September 3, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Okay. The September Landmarks meeting is called to order. Welcome to the September 3rd, 2025 Landmarks Board meeting. It's… 6 o'clock. Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. Thank you, and good evening. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities. Lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other form of intimidation against any person.

[1:07] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupt or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. For those online, individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. This next slide shows where you would find the raise hand button to indicate that you would like to speak, either during open comment or public comment. And, just a reminder for our hybrid meeting is for everyone to speak clearly into the microphone. Back to you, Renee. I would like to acknowledge that we have a quorum today. We have everyone in person. The recording of this meeting will be available in Records Archive and on YouTube within 28 days of the meeting.

[2:06] Roll call and introductions. John? I'm John Decker, member of the Landmarks Board. I'm Abby Daniels, member of the Landmarks Board. Michael Ray, member of the board, vice chair. Chelsea Castellano, member of the Landmarks Board. And I'm Renee Golovic, Madam Chair of the Landmarks Board. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about this project. We want to hear from you and find that it's more productive if you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berate us, staff, or any of the applicants. As with the regular Landmarks Board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing. Requests to speak outside of these times are denied. We request the members of the public who wish to speak let us know by raising the virtual hand

[3:03] The people in public, please speak to Abby, and the people on virtually, please raise their hand. As Board Chair, I will call for a roll call vote on any motions made. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the August 6th meeting? I would like to suggest that there be further clarification about, Board Member Daniels' abstention vote, which it goes in the record as an affirmed. Not sure that I have specific language to recommend… oh, sorry, I move that the Land Boards Board amend the August 6, 2025 meeting minutes to clarify Abbott Daniels' abstention is recorded as a vote in the affirmative. I move that. I'll second it. Okay. Okay. I approve that… I move that we approve these minutes with these alterations.

[4:01] I second that. All works. Boat. Thank you, and now we need to do a roll call vote. Okay. I'm like… That's what we were waiting for. John? I'll vote aye. Abby? Aye. Michael? Aye. Aye. Chelsea. And I vote aye. The public participation for non-agenda items. There are two policy-related items under Matters tonight. If you… if any of you would like to speak to either the Civic Area Phase 2 update or the Comprehensive Plan Update, please do so now under open comment. Potential in-person participants. Abby? Do we have… oh, Aubrey. Why do I do that? It's a compliment. I was like, I don't think Abby… I don't think it's her turn.

[5:03] We're getting better. Okay, so we do have two in-person speakers tonight. First, we will have Margo Smith. Followed by Leonard Siegel. And we no longer are swearing people in for open comment. So, proceed. You will have 3 minutes and state your full name. I'm concerned about the loss of… You gotta press a button. There you go. Can we start? Thank you. Okay. I'm concerned about the loss of a historic valuable asset of Boulder that will be presented to you tonight in the current version of Civic Area Plan 2, the covering up of the ditch that runs from Boulder Creek Headgate at Broadway to the farmer's Market. This ditch section provides an amazing educational opportunity to connect people and water and boulder agriculture in this perfect spot where it runs into the farmer's market.

[6:08] The proposed paving and greening is found a dime a dozen in any other city. If done here, we are losing an incredible opportunity to make this market area more Boulder unique, and raise awareness of a critical part of Boulder history and the value of water and water movement in this arid region. Though I've not researched whether landmarking is the best option, it feels appropriate to raise this concern with you all, and on this evening in particular, because of your broader mandate to preserve the history of Boulder. I'm urging that this section be kept daylighted. Throughout the country, daylighting is happening. Here in Boulder, through the Google Campus, a Smithsonian Magazine May 23 article describes 10 cities undertaking daylighting. The 2018 Denver Post article describes this in Denver. Does Boulder want to go backwards and cover up a watercourse?

[7:03] Interpretive educational signage at this meeting point would be an eye-opener for locals and tourists alike. With increased safety and accessibility features, this flowing water could continue to be enjoyed adjacent to the farmer's market, instead of the structural expense of covering and installing a splash pad on top. In 1907, Frederick La Olmsted visited Boulder and fell in love with its ditches. In 1910, he wrote, If the inherent beauty of the water of the irrigation channels were supplemented by such treatment as would bring out and enhance the natural associations of refreshment and abundance, and would reinforce their intrinsic charm. These channels alone would serve to make Boulder a place of high civic beauty. This section of ditch was left open in its 1910 and 1914 maps. It was covered in the 1923 map and reopened again in the 1924 map.

[8:05] Given how he felt about the downtown ditches, and which… on which he recommended promenades. Would he want this section covered? If the Civic Park is to celebrate history as declared in the 2015 Master Plan, I would argue this is a component of Boulder history that should be kept visible, should not be covered, and should be celebrated. Thank you. Thank you. Leonard Siegel here, And, greetings, Landmark Board members and city staff. I'm speaking on behalf of Historic Boulder tonight to address some of the proposed changes to Central Park that are being proposed by the Parks Department. We believe that Central Park should be a national landmark, having been designed by the esteemed company Olmsted Brothers, the most important landscape architecture firm in the history of America.

[9:08] Boulder Central Park is a rare example of a major metropolit… outside of a major metropolitan area. of the approach to park design coming out of the City Beautiful Movement. The pioneers of Boulder were innovative to bring the homesteads from Boston to develop not only a blueprint for Central Park. But a master plan for the entire city, initiating the ideas of the protected western open space in the foothills, the protected agricultural open space fields to the north, south, and west, and east, and a network of city parks located within a 10-minute walk from all residential areas. Many of the original features of Central Park, and those added shortly after to designs by Sacco de Bour, are intact. The Huntington Bandshell is intact. It is composed of three integrated elements. The stage, the backdrop, and the concentric seating which mirrors the geometry of the Art Deco backdrop.

[10:03] This summer, one of the preservation planners told members of Historic Boulder that the seats are a character-defining feature of the design of the bandshell and its designation as a landmark. Destroying a character-defining element goes against the national standards of historic preservation and our local preservation ordinance. Doing so would set a bad precedent and undermine the landmark protections in the city. Historic Boulder disagrees with the assessment by the preservation planners that the seats can be altered. The precedents they are going to be citing tonight cannot be considered here until the Parks Department reveals the design of the new seating for the bandshell. Historic Boulder's recommendation to you is not to contemplate the demolition of the seats until you know if the redesign is in keeping with the landmark protection for the Huntington Bandshell. I also want to touch on the Parks Department proposed alteration to bury the historic boulder and White Rock irrigation ditch.

[11:05] The irrigation ditches were critical to making Boulder habitable in its pioneering years. This was one of the first registered irrigation ditches in the Boulder Valley, with its head gate right at Central Park, near the Broadway Bridge. It shows up as daylit in the final landscape plan that was produced by the Olmsted brothers in February of 1924, and has been daylit since it opened in 1871. It seems clear that there is important history here that should be protected. Thanks for your considering Historic Boulder's comments. Thank you. Aubrey, anyone else in person? Catherine, did you want to speak in person? All right Let's do it! And if anyone else would like to speak, we have sign-up sheets right over there.

[12:08] I also would like to comment on the proposal to close the irrigation ditch. So, Catherine, you want to… Oh, my name… you want my name, Catherine Barth, you want my address, 2940 20th. Okay. Thank you. And I will… we aren't telling the truth, or we don't have to say we're telling the truth. But, okay, I have, done some research, and the National Park Service, on its technical brief, and I believe it's number 34 or 35, discusses, Designs that were… that are… are designed and drawn And not built. And then it goes and discusses if, at a later time.

[13:00] You want to go back and build what was on the original drawing. And Leonard has mentioned that… The 1907 drawing shows the ditch in Central Park as being dotted. And then later, it's shown as open. So there is a little confusion about that, but the technical brief says that you should not go back and reconstruct something that was on a drawing, a design drawing, if it wasn't built. And I think that would, be effective here. I was involved with this in Washington, where… One of the old apartment houses had two wings. And it was designed with two wings. And… Only one wing was built. And then, in the 19… 80s or 70s, they wanted to go back and recreate the second wing of this apartment house.

[14:08] And the National Park Service said, no, you really can't do it, even though it was designed originally. And they, because of the, I guess, need for apartments and the financial possibilities, they went ahead and built that second wing. But in the mean… but as a consequence, they lost their national register standing. So I think that that is, Applicable here, because this was drawn and not built. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Aubrey, do we have anyone virtually? We do have one virtual participant so far. If anyone else would like to speak, please raise your hand, and you will be next.

[15:03] First, we have Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you should be able to unmute now. And state your full name, and you can proceed. Gwen Siegel, yeah, I agree with the previous three speakers, I think it was, and, I understood the civic areas was part of the hearing. I'll have to listen to the tape again. Was another hearing, but on the side, I see there's just one for a different… for a house. So… I want to say I'm very glad that someone saw that impact fees were going to affect demolition of houses, but the problem is impact fees of $15 a square foot is nothing compared to the $700 a square foot. Like, at… at 1015 Juniper. That… I am so furious about that property. That… you should see the monstrosity they're putting up there that's probably $20 million, and uses up every square inch of that land, and puts us in debt for affordable housing. My brother is in a crisis center now on suicide alert for his inability to find housing here in Boulder.

[16:18] And you're… you're handing over $5 million to that developer, to that… homeowner that complained that they couldn't extend their property into the confluence zone in the back. Well, they shouldn't buy a property on the confluence zone. It's outrageous! You know, it doesn't surprise me that I hear people like. the three, speaking about you violating national historic registries with your policies. You know, this… this is so unethical. So don't do it. Stop! We're calling you out! You know, do you have any pride for what you do? And I know you're hard workers, but you need to work hard on preserving

[17:06] The important things in this community, and that is the designation of these things, and the appreciation of the impact of unaffordable housing in your community. This is just not okay, what's going on. Along with Trump, we're headed for an economic meltdown, and the Landmarks Board needs to really watch out for these houses, and to not be handing over subsidies in the form of demolitions to these homeowners and developers that are just waiting to build more and more higher expense things, especially with Sundance coming to town. This is just outrageous that 10… that that happened to 1015 Juniper. There is no excuse for what happened there. That basement had never Flooded, it was not in the confluence zone. That was affordable housing, and you threw it away. You threw it away to a developer. Shame on you.

[18:09] Jen. Thanks, Flynn. Alright, let's give it just a couple seconds. Would anyone else like to speak? If you would, please raise your hand now. I think we're good to move on. Thanks, Renee. We're going to be moving on to the public hearing. We'll move on to the first public hearing. This is public hearing in consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to relocate an existing accessory building Currently outside the designated boundary to within the designated property at 2940 20th Street. HIS 2025-00147. The Taylor House, an individual landmark pursuant to Section 91118 of the Boulder Revised Code of 1981, and under the proceeding prescribed by Chapter 1 through 3, Quasi-Judicial Hearing.

[19:17] BRC 1981. The owner, Catherine Barth. I'll hand it over to Claire for the staff presentations. Great, thank you, Renee. So all swearing into this item, all speaking to this item will be sworn in, and that includes me. I'm Claire Brandt, I'm the Historic Preservation Planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. I'm gonna pause for a second to allow the board members to note any ex parte contacts. I have no contacts, ex parte contacts to report, but I… I do know this House. I have been there on…

[20:00] Couple of occasions over 20 years, but there's nothing, with my experience there that would disqualify me from voting on this fairly. Okay, thank you, Abby. And, hearing nothing else, I am going to, give a quick overview of the process that we'll go through today. I'm going to give the staff presentation. After that, the board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 minutes to present to the board, and the board may ask them questions. We'll then open the public hearing. After all members of the public have made comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said. The board will then deliberate, and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Motions will state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And as we've mentioned, a record of this hearing is available, usually in a couple of days as a video recording, and then the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days.

[21:03] Usually sooner. And also, as we do record the meetings as the official record, we want to remind everyone to speak clearly into the microphone. The criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9-11-18B and C. The review is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property. does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property. The architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property. And that the Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. The options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application. This is subject to a 16-day City Council call-up period, where City Council can choose to review the decision.

