, but I think that would be useful. And and lastly, I'm going to take a little bit of of issue with um uh respect to the comments that were made by Mr. McIntyre. Um neighborhood character is is a descriptive and and it's a description of a primarily residential neighborhood that will now contemplate moderate amounts of compatible uh commercial uses and a broader scope of housing typology. I do not think it requires a more specific definition. I do not think it needs to be eliminated. Um, and I don't think it's going to be a roadblock to the

[183:01] changes contemplated by the draft plan. Um, I think it's just fine as it is and does not need to be dispensed with. That's what I got. I've got more actually, but that I'll I'll send I'll do that in writing. >> Well, we did we did receive a hotline from you earlier as well. Um, just one. >> There'll be more. >> Yeah. One one quick uh point of clarification. The your first comment about a reference to public safety. Was there a policy number related to that or I may have missed it? >> I don't have it in front of me. 84. >> 84. Okay. Thank you very much. >> So, >> you don't have it memorized? >> We We are after this going to retire to a pub for some comp plan trivia and see who can name the policy 76. Okay. Um I've got Claudia and then Taiisha and then Tara. Oh, were you I'm sorry. I got a little lost before. Okay, Mason, then we'll go

[184:00] to Claudia and then >> what? Uh, yes. So, um, you know, I'll just start by saying I I sent a email earlier with a suggested language, so I won't go through all of that. Um, I think I I noted five or six different policies. Um, I did want to just hone in on two main ones and then talk about the map just to keep things relatively brief. First on policy 24 about the neighborhood character. Mark, first mark, planning board, Mark, I thought you said that eloquently. Um, I think that instead of the current language, which I do find to be vague, unhelpful, can be used as a budend as as Mark put it, I think we should instead um rewrite this policy to focus on the neighborhood and sub area planning process as the mechanism for community input rather than character as a freestanding amorphous criterion reviewers are are expected to apply. So,

[185:02] I think we really could tie this back to our processes on how we actually how we um define the character of the neighborhood and how we work with the neighborhoods to define their their character. So, on policy 84, which is why I knew that number, um the policing plan that we have is pretty awesome and I see that missing from this language. Um, I think that as as uh other Mark here greatly said, um >> um yeah, I we have a policy that commits to addressing the root cause of harm instead uh which reduces our resilience on criminalization. And I didn't see any of that language in there. There was the word holistic, I think, but I think that's a little vague. Um and I Yeah. That's it on those. What else do I have? Oh, yeah. On the map,

[186:00] um Kurt, uh I agree with all of his comments. I would also like to just highlight that, um instead of just focusing on, uh bus accessibility, things of that nature, make sure that we're looking at uh bike transit, there are some major corridors that are used, and I didn't really see those focused on with using the uh neighborhood 2 designation. I also noticed that there was quite a few areas of the map where there's already pretty high density that aren't neighborhood 2, which seems to suggest that the direction of the evolution of those areas to go to single, you know, less dense instead of more. Um, I'm thinking of areas in my neighborhood, South Boulder, like across from Fair View and, uh, along um, you know, uh, Broadway or whatever it's called there, the highway. We have four bus lines that come through there and practically none of that was

[187:00] neighborhood 2. Um, I'm also thinking about the uh Bear Creek uh area that has some high density housing also not neighborhood 2 and we're very close to the Table Mesa Shopping Center neighborhood hub. So, um I thought those there's an opportunity to add some there. So, and I think that's all my comments. Did good. >> Thanks, Mason. You got that? Mason, how did you sent your email to who? >> Oh, Mason, you sent your email. I I I haven't seen your email. >> I sent it to KJ. >> Sent it to K. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, for board members that don't have the benefit of access to the hotline, um, >> could you forward Mason's email to either to the planning board or >> I have access to it? >> Sure. Great. Thank you. >> I can do that. >> All right. I got Clotty, then Tata, then Tara. >> Okay, this is fabulous. Coming right