[22:06] The Landmarks Board may also deny the application, which would be subject to a 30-day period in which City Council could review the decision, and that's the applicant's appeals process. However, a denial would mean that the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months. So, if the board is headed in that direction, they will give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw. Alright, the process so far, this briefly touches on the 1979 designation of the property for this application. Lot… Two of the property at 2940 20th Street was designated the Tyler House under Ordinance 4426 in June 1979. The garage was constructed at that time, but Lot 3, where the garage is located, and the garage itself were not included in the area designated.

[23:03] As an individual landmark. So, in May of this year, staff conditionally approved the relocation of the non-designated garage, finding that the building is not eligible for designation. And the conditions included a relocation plan, which would include the LAC as, we received a concurrent LAC application, landmark alteration certificate application, to move the garage to within the designated boundary at 2940 20th Street. So, as the application includes relocation of a building. review by the Full Landmarks Board in a quasi-judicial hearing is required. That's in 9-11-14B of the Boulder Revised Code. The… here's the property. It's located on the east side of 20th Street, between Edgewood Drive and Evergreen Avenue. The house and garage are accessed from 20th Street to the west.

[24:07] And hopefully this will explain the boundary a bit more. The boundary of the area designated as an individual landmark is outlined in the slightly thicker orange dashed line on this map, and it's labeled Lot 2. The garage that is to be relocated is currently to the north of the house on Lot 3, so this is outside the designated landmark boundary, and the proposal is to move the garage to within the boundary, which is that thicker… that thicker dashed line. So a bit about the house. It was commissioned by Clinton Tyler and completed by the summer of 1875. Tyler was born in… on January 16th, 1834. He moved to Colorado around 1860. He took advantage of the patents of the 160 acres of land that the United States government offered.

[25:02] to would-be settlers, and he purchased large areas of land within the territory. He was, his involvement in, forcibly removing Indigenous people from the Boulder Valley needs some additional research, but in 1864, Governor Evans appointed Tyler captain of one of the units of 100 Day Men. the 3rd Colorado Regiment of Cavalry, which participated in the atrocities of the Sand Creek Massacre. Tyler purchased this land north of Boulder from Martha and James Decker, no relation to John, I believe, in December 1872, which was shortly after the town government was organized under Boulder County regulations. Tyler continued to add land, mainly in areas north of Boulder. And by his death in 1886, his estate was estimated to include more than 13,000 acres of land throughout Colorado and Wyoming.

[26:04] After his death, his heirs bought and sold land as the Tyler Land and Livestock Company, and the Tyler family continued to live at this house and ranched the land until the 1950s. So early on, until the late 1940s, the house was described as being located at 4th Avenue and 19th Street, and the house faced south, so it could be viewed from the top of the hills to the, to the south, which at the time were the outskirts of Boulder. The farm buildings themselves were located to the north and west of the house, and, in this image were screened by a grove of trees. In the early 1950s, the city constructed 20th Street, and it went across the, the west side of the property. And the front entrance for the house is still on the south side, and accessed by a footpath from 20th Street.

[27:06] The last Tyler resident was Clinton P. Tyler. He was Clinton Senior's grandson, and he subdivided the land surrounding the house as part of annexing it into the city in 1950. He declared bankruptcy in 1954, and the bank sold the house to Arthur and Audrey Hooten in 1956, and we think they likely constructed the garage, which is to the north of the house, and likely replaced older farm or accessory buildings. This is… these are images of the garage. It's a one-story gable roof accessory building with three single garage door openings, and oddly enough, the Google image shows the… the westernmost garage door open, just like it does in the 1959 image. Just a happy coincidence, but that is actually a door. The…

[28:06] It, on the back side, which you can't see here, it has, some equally spaced square windows. And we didn't find a permit for the original construction in our records, but it was constructed before this image was taken in 1959. That's the tax assessor card. The building was constructed of concrete block, and it was covered with siding at some point after 1967. And the exposed raft details that you see in the 1959 image were likely enclosed at the same time. So we're going to move into our staff analysis for relocating this building, including looking at key site and setting characteristics, the mass and scale, the key building elements, and the details. So, looking first at the key site and setting characteristics, this includes the setback, orientation, spacing, and distance between adjacent buildings.

[29:08] The garage, which is shown in its existing location, the top arrow is pointing at a solid box, which shows the existing garage is… it's proposed to be turned 90 degrees, and moved approximately 13 feet to the south. To be located at the northeast corner of Lot 2. The garage is proposed to be set back approximately 96 feet from, 20th Street, which is at the top of this image. This is an enlargement of that same proposed location. The size and proportions of the garage will not change, however, it is proposed to be rotated 90 degrees so the garage doors face west towards 20th Street. This new location is about 16 feet.

[30:00] 16 and a half feet from the northeast corner of the historic house. There are no proposed changes to the existing historic house, and there are no mature trees that are proposed to be removed for this relocation. The guidelines for the site and setting, note that accessory buildings should be located to preserve a backyard space, and to retain a general proportion of built mass to open space in the area, to not detract from the overall historic character of the principal building or the site. Or require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature, such as a mature tree. And that it should respect the traditional relationship of accessory to the primary structure and to the site. Our staff found that the proposed location respects the traditional relationship of the building on the site, as the proposed location is on the north side of the house.

[31:05] At the rear of the lot. And the north side of the house was historically the location for accessory buildings. The relocation of the building does not detract from the overall historic character of the principal building or site, and the backyard area is preserved due to the size of the lot. The gravel driveway is proposed to be realigned to allow direct access to the garage, and staff suggests that this realignment should be reviewed, as a condition of approval. Moving on to look at the height, form, mass, size, and scale, and overall proportion, the proposal includes relocating, it's approximately 34 foot by 23 feet, one-storey garage. There are no changes proposed to the shallowly pitched roof and the moderate eaves. The building is one story, it's approximately 12 feet tall at the ridgeline.

[32:06] And the garage doors are standard single garage doors, about 7 feet tall by 8 feet wide, and the proposal, leaves these elements unchanged. The guidelines emphasize that accessory buildings should generally be small in scale and mass and secondary to the primary structure. They should be subordinate, in terms of size and massing, and the roof form and pitch should be complementary to the primary structure. Staff found that the mass and scale is subordinate and clearly secondary to the primary structure. The simplicity of the building is complementary to the character of the neighborhood and does not create a false sense of history. We considered that due to the size of the lot, again, and the one-storey form, that in this case, a three-car garage is appropriate.

[33:04] Key building elements include windows and doors. The proposal includes retaining the three evenly spaced single car doors, and the existing windows at the rear. The guidelines emphasize that windows and doors should reflect historic scale, patterns, proportions, and symmetry, and use similar materials to those found historically. Elements of accessory structures should always be simpler in design and detail than similar elements on primary structures. Staff found that the general solid-to-ratio, solid-to-void ratio of the door and window openings reflect a traditional architectural style. The minimal ornamentation and scale of the doors and windows is compatible with the size and scale of the historic building on site. And the door and window patterns of the accessory building reflect the general pattern and proportion found on the primary building, in that they are simple, traditional, and off the time.

[34:11] Looking at, materials and details, the existing garage is constructed of concrete block, which is visible at the foundation. It's been covered with painted vertical T111 siding and trim. And the siding is painted a very light gray. The roof is asphalt shingle with moderate closed eaves, and includes K-style gutters and downspouts. There are 3 existing paneled overhead garage doors with upper lights, and they include decorative metal elements. The windows are aluminum construction, fixed pane with divided light, and rollock brick sills. There is a low concrete curb that differentiates the gravel driveway and the lawn area. The proposal that we analyzed in the memo included retaining these existing materials, but the owner and applicant is here today and may have updated information, as they, they may need to deconstruct and reconstruct the garage, and may not be reusing all of the materials.

[35:20] Guidelines emphasize that building materials should help establish a sense of scale and are compatible with those found on the primary structure and in the district. They guide us to use materials that are similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally. They state that it is inappropriate to introduce features or details to a garage or an accessory building in an attempt to create a false historical appearance. The, aluminum frame windows, garage doors with applied hinges and siding materials used, identify the garage as a modern, non-contributing building.

[36:03] Staff considers that while the materials and details are simple in design and will not detract from the overall character of the site, the existing materials are not compatible with a traditional accessory structure, where wood siding, doors, and windows may be more appropriate. However, staff considered that the relocation of the existing building is appropriate and material changes should be addressed when requested by the applicant. So, in the memo, staff suggested that as a condition of approval, the existing gutters should be modified to ensure drainage is away from the historic building when the garage is rotated and relocated. That the driveway and apron, when relocated, should use the same gravel materials to retain the permeability. And that the low concrete curb that differentiates the gravel driveway and lawn area would be appropriate to replicate in a new location, but that relocation, should be reviewed.

[37:04] New information that's presented today can also be added to the conditions if the board, finds that to be necessary. So, in general, staff considers that if the stated conditions are met, the proposed relocation of the accessory building does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the historic building, as it does not obscure or remove character-defining features. It does not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the individually landmarked building, as it is subordinate and located at the historic rear, which is currently a secondary elevation of the building. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials proposed to be retained when the accessory building is relocated are generally compatible with the character of the landmark site, in that they do not create a false sense of history.

[38:07] However, future changes to the building will require an LAC, and at that time, the appropriateness of the proposed siding doors and windows would need to be determined. Information specific to the economic feasibility of alternatives, the incorporation of energy-efficient design and enhanced access for the disabled were not submitted with the application, however. In many cases, the relocation and reuse of an existing building is more energy efficient than demolition and new construction, even if the new building is proposed to be highly energy efficient, as repurposing older buildings avoids the upfront embodied energy used And carbon emissions that occur when construction materials are mined, harvested, manufactured, transported, and assembled to create a new structure.

[39:01] Staff recommends that Landmarks Board adopt the finding from the memo, and recommends that the Board conditionally approve the application. for a landmark alteration certificate to relocate the existing accessory building currently outside the designated boundary to within the designated property at 2940 20th Street, the Tyler House, an individual landmark. Pursuant to Section 9-1118 of the Boulder Revised Code. As shown on an application received May 27th, 2025, finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in 9-11-18, BRC, and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines for Boulder's historic districts and individual landmarks. Our recommended conditions of approval are to provide final details of the proposed realignment of the existing gravel driveway and concrete curb. Final details of the guttering and drainage proposed to ensure there is positive draining away from the historic building when the garage is relocated.

[40:07] And a written statement from Moving Company describing the relocation methodology. And we did receive that, yesterday, and the owner and applicant can address any questions you have about what we've received, and they can, go over that information for you. Your criteria for, criteria for your decision is found in 9-11-18, and considers whether the project meets the standards for issuance of an LAC. The options in front of you this evening are either to approve the application, approve with conditions which you may add to or modify. Or deny the application if you believe it does not meet these standards. Alright, that's the end of staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps. The applicant has up to 10 minutes to present to the board, and you may ask them questions.

[41:07] We'll then hear comments from any members of the public who wish to speak. The applicant may have additional time to address anything said during public comment, and then the board will deliberate. So did anyone have any questions for staff before we move on to the applicant? I do not have a question, but I want to applaud staff and say how much I appreciate. It could have appeared in previous memos, but this is the first time it really spoke out to me about the energy efficiency of perhaps relocating a building and carbon emissions and all of that, so I really… I… I… So… I'm so happy to see that. So, thank you.

[42:01] I'm curious about two things, and I don't know if this is a staff question or not, but, in the great photograph here, is there a proposed alteration to the… what I'm perceiving as a curb cut on a 20th Street, and in the application, it says no mature trees will be removed for the relocation of the garage. Does that include both lots, that there will be no trees, mature trees, removed? The curb cut will not change. Sorry, the curb cut will not change. the, I don't believe there are any mature trees on the lot that the garage is currently on, but the owner can probably address that better than I can. There are a lot of weeds. I just want to make some, just clarification questions. So the property, is divided, like, if you go to the, the zoning.

[43:05] map… the zoning to the survey, right? There's a… there's a lot… It's like Lot 3, I think? Is that what it said? Lot 3, where the, Yeah, there you go. So Lot 3 is where the garage is currently… the existing location of the garage is there. And, somewhere in the documentation, Lot 3 is not part of the historic individual landmark, correct? Okay. Yeah, correct. And just the building… the building and the… I mean, obviously, because it's an individual landmark, the… that property… and the house are… is the individual landmark. But the garage is not a designated historic structure, correct? Correct. Okay. And then… I mean, maybe we'll get into it when we talk about it. So, never mind.

[44:03] Could I just clarify to make it, clear for everyone is that the, garage is currently on the same property, but not within the landmark boundary. It's not designated. However, if the Landmarks Board approves the relocation, it becomes designated as part of the Tyler House landmark, but it would be considered a non-contributing feature, since it's not historic. But future changes to it would still require review, so it's designated, in that sense. And… and if… just… just to pose a question, is if someone was to build a new garage, right, like, instead of relocating it, but putting a garage there, and it was on this landmark, future changes to that building would still require an LAC. It's not because it's from 19…

[45:00] 50s that were requiring it. It's because it's on the property. Yes, within the landmark boundary. Okay. One more question. Does this… the addition, or the relocation of the garage, and it's… there's a little lack of clarity in… in… some of the language talks about the new building, and I think that is meant to be that it's the relocated existing garage, correct? There's no new proposed building. So… Does… is… is there, from a zoning perspective, and that's not the purview of this board, but does that… does the lot coverage… Can it accommodate this? relocation? Yeah, that would be a good, question for the applicant to confirm, but I do know this is a RL1 zoning district and a larger size than is typical, so, it'd be up to the applicant to confirm that, but it,

[46:03] The key things that we wanted to confirm are the setbacks, which, which we've indicated needs to be either 0 or 3 feet from the property line, and then for building coverage, they would check that during, Prior to submitting for a building permit, but it appears they would have more than enough building coverage. One more question. It's like our… when we put the little red button on it, it means we, like, raise our hand. Great. So the new location, there's… on this is a… the lot, it says lot line, right, like, where the new location of the garage is, like. sitting over the lot line, and then proposed lot line. So, are they moving the lot line in this… like… Are… is that… that would be their next phase for zoning, or is it there now? It's currently there. This is an old site plan. Oh. So that lot line has actually been approved already. Oh, okay. Which Catherine can confirm, but I believe that's the case, yeah.

[47:13] Oh. So that's to say that the dimension of Lot 3 facing 20th is 60 feet wide, not 70 feet. I'm confused by that same… Proposed versus… because of this diagram. Yes, so this was a, diagram used to do that lot line adjustment. So, and my understanding is that it has been approved, so the, width of the lot 3 is 60 feet. Which… By 120. For the proposed one.

[48:08] I have one question that's kind of sideways. Oh. When, when you're approving, you're approving this building to be moved. Assuming that it's gonna be moved in one piece. If it was decided to partly decommission it and reassemble it in the new location, when does that get into the territory of having to review a demolition? Great question. So, the code requires historic preservation review for demolition or relocation of non-designated buildings over 50 years old. So, Claire covered it in the presentation, but it's, it's an interesting Intersection of our two processes, where the owner has submitted a non-designated relocation application to move the building from its current location

[49:02] to the landmark boundary, then once it gets to the landmark boundary, we're reviewing it through a landmark alteration certificate, because our processes say, is it designated or non-designated? So there's actually two historic preservation review processes to move this one building. Okay. So it has to be accepted in the new location by, an LDRC review, or… by this Landmarks Board review, so we've conditionally approved the relocation based on the outcome of this hearing, because you need to have a viable new location in order for us to approve the relocation. I see. Okay. And… Another question, why was the boundary… why was that Lot 3 excluded from the historic designation previously? Do we know?

[50:01] our documentation from 1979 is not great. I'm assuming that… well, Catherine might remember… no, you don't know, okay. I'm not assuming that you're old, Catherine, I'm sorry. It was likely that it was because the garage was there, and that they considered it to be a non-contributing Part of the property, and just drew the boundary to exclude that building. and I'll also say, reinforce, we don't know. A lot of the landmark boundaries follow the property line, that's the cleanest most common way. It's possible that it was, that the owners at that time, only wanted to landmark a portion of their property and chose it because of the location of the garage, but we don't know. I mean, by changing the proposed lot line, you change the historic… boundary, right? Which isn't a big deal? In a sense, but when this house was built, it was the only thing around, and so I think the biggest context change was in the 1950s, post-war era, so it was a very large parcel and has gotten smaller over time, but it's still a remarkably

[51:18] I'd say a rural character within this kind of post-war neighborhood that, you know, and the boundary for the landmarks, the landmark boundary isn't in question tonight. It'll still retain that setting that it had when it was landmarked in the 70s. Yeah, it's just an interesting process, I think, more or less, but the house is a little gem when you're going into all those… little houses in the North Boulder neighborhood, so… Any additional questions? Nope. Okay. Let's move to applicant, participation. Catherine? You will have to swear in.

[52:01] It's not on my notes. And state your full name. I'm sure that my… Catherine Barth, I swear to tell the truth. The main reason that… I've wanted to… move that garage, or have a different garage. Is that… From my back door to the garage is 66 feet. And in the winter months, the roof on my house is a 14 and 12. And there is a shadow that is over most of that driveway all winter, which means that there is a skating pond between my house and where my car is parked. So what that also means is because it's treacherous to get out there, our cars usually

[53:06] End up being parked near the house and not in the garage because I can't… you know, it's a very treacherous skating rink between my house So anyway, that is kind of the impetus, was just to bring shelter for the cars closer to the house, and Another thing that… Call me crazy. I just didn't want to… put my garage into the landfill, if I could reuse it. You know, it's… Maybe… to me, I think that's… A conservation thing to do is not to just demolish it and… put those materials in the landfill. So those are kind of the… that I wanted a garage closer to my house, and that I, if possible, would like to not

[54:04] But those materials. In the landfill. My journey with this Tyler family, I think we were talking a little bit about it, is interesting, because although their… that Tyler family started out in New England and came west, stopping in various places, including Wisconsin, where I'm from. And Clinton, Iowa, where my grandmother is from, whose name was Tyler. So, in some romantic way, after I ended up with this house and knew nothing about the family, I kind of think now, like, oh, well, maybe it was to be, or something like that. But I've loved the house, we've been there for more than 30 years, and We have made, really, essentially no changes to the exterior of the house, and…

[55:02] And… and the interior, most of the houses, as it was, in 1876, except… Inside of where the back door is, we put 3 little rooms together for one large kitchen. So, but the house itself… We have still the plaster moldings, and, the wooden floors, and… the, Newell Post, and the staircase, and… So, I have done more, restoration work in the house than I've done. of renovation. So, Mark Powell is here tonight, and he's going to… he's the man who… he, moved Johnson corners. And so, when I called him, he said, oh, this isn't any problem for me, so I'd like him to just come and introduce himself and…

[56:01] If you… do you have any questions for me? Okay, thank you very much, and I… oh, I really especially want to thank Claire and the staff, because it was excellent work, and things I didn't know, and… I mean, it's really fun to poke around and do this kind of work. I know you love it, but thank you very, very much. So, go ahead and state your full name, and you swear to tell the truth. And the whole truth. My name's Mark Powell. I own Powell Structure Moving, and I will always tell the truth. You folks have seen the scope of work that I put together earlier, and I don't really have anything to add to it. It's pretty straightforward. If you folks have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. We're gonna save the… 50% of it will save the roof section.

[57:05] And what needs to be disassembled. And reassembled with the correct mortar and… the correct, Grout inside the blocks and rebar. would be the balance of the project, so I'll leave it to you folks if you've got any questions. Okay, my question is, are you going to be able to move it in a single piece, or are you going to have to… Take it apart. I could. you couldn't afford it, but I sure could. The problem is, once we… if, let's just say we moved it in one piece. You still have to disassemble the block. In order to get the steel in. Plus, the damage to that structure was caused by the uplift of several large trees. So you've got a lot of damage in those walls, and it's obvious by looking at it, there's no rebar in it, there's no grout in it.

[58:10] So, if you want to help subsidize moving it in one piece, I'd be glad to take your money, but we still have to disassemble the blocks. Right, okay. That makes sense. Did… did… just curiosity, more or less, did… Claire, did we get an email about his… Proposal? Because he's saying… but I didn't. Oh, right here. Sorry. Loose it. Okay. Oh, I do think it's worth, mentioning. We received this, kind of structure methodology and a structural engineering report in the last day or two, and so our staff memo already went out, and our understanding, as we were writing the recommendation was that it was going to be moved in one

[59:03] piece, and then understand now that it's… the roof will be in place, but the walls will be deconstructed and reconstructed, and that doesn't change our recommendation, but it is a change that we wanted, the applicant and the owner to present This evening, so that you have the full, the full information, to consider. I might mention that Gabao was the engineer on that, and he and I have discussed it, and I've read his report, and his report reflects what my scope of work is. We both came to the same conclusion separately, so… Are you done with me? I suppose so. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'll be interested to see how it comes out.

[60:00] It'll be a good example for other people. When they're disassembling and reassembling something. One other thing that is important to me is the gravel. That should not be paid. Nice. water going through. Well, can we just state what she said? Is that okay? So, Catherine, would like to state that she's… it's really important for the driveway to remain gravel, not to… to have impervious material there. And it also is the vestige of when it was I don't… wouldn't want a big, huge, concrete driveway. Yeah, to keep in the historic nature, to keep the gravel. Yes. This was a farm. Does that work for you? Yes, that's fine. Okay. Can I add that there are, a number of slides that have the engineering report in there, and I can, scoot through those if you would like to read them, or I can go to the summary conclusion.

[61:14] If anyone has any questions, does anyone wanna, or… So, let's go to the conclusion. Okay. So now we're open, let's move to public comment. Is there… Aubrey, is there anyone that is in person that would like to speak to this matter? We do have one person here. It is Leonard Siegel. And Leonard, you know the drill. And Leonard Siegel, and I swear to tell the truth. As I know it. I, am really happy to be here just by accident to support, Catherine Barth and the rigor in which she is, following

[62:10] historic precedent to move this garage. I think it's a great example of, you would probably build this very same garage, new, and it would be a modest garage that doesn't take any, thing away from the character of the original building. But it's serendipity that you're going to be able to take that old building and And it fits in that same model of something that, follows the guidelines that you would intend for historic property. And furthermore, the, Environmental aspects of reusing an existing building, is, commendable, and is a part of what historic preservation is also about. So, I just wanted to say, I'm in… support this, proposal, and hope that you do too. Thank you.

[63:06] Thank you. Aubrey, is there anyone virtually that would like to speak? If anyone would like to speak virtually, just raise your hand now. We will start off with Lynn Siegel. Lynn, let me just restart the timer for you. Sorry about that. Free Palestine, get out of Gaza, all of this… Lynn, would you state your name and say the… Len Siegel… Len Siegel, I swear to tell the truth best to my know… to my knowledge. And the biggest truth is get out of Palestine now, and Gaza, this is outrageous that we're doing that, and that will make a lot more money For this country to be able to preserve Historic spaces. And this space… Quickly, this is… this is a no-brainer. I don't know why it even came through

[64:08] in this way, it wouldn't… it seems like, to me, it would be just a staff review situation. I really don't get why. I guess because it has to be moved and it's a historic space, but… It's pretty straightforward. And of course, I've been in that house. I didn't realize, even when I was in the house, that, it was associated with the Sand Creek Massacre and Tyler, which is pretty horrific, but I guess you get the good with the bad. But we don't need that. with regards to Israel and Palestine. Palestine never did anything to deserve being attacked by Israel. From the very start. If anything, it's Germany that feels the guilt for this whole situation.