[188:00] after Mason. Um, two things. My my highest priority coming in tonight was and remains making sure that the land use strategy and land use maps support viable community hubs, right? And the densities of people that we need to support the vision of 15-minute neighborhoods. And so, um, like Kurt and Mason, now I expected to see more Neighborhood 2 along more of our transit corridors, um, and also around what we're defining as community hubs and other major community amenities. Um, so I would echo their requests around that and say that minimally if there are parcels that have been considered kind of on the bubble for this designation, it would be great to get those in. Um, the second thing I also strongly support council member Shuhard's request for policies that focus on transit quality and transportation equity. And I think his language in the hotline that he circulated about having a transportation

[189:00] system that facilitates full participation in community life for people who don't drive is exactly the kind of highle statement of values that we would expect to find in the BBCP. And I think it sits at the intersection of values around equity and environmental sustainability that are really at the backbone of the plan. So those are my two things. >> Good. Great. Taiisha. >> Yes. Thank you. I'd say the biggest um overarching theme I have is around when I read this plan, there's no sense of urgency um around some of the critical things that we know that are happening. We are in an ecological collapse and I feel like we need to be realistic about those and the plan needs to reflect the current context we're in if nothing else. I mentioned that in about the community um snapshot section and wanting more information about water and heat but just in general the mega drought one-third of our drinking our water comes from the Colorado River and it's

[190:01] just mentioned but we know that the current projections 30 years is a collapse. So what does Boulder look like? How are we planning for one/ird less of the drinking water than the water that we typically have? I don't see that in here. And that that scares me. Um the other pieces are more specific, but I just say the overarching is really around if this is an umbrella to where we want to go. I don't get the feeling I get the feeling that this could have been written 20 years ago. Um, and I I I would love to see um more Matt, I love what you brought up around the science and tech e economies. We see what's happening around the um failure and collapse of the pro dollar right now. Um and that's going to continue to have ripple effects across our economy and I again um I'm not seeing those reflected in in how we become sustainable and adaptable. I'm not seeing how that is. I see parts of it with the community emergency um hubs um

[191:01] those kinds of pieces but again and to Tina's earlier comment I would add not just the disaster but emergency so when we had the incar the shiitakqua little fire that happened it wasn't a disaster but we I wasn't as clear on what is the communication for an emergency versus a disaster so just continuing to really make sure that we're clear around those would be really helpful. The second piece I mentioned around the um water supply piece um and continue to be concerned around that. It also then dovetales to the climate action section. So there's climate action and then there's a biodiversity section and then there's and it just feels like not um uh like comprehensive um and then natural infrastructure is over somewhere else. And so, you know, I I love the direction of this version of the plan versus last. But there was something helpful about water is here, this is here, housing is here, transportation is

[192:00] here. Um, so that was just something that I noticed. Let's see. Four is the racial equity. Um, I say this all the time. Training without accountability systems is violence. using these terms equity in your values without having anything beyond we're going to dismantle but then you have no goals around it. Um it's the only section that has no meaningful goals that I could see. I also have concerns around who is actually at the table when decisions were made given the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in our um on the teams that are usually involved in these kinds of things. Um let's see that's four five where are you number five? Oh, I appreciate vehicle miles traveled, but unfortunately that is not the only um transportation issue. One that is missing is food miles. And I would love for us to explore how we can reduce our food miles and um because we know that the majority of our food that we grow in Colorado is exported. So, how do we how do we reduce um those food miles so that

[193:01] our food is staying in the communities that need it the most? Um that was number five. Number six, policing. I would actually argue that in some critical areas, we're moving in the wrong direction. I look forward to the Boulder Police Oversight Panel report that is coming out, but from the some of the initial uh data that has been provided, those gaps are not shrinking. They're maintaining and in some areas widening. In addition, there has been uh continued concern by um members on the Boulder Police Oversight Panel and community members regarding the um slow removal of authority of the Boulder Police Oversight Panel to be able to review cases, etc. Um so again, I I also appreciated Mark's comments on the hotline around just public safety. Um, again, we know mass incarceration, uh, uh, mass surveillance continues to be an issue for us. I'm happy we have a task force around that. Um, but there's other

[194:00] things that are coming as well, and I would love to just see a little bit more, um, to ensure that we don't fall down the path that had, you know, created the this is not who we are film. Um, and that is all for now. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I'll get that. Yeah, that's very helpful. Thanks. And I got Tara. >> Who's going? Can someone go ahead and >> Does anyone else want to go? I got Rob and Laura. You're welcome, Tara. Um, just again looking at open space, I would love to just have some bold language in there. um specifically to uh the fuel management. And it could be simply something as simple as tagging uh the third paragraph under urban design and management where where it ends with