[65:02] From World War II. And it's just… It's unconscionable, unspeakable, what's going on there. And how that impacts Boulder and the affordability here. You know, my brother, being in a crisis center right now because of affordability issues. And… That doesn't apply directly to this house, of course. and Catherine, and her work with it, although I really appreciate the fact that she didn't want to, Cause any, you know, troubles as far as the environmental value of the embedded energy in… in the existing structure, and, you know, she understands… I'm very impressed that she understands the full life cycle analysis of the materials that go in and all of that. And that's really admirable. And so, I…

[66:00] clearly support this project. I mean, I don't know originally why they had it so separated out from the house. Probably they had big carriages and things that, well, then they wouldn't have been putting those things into, you know, they wouldn't be putting carriages in garage before, you know, they had cars, but in any case, yeah, go for it, and thank you. Bye. Thank you. Does the applicant now may have an additional 3 minutes, if you would like to comment on anything that's been said during this process. Would you like to add anything? I would like to add one comment. Okay. It is true… now, I mean, 19th century Boulder history, and… Our relationship with the Native Americans is very fraught.

[67:03] And what I do know is that Tyler was asked to form a hundred day volunteers. I've also read some of his diaries where he talks about being on patrol and seeing the Indians. And he said, we kept our distance, and they kept theirs. And we were both happy about that. I… he was not at Sand Creek. I do want to… He, he may have… who knows what his patrols entailed, but he was not one of the people from Boulder who went to Sand Creek, and my information of that came from Tom Meyer, who was the head of the museum and one of our, Native American historians in town. So, I'm happy that he wasn't there. I think that probably the society at that time was quite fraught. I mean… Nobody was very understanding.

[68:06] About other cultures in the 1860s. But at least the person who lived in my house wasn't physically there. So I've taken a little solace in that. Anyway, thank you all very much. Thank you. We're going to move on to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion, and we'll allot 45 minutes for the discussion. Abby would like to start. So very quickly, and this is just to give it, a little bit of context, since I've had the good fortune of being at this house on several different occasions, Many of you in this room, or some of you maybe who are joining us remotely, know who Joyce Davies was, the founder of Historic Boulder, who we lost earlier this year, and

[69:02] She was once being interviewed, I believe, by someone at the Daily Cameron. She was asked what her favorite historic home was, and she said it was the Tyler Decker house, because nothing quite had the grace and the… that, like Catherine alluded to, it pays tribute to our agricultural history and everything, and I remember the first time I was driving up there, and I'm going by these ranch houses, some which have been so creatively readapted and reused, but I'm thinking. I'm totally in the wrong neighborhood, I don't know, and then all of a sudden, this glorious house rises up, and, lo and behold, it was Catherine's house, and I think with this proposal today, I think it's fascinating, because when I see the photos or the illustrations of the current location where it will… where it will be moved. is… now I see the existing garage, which has become part of the houses and the property's evolution, and is one chapter in the story of this house, while not…

[70:04] non-contributing, is it now looks a little lonely to me. And I do think that distance sometimes in bad weather, and maybe even in incredibly warm weather, is quite a ways, from the house or from the back entrance to this house. And, I will be supporting staff's recommendation tonight to conditionally approve this, knowing the process now. I don't think any of us have ever had something like this come before us, so it's kind of cool to learn that. I can tell by, the mover's history with moving, the iconic Johnson's Corner to its allegedly final resting place in Longmont, is… is… I know this should probably be something very easy for you, but the thing that kept going through my head as I start thinking in terms of my life is that by relocating that, I think that this garage not only

[71:03] does it, not detract from the historic re- resource? But I think it actually… will enhance, kind of, the location. It kind of makes it connect, speak to each other a little bit more than the current location of the garage, but what keeps going through my mind as I address this personally and with with relatives is I think it allows an aging in place to occur more gracefully and proactively by just simply being so much closer to one of the main entrances to your home. And I do… I'll add one more thing. Catherine, thank you for this… your stewardship. Yours and Bob's stewardship of this absolutely remarkable home. This is…

[72:01] A very interesting project that I'm really glad did come in front of us, just to be able to see this. I, I think that it's, it's important to note that we are now addressing issues of embodied energy, which I'm very happy to hear. Addressed in review of this project. I also think it's a… it's a demonstration Different ways to approach preservation. In the sense that I would definitely like to see more disassembly and reassembly of things within some set of parameters. Maybe not outright moving things, but… It's… it's a common… it's a common situation where We review a project where A piece of the project is In the wrong place.

[73:01] to allow for, I guess, maximum yield out of the land. And if things… if there was more demonstrated kind of capability to take things apart and reassemble them, that's one way of keeping stuff out of the landfill, as Catherine said. And it's a way of… I guess… Honoring the craft and the embodied energy and work and creativity that went into something. And reusing it in a way that Is enabled by just reassembling it somewhere else. So, I'm really happy to see that in this case. And I also think that it is… Locating it in a better environmental position on the site. Relative to the tendency to form ice and cast shadows is an optimization that is consistent with what…

[74:02] We like to see with historic preservation, where you make Optimizing, kind of, alterations to maintain the utility of things, and to preserve Not just the physical building, but the… but the use of the building and the… and the enjoyment of the building into the future. So, this is a… laudable one. This is the ones we like to see come before us, and also, Catherine, thanks for your stewardship of this property. Yes, I agree with my colleagues and with the staff recommendation, and as is often said here, the… You know, the landmarking of a property and historic preservation doesn't mean that we're freezing

[75:02] you know, these properties in time, and that we need to be able to adapt to meet the needs of the people who live there. And I think that that is really at the heart of what we do, on a monthly basis here, is we try to figure out and solve the problems between those… that tension of what has been and what is needed today. And I think you came up with a great solution, so I hope you look forward to a shorter walk between your garage and your door. I would agree about the, sort of… and I've said this in previous meetings, where I think it's very important to reuse, materials. I, I think it's a great example of, how to… How to leverage existing buildings without…

[76:00] Burning more holes in the atmosphere, so thank you for… For that, I, I, I would say that, and this is, this is also, I guess, a comment for… For maybe a reaction from staff, but… the way I look at this, separate from the… The warm and fuzzies about moving the existing structure is… Pretend that this was a site designated site, and we were looking at a proposed new garage. That's really, to me, what we're making a judgment about. So this precedent of, you know, the scale and the… all the qualities that make it appropriate as a garage on this site that is non-contributing to the site is… is something that we're… we're deciding with this action, tonight. I have all kinds of curiosities about Lot 3, but that's not part of this. Peace.

[77:03] I think that, Michael, you said it, pretty well about that it's a historic site, so it's basically, you know, we're gonna look at putting the new structure there, but, I'm definitely supportive of this application. I think that moving the garage doesn't take away from the historic nature of the Tyler House, so I'm not… I think it keeps it in line. I think that it's secondary to the main instructor. I… absolutely love this idea of deconstructing and reconstructing on the site. I'm really excited to maybe… I live in the neighborhood, so I will watch it. And, I will, alter my route to go by your house to watch it be deconstructed and reconstructed, because I really do think that… Moving forward and allowing for this sort of, pathway is… is just an excellent use of the existing structure, and I'm… I'm excited to see

[78:01] how, it's gonna happen, so… I'm definitely in favor of it. I want to… the staff's recommendations and conditions, I'm supportive of, and, does someone want to make a motion? I do. This'll be my second one in seven and a half years on the board. So I'm excited. Oh, but I'm gonna… thank you, Claire. Saw it in the… Sorry. We do have a proposed motion for you, it's just taking a minute to, huh. Nevermind. Here we go. Okay.

[79:01] I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated September 3rd, 2025, as the findings of the boarding conditionally approve the application for a landmark alteration certificate to relocate an existing accessory building currently outside the designated boundary to within the designated property at 2940 20th Street, the Tyler house… I always say Tyler Decker, so that I may be… Tyler House, an individual landmark pursuant to Section 91118 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, as shown on application received May 27th, 2020, fine. 2025, finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9, 11, 18, Boulder Revised Code 1981, and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines for Boulder's historic districts and individual landmarks.

[80:05] Thank you, Abby. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Michael. Michael seconds the motion. Can we have a roll call vote? Yes. John? Aye. Abby? Aye. Michael? Aye. Chelsea? Aye. And aye. Vote aye. Motion passes unanimously. Now we can move on to the next steps. Actually, before we do that, can I check with Chris? Are we, do we need to read the conditions? Oh, we need to read the conditions. And I don't know whether the board wants to have a discussion about modification of any of the conditions, knowing that the… Building will need to be deconstructed and reconstructed. there wasn't any talk of modifying the conditions, and because this motion states that they're conditionally approving it, and adopting the staff memorandum which lists out those conditions, I think anybody looking at what happened here tonight would know that these conditions apply to that motion.

[81:12] Although I would ask if any board member disagrees and wished to make alterations to these conditions. And seeing none, then I don't think we need to read these conditions. Okay. no one… Everyone read it? We're all in agreement? Okay. To end, Claire, go ahead and explain what the next steps are. Yes. So the application has been conditionally approved. City Council has up to 16 days, to decide whether to review or call up the application. If they,

[82:05] If they do not call it up, the conditions of the LAC will be reviewed by staff. And once the conditions are satisfied, the LAC will be issued. In the case that the City Council does want to review the, the, the decision, we will be in contact, and we will schedule a hearing within 45 days. Now, we get to move on to matters. You can switch.

[83:02] It's a genius. Should we take a 5-minute break while we reset?

[85:39] Alright, we'll be ready to get started as soon as Michael is back, and then, we'll ask for some tech help to get these two monitors going. But as soon as Michael's back, we'll be ready to start.

[88:16] That's also in the same thing as… Yes, I'm sharing my screen. Alright, so we have two matters this evening, two matters items this evening. The first one, I'd like to welcome Shihomi Kriagawa from, Boulder Parks and Recreation, as well as, Abby Stone from Rios, as well as some other. folks from that team, invite them and welcome them to our Landmarks Board, meeting to provide an update on the Civic Area Phase 2. So, welcome. Thank you, Marci, and thank you all for having us tonight. We're really excited to be here with the Landmarks Board. As Marcy mentioned, I am Shihomi Kurigawa. I'm the project manager for Parks and Rec for Civic Area Phase 2. And then online, we have our design team from Rios to help with presentation and questions afterwards.

[89:14] For the Civic Area Phase 2, We would like to talk about… Oh. We would like to talk about, a few updates of the project process, and where we've been, and where we're going to date. We would also like to, just dive into a little bit more of the historic sites and kind of reviewing those together, as well as a proposed framework that we'd like to discuss with you all in terms of, proposing changes or enhancements to the bandshell. We'll have questions for Landmarks Board after that, and I can talk about next steps at the end of the night of what the project trajectory is and where we're going.

[90:04] So, specifically for our outcomes and purpose for tonight, as I mentioned, we'd like to provide an update, not only on the full project process, but just review all the historic elements within the project. And then we are requesting feedback from the board on a proposed framework for design solutions related to the bandshell area. Just a reminder, no decisions, are being requested at this time tonight. We will be back next year when we get into more detailed design, and probably will engage the board at that time. So, this is just a quick review of those questions, and I'll bring them back up again at the end of the presentation, but the questions we're asking for the board tonight, does the Landmarks Board have questions about the proposed framework to inform future enhancements of the bandshell? And does the Landmark Board have questions about the historic elements included in Civic Area and the concept plan?

[91:02] Okay, so let's dive into the project and the background. So, just to orient us really quickly, as a reminder, Civic Area is actually at the heart of a lot of key places in Boulder, downtown being one of them, Pearl Street connected up to the north, but also CU Campus in the Hill that we're connecting down into in the south. A river runs through it with the Boulder Creek, and a connection from the Arboretum path is part of the Civic Area Scope that will maintain circulation up to CU's campus. Specifically, when we zoom into the scope of the project, we go from 9th Street over to 14th Street. We have that arboretum path that you can see that snakes off of the slide south up to CU Campus, and the north boundary is Canyon to Arapaho. Just for orientation, the library is included, tea house and atrium, as well as this building, is included in the scope.

[92:04] This slide just talks about, the phasing that we've done over the past several years. So, in green, highlighted is Phase 1, and that's completed construction that we opened in 2018. We did a lot of creek improvements and updates around, the library, including a new playground. And what you see in blue is what the team is currently working on for Scope 2. We are building off of the 2015 Master Plan in terms of design, and so that encompasses all of this area, as well as key connections, again, north and south of the project. So, I mentioned that 2015 park plan, so that was, based off of 10 years of planning for the city and community engagement that was adopted by Council, in the 2015, and it included these 7, design guiding principles that we hold From Phase 1 to Phase 2, it guides us now today and current phases.

[93:03] And obviously key and pertinent to this board is the celebration of history and assets, and that's what we'd like to focus in, this element specifically as we look at design through concept planning. Alright, so let's review the historic elements within Civic Era, and you can see that black dashed boundary is all of our scope boundary. It does include Penfield Tate Building, it includes the Glen Huntington Bandshell, the Atrium Building, the Tea House, and a storage and transfer building, all landmarked, and with the, boundaries shown in pink. And I just want to note here that, Civic area is a big project, and there's multiple phases. As you can tell, I've named a few of them, but just to highlight, Penfield-Tate will probably be in a future phase when we look at any programming updates or any updates around the building. When we're talking specifically tonight about Phase 2, it's possible that, with Phase 2, we could look at improvements with the band shell. And so that's sort of contingent on the funding that we have today, and so we're going through some of that analysis I'll get into a little bit more in depth later.

[94:18] The note around the boundary at the very east end, we call that the east bookend, where it houses the atrium, east bookend, or excuse me, east, tea house, and the storage and transfer building. That whole area is going to be a separate process, in which we're moving through, a potential partnership to redevelop that, bookend. So that will be… A future phase as well. If I dive into, some just quick overall specifics about our landmarks and each building. Just a quick overview of the atrium, designated and individually landmarked in 2022. This one is located in the east bookend on the northwest corner. We went out to the community this past year, and we talked about multiple things throughout the concept, design, they want to see how they want to space activate.

[95:13] But specifically on some of these buildings, we got feedback for programming. And with the atrium, community members would like to see the year-round farmer's market expanded into the atrium. They just generally love and support the farmer's market and want to see the expansion of it more often and larger. So, we think that actually is a great use, and actually ties back into the 2015, park plan. The Boulder Duchambe Tea House was landmarked and designated in 2020, 2020, and this one, the land use will not be changing, it will remain Duchambe Tea House, supportive of community member feedback, and again, what they support, they want to see more of, so they actually are interested in expanding garden and outdoor space around the tea house. The storage and transfer building adjacent to Duchon Bay, just south, was landmarked and designated in 1992.

[96:06] And, located also in the east bookend, so that separate process. Community members did see, wanting interest to add additional gathering spaces in, storage and transfer building, as well as the use of BMOCA currently located there now. And then the building that we're sitting in today, so Penville-Tate. While we know that Council will probably remain here in the near term, this building was looked at, and through community feedback, we gathered interest on the first floor, so possible potential reprogramming. For more public-facing programming opportunities, such as a cafe or visitor center, something that kind of spills out and provides a patio or outdoor space opportunity. And this, landmark was designated in 2009.

[97:00] And then the Glen Huntington Bandshell that sits in Central Park today. So, this is a beloved and iconic structure. Community members shared their appreciation for the bandshell's form and how it serves as a key visual element throughout the park. Community members also gave us feedback on the bandshell and how it feels underutilized and sometimes, unsafe. So we are working on more social behaviors in the area and how to also reprogram that. We heard a lot of feedback about Wanting more in terms of concerts, and even additional new programming, such as movie nights, and we can touch on that a little bit later in the presentation. But overall, what we've gained in terms of feedback, the concept plan is looking to incorporate some of those, some of that feedback and balance with the iconic landmarks here today, and how do we continue the character of these landmarks and incorporate balancing, some of the new programming.

[98:03] But staff will propose specifically tonight to use a framework For the bandshell, to look at how we enhance, and improve the bandshell, and balance the iconic, landmark, as well as, new programming. Okay, so we talked about the parts and the pieces of the plan. Let's take a step back. We are really excited to share, sort of, a unifying, element of the park plan. working with Rios, we are working on a lot of different elements to help unify these spaces. Some of them are underutilized, a lot of it is discontiguous and doesn't feel like a full space. A historic and cultural trail, we think, is one element that would be really great to tie and unify the space together. Creating a new pedestrian loop that circulates not only through the park, but could eventually circulate up through the arboretum

[99:05] out to the hill, connect even Chautauqua, north up to Pearl Street, and create a bigger, larger story walk. For the city, but for tonight's purpose, focusing on the civic area, we're really talking about that initial loop of civic area. tying it all together. A lot of the parts and pieces of history, tying a lot of, forgotten stories, current stories, art pieces, significant view sheds, a lot of it together. So, the project team appreciates the support and collaboration that we went through with community members, as well as the historic preservation community in talking about this idea. We've also started, to build on current research that we've done and started in 2022 to 2023 of this area, and to really take a deep dive in looking at, making this…

[100:00] Historic and cultural story walk, a reality. Okay, so this is that, piece of the project funding that I said I would, come back to. So, what we're doing currently right now in concept planning is studying best practices on integrating the historic elements into the full vision of the civic area. So while we're doing that, the team, aims to respect the existing character of these iconic landmarks and enhance them by making strategic improvements to serve the community, and also, sort of honor the previous history. With that, we do have $18 million in funding, so if you think back to that big blue diagram that I showed of Phase 2, that will inevitably shrink, and we'll have to find out what we can fund for the $18 million. We are in that process now, we haven't completed it. But generally, we are looking at improvements, most likely being within Central Park area.

[101:04] So, that is the update and where we're at in the process for CIVIC. I'll hand it back over to my colleague, Marci, to go over the proposed framework for considering changes to the bandshell. Thanks, Shahomi. So, we don't bring matters items too frequently. Like, in this space, we're really used to doing public hearings and quasi-judicial. So, this evening, you're gonna hear a little bit more of my commentary, because there is no decision in front of you tonight. We're asking for feedback. And so, I also want to say that when changes are proposed to the bandshell, the atrium, the tea house, any of those, the criteria for our review is in the Boulder Revised Code, in those standards for issuance of a landmark alteration Certificate. We're not proposing that we… add on or change that criteria or anything. Those still remain, the standards for, changes within the landmark boundary.

[102:00] What excites me about this framework is that the, bancho was landmarked in 1995, I started in 2008, and then have been here since, 2012. And the bandshell has had, I think, an outsized presence in terms of our 222 landmarks about this tension between, a vibrant theater and its historic character. And to me, they've been at odds. You can either have a vibrant theater or a historic landmark, and I fully believe that they can be both. And the Glen Huntington Bandshell can be both. And as there's $18 million infused into this area, in this phase, hopefully more in the future, my vision for Central Park is that

[103:00] in the civic area is that these landmarks are integrated, celebrated, and loved by the community. I think the worst case scenario from a preservation standpoint is that the boundaries are carved out, and nothing changes within those boundaries. My view is that historic preservation is about change. How do things change over time? And with the bandshell. what's difficult, there's no interior space. There's no place to hide a modern bathroom, or a modern kitchen, or lighting. Everything is exterior. So, as we think about our You know, program operations of reviewing over 200 landmark alteration certificates for changes to other designated properties a year. How can the landmark of the Glen Huntington Bandshell change over time that's in a sensitive way that also meets current needs.

[104:00] So… Over the summer, I was… really looking for a fresh conversation about the bandshell. And so I asked Aubrey Noble, who's entering her graduate studies in landscape architects. Could you go out there? to the internet, and see if there's anything out there about historic outdoor theaters. We cannot be the only community in the world, in the United States, who is grappling with this preservation challenge. And boy, did she deliver. She sent a link to this booklet called Preserving Landscape Experience in Historic Outdoor Theaters. It's a comprehensive guidebook published in 2022, so this didn't exist during Phase 1 in 2015. It was funded through a National Park Service grant and explores how to preserve landscape experiences in historic outdoor theaters.

[105:00] It talks about the intangible, sensory, and emotional qualities of historic landscapes that contribute to their experience. The authors were a group of faculty out of UC Berkeley, and the guide was developed under a grant from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, a unit of the National Park Service. So, these aren't just outdoor theaters, and they're not just historic places. It is the integration of both. So, I hope you all had a chance to read it, but I also know that was a large ask, to read a nearly 200-page document in preparation for this item. But what really resonated with me came from the introduction, where it says, this guidebook investigates the best practices for renovating historic outdoor theaters while preserving the visitor's experience of the landscape. The need for this guide stems from a core dilemma of historic theater renovation. Visitors and performers cherish these venues because they intertwine the experience of the landscape and the performance, but at the same time, they desire modern comforts, conveniences, and technology that can undermine the very landscape experience that draws them.

[106:11] It goes through, 6 case studies, and I'm actually going to hand it over, over to Abby Stone with Rios to go through, two of the case studies that we felt were, relevant or had lessons that we might learn from, one, closer to home, Red Rocks Amphitheater, and one across the country in Washington, D.C, but that Abby will explain the parallels between those. And then after she goes through the case studies, she'll hand it back to me to talk about the framework. Great. Thank you, Marci. As she mentioned, my name's Abby Stone, I'm an urban designer with a firm called Rios, and we've been working closely with Parks and Rec on the civic area. So, I'm just gonna take a few minutes to talk through a couple of the case studies that are profiled in much greater detail in the book.

[107:05] Because we think they help paint a picture of what it can really look like to make thoughtful updates to historically landmark outdoor theaters by focusing on preserving that landscape experience that Marcy just talked about. So if you go to the next slide, I'll jump into the first, which is Red Rocks Amphitheater. This is, of course, an extremely famous, iconic Colorado outdoor venue. And while this is of a very different scale and setting than the Boulder-Huntington Bandshell, we still picked this because we think there are a few ways in which it's pretty relevant to Boulder and the bandshell here. Firstly, this venue was built by the New Deal's Conservation Corps, so that's the same time period that Boulder's Bandshell was created, both part of this larger national movement to create more great outdoor public cultural spaces. And secondly, its design was really fundamentally intertwined with the beautiful Colorado landscapes that surround it. There have been a number of renovations and changes to Red Rocks throughout its decades.

[108:13] But, in the words of the authors, as quoted here, the integrity of Hoyt's simple plain squeezed between the majestic rocks has endured. So you can see along the bottom a few photos on the bottom left, soon after it was constructed in the 40s, in the middle in the 90s after a stage building was added, and then a more recent photo from 2021 when that stage building was renovated. If you can go to the next slide, I can show a few more images, and… details. As mentioned, since it opened in 1941, Red Rocks has undergone a number of changes. These have included stage additions, namely a major stage in 88, and then a brand new stage in 2021. Major CDing restorations in 2003 and 2019,

[109:02] visitor facility expansions, like a new visitor center and restrooms, and accessibility upgrades. And notably, most of these happened after Red Rocks was, designated first as a Denver landmark in 1973. And the book's authors really point out that preservation groups played a key role in making sure these upgrades were thoughtful and successful, preventing over-commercialization, and keeping, Hoyt's original landscape-centered design largely intact, despite the technological and safety updates. So if you go to the next slide, you can see some even more recent updates. Where you can see more clearly the changes in the large stage structure and the digital screen, and the 2003 Visitor Center. And just to hit home again why we think this is relevant to the Huntington Bandshell, first, again, they were both built during that New Deal era, that sort of explosion of civic theaters around the country. Secondly, there's dramatic Colorado landscapes, of course.