[195:00] um distinguishes these lands from the urban environment. add active vegetation and fuel management is an integral part of open space stewardship, reducing wildfire risk to our adjacent neighborhoods and critical infrastructure while supporting long-term ecological health. Something to that effect. I just think it's really important that we're addressing this with the climate. I know we have our WOOI codes, but those are all um nothing's retroactive there. I think this is our best chance and our front line um to address our resiliency around that and climate change. >> Thanks. Noted. >> Great Laura. >> Uh thank you. >> Um I have really appreciated all the comments. I think a lot of brilliant things going on. So, I'm just going to focus on a few things, but if we were doing vibe checks, I would be vibing with everything I'm hearing.

[196:04] >> Can Can I get a quick straw poll on how much vibing is going on in the room right now? Everyone who's vibing. >> Pretty good. >> So much vibing >> with Mark. Okay. >> Almost everybody vibing. Almost everybody vibing. >> We'll we'll do a Mark versus Mark a little later on, but Laura. >> Okay. So just a few here. Um I do think we want to retain not just a spread but a numbered policy on the built environment and placemaking including some of the concepts that are in that later language that talk about being human scale, ground level activation, varied roof lines, breaking down massing, creative architecture, that kind of thing. The reason why I say this is we hear this from people almost every concept review, almost every site review. People do not like big blocky buildings and it makes people dislike density. And for those of us who feel like the city needs density, which I think is pretty much everybody here, I think we need to be really cognizant of the fact that we need to be building places that people like to be in and

[197:02] that includes um good architecture. And so I think having a numbered policy on that would be really really helpful. Um and in that spirit, I did really love the policy about imagination areas, but I would push back on the creative rule bending. I don't see that being applied to any of our other multiple wonderful values and policies that we should be creatively bending the rules to make these things happen. And we do get um developers in almost every again land use review process that already want us to be really creative with our interpretation. So I don't think we need to put into our planning document that we allow and encourage creative rule bending. Um uh again on the subject of flexibility, I really I had some hesitation around moving to neighborhood one and neighborhood 2 and the hub concept because of all the flexibility that could potentially be abused. I'm willing to go in this direction. I think it has more benefits than drawbacks. But I think we may want to have a policy that

[198:00] discourages the conversion of multiple units into single units or downsizing from lots of units to few units. I'm especially worried about this in the context of Sundance and how attractive our community is going to become to people with a whole lot of money that might want to grab up a property near downtown and convert multiple units to some private island. So, um I would I would encourage a policy like that. And then the last thing I'm going to talk about is the airport policy. I'm not sure why the airport out of all the city-owned facilities has its own BBCP policy. So, so maybe we just need to pull back from having this policy in here. I think the policy is really problematic. Um but if we are going to keep it, we've talked a lot about how the BBCP document is forwardlooking and but this particular policy sort of cementss in place this is the current uses of the airport and we're going to maintain that and I don't think I agree with Mark's hotline, Mark Wallik's hotline that there has been a very robust lively argued in very spirited

[199:03] ways community conversation going on about the future of this property and this this policy currently doesn't reflect any of that. So, I think we either need to reflect the current state that this this is potentially in flux, including through the airport community conversation, the signature drive to put a measure on the ballot, the city's leg um litigation effort. Like, a lot of stuff has been happening in the past few years to think about the future of this property. So, either let's reflect that or let's pull this policy because it's really hard, I think, to capture what's going on here, >> right? Does that make sense? Okay. Thank you. I got Tara and then I'll come back to Tina. >> Um I'm going to disagree a little bit with people because I feel like flexible language seems to be not popular with us tonight, but I really like the flexible language because there is a future where everything is