[110:03] the Flatirons being central to the Boulder Bandshell's experience, are really critical to their success. And then lastly, they both deal with that dilemma that Marcy spoke to, which is the sort of tension between modernization needs for contemporary performances, but also the desire to preserve historic integrity. So if you go to the next slide, I'll go to the second example. This is All Hallows Amphitheater in Washington, D.C, so a little further away, but relevant in scale and a few other key details. It, is connected to the Washington National Cathedral and has been in use for over 100 years, started first as a sort of rustic outdoor pulpit, and then transforming eventually into, a very modernized… sort of renovated theater in 2007. Notably, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. created master plans for this, site in 1910 and 1924.

[111:03] In addition to several other landscape designers. And debates about the seating and the amphitheater have persisted for many decades, but the 2007 renovation did a really nice job of balancing Olmsted's original design intent with some contemporary needs. So here you can see, again, on the bottom left. It's very early iteration. Then, in 1930s, some sort of simple backless wood benches were installed, and then in 2021, that's a more recent photo of the amphitheater as it exists today. If you go to the next slide, we just wanted to take a second to look at a few more details that paint the picture of how it has evolved over the years. So, as mentioned, it first was a quote-unquote rustic pulpit beneath the trees, and then Olmsted was brought on to create master plans for Washington National Cathedral's grounds, including the amphitheater. You can see one of his drawings on the bottom left.

[112:02] A sort of fun fact is, since he created these for All Hollows in 1910 and 1924, that overlaps very closely to when he was working, or his office was working on designs for Boulder and Central Park, so it's really likely that designs for these two projects were on his desk at the same time. Cathedral staff built wood benches that you saw on the previous slide around the stage at some point, but they deteriorated quickly, and Olmsted criticized them, was not a fan, so that was one of the many things that were… that was debated over the years. In the 1940s, a stone stage was built, but then the amphitheater fell into disuse in the latter half of the 20th century, until in the 1990s, the All Hallows Guild came together to help restore the site. And the biggest project was in 2007, when Michael Vernes and Landscape Architects completed a renovation, which included a new seating arrangement, as you can see on the bottom right, these grass terraces with stone retaining walls, which really worked to fulfill Olmsted's vision of a grass-dominant, sweeping Greens Road.

[113:14] They integrated stormwater drainage. improved ADA-compliant accessibility, preserved that historic relationship between the cathedral, the woodland, and the stage. Deciduous trees are still really central in sort of shaping your landscape experience of the site. And then lastly, visitors experience both the natural setting and the historic significance of the cathedral while at this amphitheater. If you go to the next slide, I'll just round out with a few contemporary photos, so you can get a sense of what it feels like today. And again, just want to call out a few ways in which we think this is a relevant example. First. the overlap of Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.'s master plan designs, and that very serendipitous overlap in time. The amphitheater was designed to be integrated with the surrounding green, framed by trees and open lawns. Key views of the surroundings here, especially of the cathedral, and with the Boulder Man Shell, especially of the Flatirons.

[114:13] Similar backless wood benches that were installed somewhat after original construction, and then… which had some challenges with durability. So, with that, I'll pass it back to Marci to talk about the framework a bit more. Thanks so much, Abby. What I really appreciate about this guidebook is that it provides a framework, and what it does is recognize that no two theaters are the same, and there's not a cookie-cutter approach for each one. And it has a really great quote, when introducing this framework that says. rather than provide, you know, a set of design guidelines that can be chipped away by attrition with arguments that says, that can't work in our community. Instead, it provides a framework and a way to approach changes. And so,

[115:06] I'm gonna go through the framework and how we might apply it here, but recognizing that the work lies ahead of us. And so, this is more an exercise to say, how might we use it, rather than, we've done all the work and here's the conclusion. It's very premature to do that. There are, 9 steps, 9 components to the framework, and the first one is to formally recognize that preserving the landscape experience as an essential goal of the project. So, since its construction, community members have listened to music and watched performances of this area of the park. It's been a theater since 1938. And preserving the bandshell experience, listening to music, listening to a lecture, watching a movie under the stars, that experience for future generations is key. Balancing the preservation of visitors' experience of the landscape with thoughtful modification to support visitor comfort and functionality is an essential goal of the Civic Area Phase 2 project.

[116:10] The second one is to include a core client group member, client group with the role of being the voice for a visitor's experience of the landscape. And so, what this one gets at is have diverse perspectives. informing the changes and hearing what is the need and what are the balance of all the desires. So throughout the Civic Area Engagement, community members have shared their appreciation for the Banshell's iconic form and visual presence. And, the top choices for bandshell programming were things like concerts, movie nights, theaters, or symphony, or musicals, and cultural events. And that, we heard some concerns about accessibility, lack of comfort, underutilization, and feeling unsafe due to the unsocial behavior. And so additional engagement with key stakeholder groups would occur as part of the ongoing design process.

[117:06] The next thing they recommend is to investigate and document the history of the theater's relationship to the landscape. So, prior to the design phase, staff would investigate and document the history specific to the landscape, and we have a number of studies to rely on, starting with the 1995 historical study, all the way through the research that was done as part of the Civic Area Historic District. The fourth is to hire a design team with a track record of interconnecting structures and landscapes and sustaining a landscape-focused experience, even while providing state-of-the-art facilities. And so, the project team includes multiple staff and consulting firms focused on interconnecting structures and landscapes. Rios is a multidisciplinary design firm that practices architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, and experience in design, with over 40 years of relevant experience. I'll also share that as we were preparing

[118:03] Abby was talking with her colleagues in the office, and there's another project for a historic outdoor theater, and that, colleague said, hey, have you heard of this, preserving outdoor experience, or preserving the… outdoor experience of historic theaters, and the two of them got talking, and he actually was part of the grad students that helped create the illustrations for this book, and shared that, you know, he had worked with that faculty. They'd worked on it for over a decade, but he had some contribution in it, and so I think Having a design team that is multidisciplinary can help solve this. multidisciplinary problem. Theater DNA is another consultant with the civic area. It's a top boutique theater, consulting firm that specialize in live event facilities. So the theater has to work, it has to function in order for there to be successful performances there. So that expertise is critical, as part of the, consideration.

[119:09] Fifth, recognize how the theater creates its relationship with the landscape. So the project team will analyze how the bandshell creates its relationship with the landscape. For example, the Bandshell is situated in an urban park. It's a visual landmark from many points across the civic area. It has a sloped grade, and the surrounding trees create an outdoor room with iconic views to the Flatirons. Those are some of the things that make the Glen Huntington Bandshell special and unique, and, this framework would say, what is that relationship with the landscape? And there's a lot more in the examples that I appreciate of, like, even the way that the seating is situated. In some theaters, it's very intentional of all of your view is on the stage, and you're kind of…

[120:00] blocked from your surrounding. Other ones, like these, kind of depression-era public theaters. are about more use than just a performance. And so, going and sitting on the benches or on the stage, you've got these views of the Flatirons that make it so special and so unique, and it's part of the landscape experience. It's not just looking at the bandshell stage itself. During pre-design, investigate if and how such elements of the theater, seats, stage structure, auxiliary buildings, access, contribute to or detracts from the landscape experience, and to or from each gold, visitor comfort, production values, and finances. Another benefit of this framework is that it breaks it down. You know, every theater has… seats, lighting, stage, technology, restrooms, ADA, all of that, and so it helps kind of break these components down and say what is, distracting from the historic character, what contributes to… to it, as well as the landscape experience. So.

[121:09] Analysis would include how does the stage structure, sloped grade, benches, circulation paths, and other elements contribute to that experience, and to visitors' comfort and accessibility. When faced with apparent trade-off between fulfilling two goals, step back and reconceive the two things being put in opposition as two levels of performance that must be met. So, for example, rather than presenting a trade-off of historic benches or comfort and accessibility. Consider the question, how could the seating at the Glen Huntington Bandshell both preserve the historic character of the unique outdoor theater and be accessible and comfortable? When compromises appear necessary, formally recognize them and openly consider these consequences. Rarely can all the goals of an outdoor theater renovation be met, so you want the choices to be transparent, intentional, and tenable for all stakeholders.

[122:03] So explore and formally recognize the choices and trade-offs in the design process, and approach these compromises with transparency. And then finally, knowing a key to success will be creatively resolving perceived conflicts between goals. Emphasize building collaborative relationships throughout the project team and with individuals in each agency with a role in regulating the project. Involve everybody, especially regulators, that's you all, and technical experts. in devising solutions that meet apparently conflicting goals, rather than just approving or rejecting proposals. So, in part, we're doing that, step one of today, of coming to you all, introducing this framework that could be used, rather than Proceeding down a path and then coming to you for a yes or no answer. So, with that, I would say that is my Cliff Notes version of a framework report that I think is very well written and is well worth a full read.

[123:06] But, that is my summary of it, and I will hand it back over to Shahomi to frame up the questions for, the feedback we are hoping You all were provided this evening. Thanks, Marcie, I appreciate it so much, and we're really excited to have found this process, like Marcini mentioned, and, engage you all in the first steps of this conversation. Just to let you all know that feedback from the Landmarks Board at this meeting will guide the approach from any future Landmarks alteration certificate applications. Prior to permitting and construction and documentation of this project. So the team appreciates Landmarks Board's thoughtful feedback, and, I think I'll just throw it back to the Landmarks Board. First question, does Landmarks Board have any questions about the proposed framework to inform future enhancements of the bandshell?

[124:00] And then, second, if there's any questions about the historic elements generally, we can take those too. So, first of all, the first thing I want to say, especially to you, is almost daily, I'm a beneficiary of the Parks and Rec program throughout Boulder, and especially the dog park, but I really appreciate everything Parks and Recs does, and Marci, I think you set this up well. What I felt you were doing was planting seeds and, like, beginning the process, even though there's quite a ways for it to go, and I don't think any of us knows what path it will travel. I really heard your enthusiasm, Marci, for this framework, and what it harkened to me was you personally introduced me a year and a half ago, and I'm still very enthusiabout… enthusiastic about it. about the, relevancy project. And so, I know we need to shift and look at things, and I'm all for, for,

[125:08] really fulsome conversations and creative thinking. I've seen it happen during stays of demolition. I've seen it throughout the preservation program, let alone the city as a whole. And, you know, I think that I can see changes, I think, as, you know, Chelsea said it beautifully this evening, you know, we aren't freezing things in time, or that's not our goal, you know, putting things in amber forever. I do think when it comes… so I think it's a roadmap to get started and have those conversations. I… I do think one of the challenges of our band show, which is such a beloved structure and things, I do also want to call out Parks and Rec for doing programming, even in December, with so much fun, and really that effort to do it. But part of the challenge is, you know. how is a historic landmark, and I believe it's only one of two ban…

[126:05] shells really still standing in Colorado, including one in Pueblo, or… there's very few left that… especially that are this intact, but it's like… It's like the social societal problems, with what happens there, you know, not wanting to lose a historic resource because that issue isn't being resolved independently of any decisions about Phase 2 of the Civic Center Plan. And I agree there's new ways to look at everything at, look at different ways and being creative. However, I think the threshold for me is when the proposed changes then really go to jeopardizing the integrity of that structure. and, you know, its historic elements, and so I think I'll stop there, but I think that's kind of where down the road… most likely I won't still be serving on this board, but would be a member of the community, is that, you know, it's… what's that fine line? What's the tipping point where it just crosses over into really jeopardizing the integrity of such a

[127:10] a centrally located, beloved structure, and, this will be fascinating to follow. I think that, We'll see what happens. I do have one quick question, and it's not to be answered tonight, but it's so I don't forget this thought, as this process plays out over the months and well into next year, is… If there's any ongoing conversation with the Endangered Places program at CPI, since the band shell's currently listed on it. And I'm not saying you have to answer that, but I think that's a very, very important thing. to… to maybe see if they have input, to see what they think. So, you know, I love it when an endangered place is on that list, has a huge saved with an exclamation mark next to it. So I just want to throw that out, because sometimes

[128:01] I forget. It remains on the endangered places list. So I have four bullet points here, but I first wanted to say I'm really proud that there's… being a Washington, D.C. native, I was really happy to see, the Cathedral Girls School Amphitheater included as a precedent. That said… I… I believe, and being a former… sports stadium designer. The… the seating rake… That is, precedent in both of those examples, Red Rocks and the, Cathedral School Girls Amphitheater, Are not even close to being the precedent that we've… got with respect to the existing landscape in front of the bandshell. So I think I would caution

[129:02] a little bit, the use of those precedents. I… I think… I look at something like the Hollywood Bowl as really the better precedent in terms of What this bandshell represents as a structure and as an event space. Right, so I guess I would… Ask, or my question, will be to consider less… less landscape, in a way. I mean, I know, I know that this is a landscape project. But I don't think that the bandshell and its current seating rake Are applicable in the way that Those precedents present themselves. the Red Rocks or the Cathedral Girls School. So I suggest looking at the Hollywood Bowl. And in that regard, I would say another bullet point would be Serious acoustician consult.