[200:00] going to change and Taiish has mentioned this not so far from today. But we can only do this document every 10 years. So I feel like if it's too specific, it won't hold. Like we don't know what's going to happen in a few years. So it has to be more mo flexible enough so that it can last 10 years. So you know I agree with I love good architecture and I know we've discussed this before KJ, right? Like who's who's good architecture? But I think most people don't like black buildings. We could say that. So, and I agree with Laura says, but being too prescriptive about it or saying, "No, we're not allowed to do this." What was it Laura you wanted to do? Not do more buildings, do less build, whatever that was might be too prescriptive, I would say, for a document like this. Moving on to um tradeoffs. I agree with Mark about the parking. Not because, you know, first of all, the word joyful is truly annoying. I'm not going to say it's it was annoying. The only joy that I have in

[201:01] transportation is when I ride my ebike at very high speeds. That's it. Aside from that, no joy. So, >> yeah, I know. I'm a I'm I'm a rule bender, so we all know that. But but but uh aside from that word, for some reason, I'm like, what does that have to do with transportation? But anyway, aside from that word, um the the thing is we read in the document that there is going to be way more seniors very soon. And as a senior, but really not over 70, only Mark is in that category. So, I'm not really a senior. Terra, >> I take it back. I take it back. This is me and Mark's long-standing joke of the two most senior members of council is when you >> we're not revealing personally identifiable information at the council meeting. >> My filter is gone like two hours ago. Okay, I take it back. Mark's laughing. Thank god. Okay. Um but I in all

[202:00] seriousness, seniors have a hard time and I mean senior seniors older people not like us, right? have a hard time getting around without a car. So instead of saying car centric or not car centric, I would rather say people centric. Some people need cars, some people don't need cars. Some people sometimes need cars. But to me, if our population is getting older, we really cannot throw out the car. I will just say that my husband who's disabled, we lived in Philadelphia. We loved going downtown, but we could never go downtown because we couldn't find a spot that was anywhere close to the restaurant and he can't walk very far. We one of the reasons why we moved here was because it was easy to get around to the downtown in a car. So, I just want us to think outside of the box of, you know, how we view people and what their needs are. And so I want to bring that up as not being for cars or against cars, but just being for transporting people for our

[203:01] economic development. And cars I think are somewhat important. Like a lot of people tell me, seniors in particular, I'm not going to go downtown if I don't have a place to put my car. Since I care the most about our downtown and our economic viability, we just I don't want to lose that aspect of how important is to this segment of the population. Okay, sorry. I'm almost done. Um, I I might be done. I'm actually done. Mark, did I offend you? Because I apologize profusely if I >> All right. Thanks, Jared. Yeah, sure. No, we know we understand. Thank you. Yeah, sure, Tina. I um just forgot to add one comment on the slide that was in the original um in the first presentation that talked about one of the risks being gentrification and also displacement of people of lower

[204:01] incomes as we develop. And then I think about development especially in the neighborhood 2 area where a smaller more modest older home might be um replaced with two luxury condos. and to think about whether we want to reflect in this plan some mechanism beyond just cash and loo which still doesn't which still displaces people whether we want to have consider um trying to keep you know different incomes in areas or whether we're fine with just redeveloping and then um diverting people to affordable housing through the cash and low program. That's not a really great way of saying that but I think we understand just from context from other conversations too. >> All right, I'm not seeing any other hands raised, so I'll try to bring us to a close here. Um, just for me personally, I think the plan is phenomenal. Um, and there have been a

[205:01] lot of uh brilliant comments here tonight about ways to refine it and make it even maybe slightly a little bit better. The one thing I'll just put a plus one on was the analyzing the transit quarters for some potential uh neighborhood 2 opportunities. Um so I thought that was a worth analyzing. Um so with all these brilliant comments that you've heard, some of them have been in tension or contradiction with each other. So just curious what you're thinking about in terms of next steps of how you would take this feedback. >> Yeah, I I appreciate I guess I wanted to invite you as chairs maybe initially, but others as well on any points that you thought you heard there were clear differences of an expressed opinion and and maybe talk through that just a little bit more to see if there is some version of a majority and then if we have to be more specific. Um that would be one recommendation and the second um was uh and this might be straightforward

[206:01] getting clarification on whether there's a majority or consensus around more focus on the transit corridors and the mapping the point you just raised as your personal interest. >> Okay. So um let me take a crack at this. So, I I did hear on the transportation side, I heard some varied comments um about approaches to transportation and also approaches to parking. It seemed to me that it was potentially able you would potentially be able to incorporate that feedback. They didn't to me didn't necessarily feel fully contradictory to each other. So, it felt like potentially there were um some mild language changes that could incorporate a broad range of feedback in that area, but I'd be interested in your thought on whether you feel like that's possible. >> The parking uh topic >> I mean transportation and parking >> transportation work generally and you're

[207:00] not talking about the map. >> No. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think broadly speaking, I think we can I think we can tackle many of those just in terms of um uh you know, I think there's there's some clarifications that are probably needed perhaps some more descriptive or aspirational language that are um not specific goals, but directions we want to make sure that we're reinforcing. And then also just I think recognizing the value of the diversity of ways that people navigate this city. um through the transportation system and making sure that all of those are supported. >> Want to check with Sarah? I mean, do you feel like there's >> clarity? I think so. And I think what we can do is take those and work. I think there's enough in that section and then on the 13th when we meet with all of you again, we can share what we have come up with and if there are issues at that point, we could work through them. >> Yeah. I'll just say in general, you

[208:01] know, as we take all of that and we will highlight those changes for you and you'll tell us whether we hit the mark or not. >> Okay. Very good. So, we look forward to seeing what you come up with there. The other one was the uh was it the battle of the marks um around the neighborhood character question. Um, and so Mark McIntyre made a request that that item be eliminated or substantially changed and Mark Wallik was speaking in favor of of keeping a reference to neighborhood character. Um, I will so that there's a little bit of a clash there. Um, I did note that the the policy as it's written is substantially different from the previous version of neighborhood character policies because it I think it's neighborhood character and evolution. Um, so I I wonder if if you all think that there's a way to thread the needle of not allow of phrasing in such a way that neighborhood character is not exclusionary in the way that Mr.

[209:00] McIntyre is speaking about um but that might still talk something about how neighborhoods have different personalities. I'll let the team answer whether they think that we can. But I will say we are sensitive to neighborhood character as as a as a potential term that you know is a bit of a flash point. But we also appreciate the sentiment of character um in the sense of being unique uh defining who we are as a community in the built environment but also social and economic. But do you think we can thread the needle between those concepts? >> I I think we might be able to. I think what um Mason said too is a way that we can think about it in terms of thinking about the processes we use and how we can use that as a way to make sure we're ensuring that that character whatever or however we decide to call it is actually from the community. >> I I think we were only allowed to use

[210:01] Mark words, not Mason words. >> Starts with an M. Well, that's they all start with them. So, we can we can do that. >> Yeah. Just real quickly on on this neighborhood character when I during planning board meetings when neighborhood character has come up and I've asked to define it. If you take away the ability to start defining types or varieties of people, >> then suddenly the the the definition of neighborhood character kind of falls apart. It's like, well, are you talking about the size of buildings? Are you talking what what is it that you're talking about? So >> if you don't want to strike it, then define it so that in a way that you're not talking about the character of people >> you're talking of. I don't know what you're talking about, but anyway, I think it's it's code for many times for

[211:00] something other than the types of buildings or things that would be uh challenging equitably. Yeah, I I think a a definition may provide the clarity that everyone's maybe looking for and and yeah, I see Mark Wallock, you were gonna pipe in, too. So, if if you want to just say and maybe there are even different words to use, but I I got Laura and Nicole and and Mark. I just want to put a plus one and maybe an explanation point on the idea of using a different word because I I do think that it is a loaded term that has become associated with a history of racial exclusion, socioeconomic exclusion, um there there's a lot of baggage to that term neighborhood character. And so if there is a different way to convey the concept of personality or uniqueness or that not every neighborhood is the same, I think that's really useful. But maybe avoid that that term the same way that we don't use master plan anymore. >> Nicole, >> I don't have a problem if you want to call it neighborhood personality

[212:02] or or or something of of that nature. Uh I I don't think it has to be a loaded term. Goss Grove has a character as a as a residential neighborhood. Lower Shitakqua has a character as a residential neighborhood and so does Uni Hill. and and that's what I'm talking about. There are certain things that make those neighborhoods what they are. Um it does not have to be an exclusionary term. Um and whatever those neighborhoods were, they are now going to evolve because we're permitting different housing typologies in them. And certainly in the neighborhood one, we're we're permitting, you know, some degree of of commercial activity in those neighborhoods. So there's going to be an evolution um of them. They're not going to be what they were, but they are something that is uh identifiable uh you know just based on architecture,