[130:02] be done to really, really understand the… the Sonics that exist. I mean, it's an old mansion. I attended an amazing 4th of July concert with the Boulder Symphony doing Star Wars music, and it was, like, it was outstanding. I mean, I could barely… the seating is not great. The sight lines are not great. But the, the sonics and the audio were pretty outstanding, and I love that show. Relative to that, a third bullet point would be. And I think you're on the right track. What I'm looking at with respect to the landscape is, what does non-event day usage really look like? And that's a… that's a really hard needle to thread, and that happens in the event design industry all over, is what do you do with the facility when it's not… when there isn't a performance? And I think that's what the bandshell struggles with to this day, a little bit. And then…

[131:00] to also not swing the pendulum so far in the way that City-County of Denver is doing with the Greek Amphitheater, where they're butchering the historic context of that amphitheater, but and calling… Sort of calling those changes into play for the benefit of a community when, transparently, it's about the revenue that will be generated by a reconfigured event space. And it's really unfortunate, because they're destroying a real treasure that exists in Denver, but it's unique in this country. Lastly… Well, I'm gonna say that those… I think those were my four bullet points, but, I'll leave it at that. Am I allowed to respond super briefly? Or no? Abby, if it's okay, if we could, continue with the board feedback, and then I'm taking some notes, because I think there will be some points of clarification, and would invite you then. Can I say one more thing? Of course. Because I've heard it 3 times today.

[132:11] We have to be really careful about evoking the name Frederick Lollemsted. Frederick Lollemsted did not come to Boulder. His son, Junior, did, and he was, as Leonard pointed out, part of the successor firm. But a lot of people throw out the name Frederick Lallemsted as though the same guy who designed Central Park in New York City had an influence in the landscape design in Boulder. He died in 1903. So, let's just be really careful about how we use that name. I… from a historian's standpoint, it hurts my soul to hear that a little bit. Sorry. Okay, so I like, how the proposal is framed.

[133:02] As accomplishing multiple goals, both celebrating the bandshell, but also considering adaptations so that it continues to have the vibrancy that it did when it was first built. I… I think, you know, Marci, you said it as well, like, I believe that the more people who are able to enjoy the bandshell, the more we can say that we've been successful in this effort. So I support the flexibility and trust that the open dialogue and naming the perceived tensions between the goals will lead to better outcomes. And to me. You know, the evolution from the past doesn't diminish the significance, and I think if we do not allow some evolution, to be more inclusive and relevant, then this space will become obsolete, more so than it already is. And I know there's been some efforts of revival, and that's been great to see people, you know, sometimes when I'm downtown, like, oh, there's a concert happening at the piano, like, that's so nice.

[134:07] So I am excited to see more of that, and for it to be a place that more people are going on a regular basis. And I also, I imagine, because I think we're not going to hear back about this for a while, so for the other elements. In the plan, do you want us to speak to those now as well? Other than the bandshell? If it's okay for my linear brain, could you stick to the first question and then do another round for the second question? Yes. Thank you. Okay, I'll hold my other things. Okay, since we're doing this question by question, I… I… support the framework as it's been presented, and I think… I think that it effectively at least gives a framework.

[135:05] I think that… As, as Michael brought up. There's specifics about this project that are unique. to Boulder and to this particular bandshell. And I think that it's gonna have to be I think that the way the framework gets applied is going to have to be in full consideration of the uniqueness or specifics of this. This is not something like… I can think of other examples in urban context of some things that are spatially similar. There's one in Cincinnati called Season Good Pavilion in Eden Park. Which is just about the same scale. And… but the land is shaped differently, and that completely changes the performance characteristics of the space.

[136:05] And that's… I… I think that the… the… kind of… important thing That needs to be considered in this one is… it's a feature On a landscape that kind of was placed there for… A different kind of performance utility. doesn't happen quite as much these days. And… and so that should be… Part of the consideration is, in terms of how it's optimized, to try to Is to try to determine what it does want to be, in this space, And optimized to that. Which is… this is extremely vague, but that's because this is the first Consideration of these kinds of things. And I also think to… to…

[137:02] Not to jump to question 2. But to talk about I think that… I think that the integrity of this space Is very much a kind of synergy of the whole, and the active edges around it are what make the space, or what is going to make this space more a… memorable part of the experience of the, of the Civic Center area. And I think that… I think that it's very important to jump to that fairly quickly. Because I think that… I think that the… the bandshell is gonna be… is gonna be a kind of addendum component to the activity that… I think is being hoped to achieve in this space. In other words. That it's somehow integrated into the same

[138:02] Period of activity as the farmer's market. Or… Somehow more laterally integrated to the, I guess, permanent part of the farmer's market that could conceivably happen in an Atrium. And… what interestingly comes to mind there is the LA Farmers Market next to the Grove, and the way that was all redeveloped. And the level of activity that happens in and around there. And then throw CBS, you know, over on the other side of it. But it's just an extremely active area, despite the fact there's the retail venues. The farmer's market is kind of the heart of the whole thing. And, and, has been there, and has been a permanent

[139:00] Kind of peace to that neighborhood for a long time. So I… I think that this is… this is… A complex enough kind of urban… spatial intervention kind of a problem that I think that the whole has to be considered. to consider one of the elements. We're talking specifically about one element that's part of what I would like to see as a very active edge. And, okay, I'll save my questions about the elements. So I'm gonna speak to, it from… how I have used that area downtown in the bandshell, so… I went to… college here, graduated a year ago, but so I've been using that space as…

[140:01] As a college student, and, and been in the farmer's market, and… farmer's markets are, like, my jam. Wherever I go, I try to find one. So, but being in Boulder, it was like, this is the place. And coming from being a college student using it, and sitting on those Benches, and sitting face-to-face with another friend, and we're eating lunch, and we're enjoying all that good space. To, you know, than having a child, and going down, and having dinner, and having the kids run around in that space, and in… and there was, That, railroad. There was in between them, so, like, there was… it started to get, like, a little, I'm gonna use the word unsafe, but a little, like. that was the dirty side, right? Where the bandshell was, it was like, you know, the kids weren't going there, we're not… don't have the kids go on the other side of the railroad station, and obviously, don't have the kids jump on the train. So, like, we used a lot of the,

[141:09] the… the green areas, and we'd sit down, and all of us would commingle, because the kids are running around, and it was really, really great. And, so… and I've also been there for, just happened upon concerts as we're, like, biking through, and super fun to, like, you know, not necessarily sit on those… god-awful benches, but to just be in the area and listen to the music and have a blanket thrown out. So when you guys presented. the, like, terraced green areas, I was like, oh my god, like, you're totally integrating how we would sit with the kids and have, like, a, you know, like, a blanket and have the kids, like, run around, but, we could also sit comfortably, and then the bandshell could be, you know, like, if it was integrated with, other farmers' markets I've been to, where they have, like.

[142:04] somebody presenting music or something during the farmer's market, so there wasn't really… You know, and maybe there's, a place for, integration and, you know, and bringing the City of Boulder all together, like. a Jeff and Paige show. Well, the farmer's market's going on, like, it just… so when you, like, I… I see the bandshell as the structure, and I don't necessarily see those benches as something that… I particularly cared to want to preserve. But incorporating this, like, integration into, like, the vibrancy of the farmer's market, and… not, not separating the two. Because even right now, when I go down there now, there's that play structure that's kind of… something's happening right there, so… again, it's separating it, and I feel like, you guys have a great opportunity, and I was just really excited to see that picture, because I thought.

[143:08] Wow, that would have been really fun to sit in these terrace areas, watch something on the screen, but also have food from the farmer's market, and, and it, like, bleeding together. But… For me, I see the historic nature in the band shell structure itself, and so I like to want to preserve that, but not necessarily the seating areas, so… I… I don't speak from the historic preservation standpoint on that, of, like, how to preserve that and if it was drawn before, but I'm really excited to see that… how you could terrace it and make it… Green, and super fun to sit on, so… Thank you. Is it alright if, we have a couple comments related to question one, or would you… and then we can move to the second question, is that okay?

[144:03] Well, okay, the first one, thank you for your feedback on that, and and one thing I want to clarify for the, like, literal minds is that the Glen Huntington Bandshell is not Red Rocks, it is not All Hollows. We're not looking… across the country for a blueprint to say, okay, they had a bandshell, and they have two highways, and they have flat irons, okay, that's what we're gonna do. What I really like about the framework is that it is a hyper-localized approach. Through a series of questions and analysis, rather than saying, here's, you know, model number one, and does that apply? And it invites us to learn from others. There are successful historic theaters right next to a highway. There are these, kind of depression-era… theaters that have more life than just when there's a performance. There's something public about them, something inviting to say, what is that use

[145:06] you know, throughout the day, throughout the seasons, etc. So, I, didn't realize we had two DC, experts on the… on the board, and I… I appreciate your, your knowledge of those sites, and know that we chose two of the case studies as, if you're going to take any precedent away, and the precedents that… that… I looked at is, this is a precedent where historic outdoor theaters that are designated on the local, state, and national level can change. The second question, Shihomi, would, would you like to talk about the endangered places list? Or… I can speak to that, too. Oh, okay, yes. you can't get off the state's most endangered places list. You can go from threatened to saved, but you never get off of it. So, I have not been in contact with

[146:08] Colorado Preservation Inc. in many years. I know there was a conversation to say, what does success look like? Because it is designated as a local landmark. There aren't current proposals to move it, or a current proposal to change it. So, I think I need help from Colorado Preservation Inc. to understand what is a save. For that one. And, Marcy, as you well know, they could be a wonderful resource, you know. And then I just wanted to add to, Marcie's comment that, Parks and Rec is looking at, this framework and looking at the design process for the bandshell in place as it is in its location, and looking to invest in improvements in its location to tie it in where it sits currently. And then, Abby, was there anything you wanted to add, to the earlier comment?

[147:06] I wanted to say something similar to what you said, but you said it much more eloquently, so that's great. And then I had a very small point, which is to say I was excited to hear the Hollywood Bowl come up, because Rios has worked with them for over a decade, so we've done all of the upgrades that have happened there. In the last 10ish so years. So, new entry, outdoor food, upgrades to the surrounding landscape, new entryway, restrooms. So anyway, we have a lot of experience with that site, and would definitely be excited to think about what lessons could be learned there that would be useful in this context. Wonderful. Can I add something? I'm so glad you brought that up, and John, you may know more. I know Leonard Siegel knows the answer to this. My understanding is that Hobie Wagner, when he designed our wonderful suite. smaller-scale band show was inspired by the Hollywood Bowl.