[213:02] based on surrounding um the surrounding environment. You know I live near open space that's a characteristic of my neighborhood. Um Goss Grove is much denser. these these characteristics do exist. You don't have to call them anything in particular, but they exist nonetheless. And it's a little bit putting blinders on to suggest otherwise. Um, so you know, I am I'm happy to find a synonym for neighborhood character if if people think it's that loaded a term, but I think there ought to be a term for recognizing those differences because if you don't, it doesn't make the differences go away. You're just putting blinders on. >> Thank you. >> Got it. Nicole's been waiting. >> Um, I was just going to offer we do have a glossery. It seems like that's a place where we can define terms as well. Um I

[214:01] think just defining what does it mean here. Um I think this is something where uh rather than you necessarily having us weigh in, I would love to hear what the community connectors and others who have typically been harmed by that idea of neighborhood character um as it has been used to um to kind of prevent neighborhoods from from diversifying in any way socioeconomic as well. Um anyway, so I I would just love to see it defined in the class three. I think that's an easy way that we can get around it. Um, words change over time and and what they mean. Um, and the other thing I was going to note is just we we do have all of this sitting under our sustainability, equity, and resilience framework. And so everything that that comes out of this plan is going to be seen through that lens and have that applied to it. And so I I am less concerned about those kinds of things persisting as we move forward. As long as we have that overarching framework there, um I think it's going to help us make some better decisions. >> Does that give you something to go on to

[215:00] update that one? Those were the areas of direct contradiction that I'm remembering. Um so I can get to this neighborhood two thing if there's not anything else. Okay. So I'm going to straw poll this one because I we got this request from Brad here. And what I'm going to be straw pulling is we've had several people suggest that we look along the transit corridors in the city and consider if there are other opportunities to designate some areas as neighborhood 2 that are currently designated as something else. >> And and Mayor F may I just want to check with the team and Tess in particular did we capture that right? I know you kind of helped flag that. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. the the the straw poll is would people like for staff to analyze the what Matt's doing some >> I'm not sure I like just the blanket question because there's a tradeoff with that and I'm not sure from staff's perspective well why isn't it that way to begin with in the plan like I just want to know the why I mean just saying it should be different great but clearly

[216:01] there was intent to have it the way it currently is and I just want to know the why before we just go yeah yeah we're just going to change it >> yeah we we can explain that and then And I think we also understand the question as a potential other state. >> Yeah. So, one of one of the things that we um wrestled with a little bit as we drew the new map was this tension or at least this sort of inclination to paint the map with neighborhood 2 like along an entire corridor. So, take the 28th Street corridor as an example. Um or Broadway as another good example. Um, we actually did initially start with a an approach where essentially that entire corridor was painted as neighborhood 2. And we had a lot of conversations around other sort of major linear transportation corridors that we see in Denver is a good example. So like KFax and Federal and a couple of other examples where

[217:01] even though it's miles and miles long, it all just sort of bleeds together as the same thing. And so part of part of the notion of concentrating neighborhood 2 in specific locations, particularly around those hubs that already tend to be along those transit corridors and then creating the essentially some breathing room of neighborhood one in between those. you create these you create better um activity nodes where you know there's a lot of activity then it softens up a little bit as you continue down that corridor the character changes and then you may then come to another activity center. So that was the approach we took. Now in reality like on the ground in the built environment that could feel very very similar along that even though there's neighborhood two and neighborhood one because because we've opened the door to allow a lot of different sort of multiplex types in that neighborhood one and also neighborhood two does not solely mean that it's multi-unit. You

[218:00] know it could include again multiplex and other other types of uses even singleunit detached homes. um it's probably not going to be as apparent quite honestly, but you know, as as you transition and we think overall from a housing capacity standpoint, we've reached a um a comfortable uh you know, happy medium between those two things. So again, if it if it is the will of uh both bodies to investigate that further and look for areas where we could potentially add more neighborhood to, we're certainly open to that. But that's that's the reasoning behind why it looks the way it does, you know, at this moment. >> Yeah. Maybe elaborate just a little bit more too. Um, you know, we wanted to be bold as we said at the beginning of this, but uh reflecting as a parallel concept, the idea of resisting dropping new um hubs in. Um, we wanted to find that balance of of respecting the crosswalk between the existing map and and the current

[219:00] one. So there was a little bit of being conservative in that regard, but certainly if there was direction to find something in between there that would be illuminating. >> Okay. So the the what what we're asking about is not for the transit quarter. If I can Yes. You want to go ahead? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um I'm I'm not sure that I have all the information that I would like to have to weigh in on that tonight. um largely just around the the need and and like what I see is that what what we've got emerging um is enough to meet the at least for now projected demographics that we're going to have in 20 years. There may be more to that um that I don't know that like no, we actually might be short or these projections are off or something. So that that's the I I I don't think that I can weigh in on that tonight because >> totally fair. Mason, >> uh, just wanted to clarify my comments because I think they kind of got lost in

[220:00] between when I said them. And now, um, I was more specifically asking about not just around transit corridors, uh, but expanding the definition of transit corridor to include bike, but looking specifically at areas where there's already what I consider considerable density that are neighborhood one. areas that uh like my neighborhood uh the Bear Creek neighborhood um there's there were quite a few when I look through that were neighborhood one and they would not be allowed to further densify if they wanted to and under the current distinction. So I was a little more specific not just along all corridors but those specific areas. >> Yeah, thanks for that. So, I think what what we're considering or about to consider here is not painting corridors with a brush and not doing it everywhere, but asking staff to look if there are some targeted areas where things could are not currently designated as neighborhood 2, but might be uh brought back forward as as proposed for area 2. And so, um I've been asked by city staff to not do a

[221:01] straw poll per se because of our two-body nature here. So the question is whether we have consensus on this questions like is there is generally everybody interested in in seeing this happen? I've already heard from Nicole who's was not ready to say yes or no to that. Uh but any anybody else? Kirk >> I I just wanted to add as um other areas that I think would be worth considering is as I said the area around the university and also around downtown. We're trying to revitalize our downtown. are desperately needing more people to be downtown and yet we have areas very close to downtown that are really very low density and so can we get more people there in order to provide more vitality and help our especially our retail downtown >> point taken although I think what we're asking is for them to analyze different areas rather than give them specific you must change this but but point taken so any other >> jazz hands So what are we what are we

[222:00] doing? >> I I actually would turn to the lawyers and see what's acceptable here about how we determine consensus without some kind of physical >> display. You could you could conduct a each body could conduct a straw poll um separately. Um so that would be an option. >> I'm happy to do that. >> Um if you'd like to do that with jazz hands, I don't see any legal problem with that. thumbs up. >> So, yeah. So, if this is something you'd like to see analyzed, raise your hands in the air like you just don't care. And so, I'll start with um so city council just throw some hands up if you're interested in the exploration of this idea. >> Going to have not >> Nicole's option is to not move forward with the analysis. So, the so the question is city I'm going to start with city council. If you're interested in exploring this idea, throw your hands up in the air. And so there is a complete lack of

[223:02] consensus. So uh but for completion sake, Mark. >> Okay. Um planning board members, if you're interested in exploring, uh having staff explore an expansion of neighborhood 2, raise your hands. >> Okay. So, uh, we have a we have a, uh, a a council planning board split once again. >> So, it looked like, uh, all six planning board members like that idea, but council only had three, so no consensus. >> All right. So, we worked through that. Anything else that you need from us tonight? Sadly, we've been a little quiet, so I don't know that you have much to go on. You want to start? >> Uh, we'll get Taish wants to throw a comment in before you all wrap up. >> I do. There was one thing I didn't mention on the implementation sorry

[224:01] implementation section and that was around there's a lot there on like we're going to collaborate but where I'm not seeing or where I would love to see a little bit more on that implementation is is the evaluation and reporting like transparency is meant but like a little more I think I mentioned this at the very beginning of the process of like how are we you encouraging this opportunity to better align with some of the reporting processes right, we do our budgeting, then the county does theirs, right? Like things like that. And then the other thing was um for I mentioned my concern around habitat always being habitat and climate um considerations always being in steps two, three or four and not step one. And I was told that the ballot boulder valley comp plan process was a process where we could revisit that, but I haven't seen where that shows up. So I just wanted to lift that up again. Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

[225:00] And Terra's got a >> I forgot to say in my first comment before question three during one and two, remember I mentioned the thing about the grocery stores? So I'm not sure what to do about it because I don't want all of people writing to us and saying, "Why don't I have a grocery store in my 15-minute neighborhood?" >> May I Laura's got a last one, too? I I do think that the the way that the 15-inute neighborhood policy is written is that it's food. It doesn't necessarily have to be a grocery store. It could be a bodega. It could be a convenience store. It could be restaurants, cafes, but just says like access to food. Does that help, Tara? >> Oh, sure. >> Tara says sure. Okay, we're gonna go to staff for the final wrap-up. >> Yeah, final wrap up. Sarah, Tess, do you have anything to add? Anything you want to say? >> Thank you everyone. >> There you go. >> Thank you. Thank you. And it's it's kind of nice to sit around a circle because it feels a little more relaxed, a little

[226:02] easier, but it's a lot of work for all of you. So, thank you for all of your comments and we will think about them all. Thank you. >> Yeah, that I I was I will just echo that. Um really a lot of gratitude for all of you for sticking with us. Um, this has been a a a long yet very fast process and somehow somehow we're keeping keeping it on track. Um, and that's in no small part because of all of you. You have you have flexed with us and held multiple meetings and done all the things that we've asked you to do. So, thank you for that. >> Yeah. And I don't need to repeat the things said um all the thanks and all the collaboration. But I do want to point out that um collaboration is not something that I personally take for granted anymore these days. And I think you know seeing that exhibited uh at the local level is really uh heartwarming and we appreciate and I'm honored to be a part of the process. So thank you all.

[227:01] Mayor, if you if I may. I hate um mucking up the joyful collaboration fest, but I'm a practical woman and want to make sure that we are thinking about next steps and highlighting again the deadlines that you have asked for um so that we get your comments in at the right time so that we're able to incorporate those. So, if you could repeat those uh that would be great so that we uh know what that looks like. >> Yeah. So, future let's see future dates. So, um, if you have any additional comments, please send them to us, ideally by April 6th, which is the close of the community comment period. Um, preferably, if you could send those directly to the project email address, which is futureboulderol.gov, as opposed to one of us as individuals, that that would be really helpful. Um, we will bring uh to you at that fourbody meeting on April 13th. We will bring sort of staff um initial staff themes

[228:00] and recommendations on a couple of revisions or things that we've already identified um or have been identified through this process of some changes that we anticipate and of course raise up anything that um may need some additional conversation between city and county um policy makers to make sure we have resolution there. Um, and then, uh, let's see, April, uh, so that's April 13th, and then we will go away and lock ourselves in a room for three or four weeks. Um, >> look at that. >> That's not right. Oh, you >> unplugged. >> I unplugged it. >> Oh, that's fair. How did that work? >> Okay. Okay. >> Um so the uh the let's see the last um the next day then is the recommended plan will be delivered um uh to the community and available to everybody on May 18th and then our joint public hearing is June 4th. So

[229:00] buckle up for >> mark your calendar >> month of June. Yeah. >> Okay. A very brief something from Matt. >> Staff promised a a a date for some of us about when is the effective date of the comp plan after the four bodies approve it. That you gave me the suspense of you were going to say it and then leave. >> You're right. We asked you to wait. So yes, Matt uh asked us a question about when does the uh comprehensive plan become effective and the answer is it becomes effective immediately upon the final approval. So once all four bodies have approved it, it is it is effective. It becomes the policy that would guide your future decisions. There are some formalities and some additional steps to you know really lock it in and do all the things. But essentially um when that fourth body makes makes the vote and approves the plan then it is it is ready to go. >> That's when the conf confetti starts falling. Okay. Well, Brad and KJ and Sarah and Tess, thank you so much for your extraordinary work um on the plan

[230:00] and tonight and listening to all of our feedback and responding to all the questions as well as the fantastic staff team that we have behind us. Thanks everybody for being here and um planning board and council fantastic comments and we really look forward to how you absorb all of those and move on to the next stage and get to that adoption here before too long. So, thanks everyone and 15 PM. We were only five minutes over our time. Great work everybody. Thank you very much.