[148:01] I know I've read it somewhere. No. Oh, but it's a great story, Laura. But, it also mimics, sort of, the, auditorium that Hobie Wagner did in Boulder High School. Glenn Huntington, and he was inspired… Oh, sorry, why'd I say Hobie? I… can I guess that you're gonna say the Grant Park shell in Chicago? Oh, the one in Chicago? Sorry. So Glenn Huntington is the one who… That's what it was. Perfect. But Grant Park was inspired by the Hollywood Bowl. They're all related, these shells, these shells. Okay, so recognizing we've got another matters item after this, we would love to hear if the board has any questions about the historic elements, kind of in general, included in the concept plan, what the team has heard about the tea house and potential expanded gardens, the atrium as a farmer's market, BMOCA, the Tate Building, and the bandshell, as well as the, story walk, through the site.

[149:15] I have a question. Is there… Are you aware of discussion Around BMOCA, relocating. And leaving that location, there was discussion of a site out on, like, 55th. At one point. BMOCA is currently in the design process of a campus up north. And so, currently, right now, their lease is to stay and remain in storage and transfer, and so when we went out to the public, it was, what added uses could you see for storage and transfer at this time? Okay, that was my next question, then, is… is the… If that building ends up being repurposed, that's a… Potential resource for the…

[150:05] Arts community in some other way. Absolutely, there's been a lot of opportunities talked about with that building. Okay, great. So, in regards to question number two, and now that I know of your love of, farmers markets, I do… I can envision the atrium building, which was designed by Hobie Wagner, I got that right. Sorry, he was on my mind when we discussed the atrium, is that I think that building could lend itself being… having indoor stalls, or being some sort of marketplace year-round, and I know that… and this is unfair, because it was sort of just a concept plan throughout the landmark designation of that building, when an architect who used to work at Oz Architecture did some concept plans for the potential re… reimagining of the Atrium building, and the gentleman who did it actually lives in Hobie Wagner's house that he used to live in in Gunbrell. But anyway, one of the ideas and concepts was, if it was used as a marketplace year-round and to provide some support services during the Saturday and Wednesday farmers markets,

[151:20] part of the year is that, you know, like, garage… some of those openings could be garage doors that could roll up and be used, and anything that also could be kind of multi-purpose. I think sometimes this city craves I know, having been in the nonprofit world, craving spaces where people can access them for the public, and so I think that kind of… Helping with the farmer's market, but also having open space that could be used for nonprofits and other community members would be really fun to explore. Can I dovetail on that? Because the part that made me a little nervous about talking about that whole East bookend was when you mentioned that there was potentially partnership

[152:06] a foot. And I have a natural sort of skepticism about what that means in the for-profit world. So, to dovetail on what Abby just said, I think being very transparent about what the public amenity really, really looks like on that east bookend would be really important, so that people don't get surprised by some for-profit entity taking over those spaces. And the city gets a good paycheck from that, but I don't think that benefits the… community in the way that the farmer's market activity really… I mean, I love that little… asphalt area where you get to eat, like, Vietnamese crepes. I mean, it's my favorite place. And there's nothing historic about that, but, I imagine in the hands of a landscape architect, that could be a better experience, maybe, but, But you know how it goes. If you formalize some things, you lose the soul of them as they exist currently, so maybe just…

[153:05] That would be… it's not a question about the historic element, but that east bookend seems… Really dynamic in an organic way currently, and to over… Formalize it might lose some of its… Community functionality, particularly on the farmer's market days. I want to say that I'm super excited about the little walk. the historic walk. I think that is a serious little, cute little gem. I'm really excited to, you know, all the work that, Historic Preservation at the city, and Claire has done to find out all these little gems along the way. I think that is, like. Just a little part of,

[154:00] of Boulder that, you know, me being here so long, I didn't even know. And so, what a great way of, like, you know, coming into… just another layer of richness that we're not trying to hide or be something that we're not in Boulder, but yet, we're celebrating the… what… happen, and not letting it just be buried. And so, for me, like, that is super… I'm super excited to just… See that I've, you know, when Claire talks about this, I'm… I'm… and I've been… to several, groups lately, women's group, and I've repeated what Claire has said so many times, and I have lots of people in Boulder that are like, wow, that really happened, like, or, you know, that's super interesting, and so… It's become a good talking point, so I'm super excited about that. I think that you, definitely connecting it along the way, even making it, like. bike path friendly, so, like, you know, you could do a walking part down here, and then, you know, extending it to, being a bike path up to Chautauqua and connecting that road would be really cool.

[155:09] I wanna, the DeShombe Tea House. I mean, it's… I mean, there's just nothing to describe it, it speaks for itself. So, And, again, I love the farmer's market idea. I love the fact that maybe in the wintertime, we can continue to have a farmer's market. There's so much opportunities. Ever since COVID, they've now allowed pickup and ordering and, You know, so we can support agriculture in the wintertime, so making that unit A place to come and, you know. even, craft fairs and, local people being able to have, like, a Christmas event or something during that time would be really neat, so that's super exciting. I do have one question, and the question is just to touch and maybe circle back around to the start of

[156:02] The board meeting, which is… do you want to touch on that water issue that was talked about? And, was there a plan? Is… do we want to… The ditch, yeah. So, I think that was my only question. I just wanted to bring that around, so… Yeah, no, I appreciate that, and the ditch is the oldest built thing in the Civic area, and has a… a long history and importance, and it is not designated. So the Landmarks Board does not have a role, a formal role, in changes to daylighting keeping it daylit or undergrounding. It… One portion of the ditch runs through the boundary of the Dushambe Tea House, and that was very intentional, because water, the gardens, the tea house all relate. And the, Teahouse Walk also has design elements that are important and were intentionally included in 2020. So…

[157:08] you're welcome… you're welcome to share your opinion. You won't be asked to make a formal, decision on that, because it's not within a landmark or historic district boundary. My opinion on it is that I love it. I think that that waterway, you know, being with, like, the Using it throughout, different stages of, you know, the kids' being able to kind of mess around in it, but also sitting at Dushambi, and sitting down, and the water's coming through. I mean… I think… you know, iconically, as you bike by it, and it's there, I never really… I didn't even think that it would be moved. To be honest with you. I didn't even think that we would cover it up, or, you know, it kind of, maybe lends itself to…

[158:01] I don't… I don't know. I don't know, and speaking of that, and I just talked about how I really loved all the little grassy terraces, but how far does that go, and does it encroach onto that space? So… I really love it next to the Deshaumbi Tea House. I like that little bridge when you're next to Bimoca, and it, you know, there's just, like, little stories around there, so… That's my opinion on it. So my question's around the second… question, are more to do with the storytelling elements, and… First, it's around, what is going to be discussed around Olmsted Junior, and… Yeah, I saw there was gonna potentially be a highlight around Homestead Jr. and his plans, and while, of course, you know.

[159:01] he drew the designs and, or at least their firm. But I just think it's really important that we be careful about who we lift up as protagonists in our city's history. Olmsted Jr. is known to have encouraged cities across the country, including Boulder, to displace people living in poverty, which led to, you know, untold numbers of people being displaced across the country, and he had a very outsized impact on Zoning rules across the country, and is responsible for Perpetuating racial segregation, by encouraging cities to adopt racial restrictions and covenants, that for decades barred non-white people from being able to own a home. And so I think if we're going to teach people about our history and the people who helped shape it, then it's important to help people understand the full impacts of their work.

[160:06] Both the good they did and the harm that they caused. and, how those impacts helped shape our community today. So, for example, our, you know, our black population was bigger in the early 1900s than it is today. And some of that is because of the work that happened, when Olmsted Jr. and his plans came to be. So, I guess my question is, if we are going to highlight Olmsted Junior, could we Could there be consideration for including a balanced set of information about him and his work that helps people understand the full impact? Thank you for your question, and I think, It's a… it's a good, thoughtful one, and one that… In terms of the research we've just embarked on. And so, with the help of the previous research done on the historic district application that we've, covered, we've definitely…

[161:08] Looked at Olmsted Jr.'s, legacy and, design influence in the area. And then with the help of our, planning team as well, and Claire's work, we've also, looked at the new research and, some forgotten stories and history on displaced people and historically excluded. Communities that lived in this area. And so, I think we're right in line with you that, history can be celebrated, but there's also this piece of acknowledgement, and not everything is sort of a happy history. So we will be looking into the balance of all of those pieces. We have a historic preservation group in parks, and they're closely collaborating with, historic preservation and the planning team, so… Great. And I'm sorry, my voice is slowly going. You're good.

[162:00] That's great. Well, I just came from Berlin, and that is a place where there is a lot of, yes, a lot of history that needs to be shared in a very thoughtful way, and I actually found it really inspiring that they Do, like, they put the… the harshest parts front and center as a reminder of what not to repeat. And I think that that is inspiring in a way. And then the other piece is around Penfield Tate. I'm really excited that, we'll be highlighting the stories of the historically excluded neighborhoods, as we talked about a while back during the historic district discussions. And also that the Penfield Tate storytelling moment is close by to that. And I just think that there's an interesting opportunity to connect the dots between what happened in the earlier part of the 1900s to what happened with Penfilte in, the… well, mid to later parts of the 1900s. And of course, we want to celebrate that he was our first Black mayor, but one, like, element of his story that I think is really important

[163:09] Is… is how the people of Boulder actually tried to recall him, and, because he championed a proposal outlying, discrimination in Boulder based on sexual orientation. And so, I think that it's an important element of the story because it shows that progress often comes with extreme resistance, and that leadership often requires a lot of courage, in the face of Black backlash. And that communities must continually confront fear and exclusion in order to achieve that level of equity that we're aiming to achieve. So, so I guess my other question is, would it be possible to consider incorporating that part of the history as part of the storytelling?

[164:07] Yes, we're definitely going to include, Penfield Tate history into the story walk, and I think, when we talk about historically excluded communities and some of the history, of the civic area that is harder. What a great story for Penfield Tate to actually champion inclusion and kind of fight for what's right. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, because I often… I see, you know, the stories that I've seen from the city about Penfield Tate have been all about how he's been so great, and all the good things he's done, but what's often missed is the resistance that he faced, and that… Yeah, so I think that element is really important. Thank you. I'm gonna take a quick opportunity to, do a little preview. Claire's going to, bring forward, the story of Penfield Tate II, at a Future Matters item, because when this building was, renamed, which is a significant move, the landmark designation still calls this the municipal Building, and so we're gonna use the opportunity

[165:15] To, propose amending the designation in order to include his story, his contributions. And the recall effort included, that's part of the story, in the, official designation of what makes this building significant. So, stay tuned in the next couple months. Are there any… Oh, yeah. Knowing that we used to have another full conversation, coming after this, are there any other final thoughts, that the board would like to share about the Civic Area Phase 2. I've got… This evening. One final, I guess, compliment to the concept plan that was shown. I like that you strongly showed the linkage up to the university through the Arboretum that nobody seems to know is there.

[166:12] So, I think that, I think that that… that is… Not to mention the other linkages to the north. So, I think this is a good part of it, is to make it a crux Of a whole fabric. Of the whole city. And I think that's what our goal is. Well, thank you, so much, and I have a couple thoughts to share. One is that, I appreciate the storytelling element, because I think what we learned through the historic district process is that what makes this civic area unique is that it's so… It's, like, different pieces and parts, and it evolved over time, rather than one cohesive move, and sometimes it's hard to tell

[167:05] It's layered history in one plaque, or in one building, or in one place, and so having a walk that you can experience these different facets of this area, it's so… there's so many layers just in this relatively small, piece, and Telling a complete story, and not just who's on a pedestal in 2025. I really appreciate that. to tie it back to the first question in the framework, there's something in Abby and Michael in your comments about the atrium and the plaza, between the atrium and the tea house, which is, Michael, if you can love a concrete plaza. there's a huge opportunity for people to fall in love with the bandshell. And there are people who already love the bandshell. I'm a big Art Deco fan. It's iconic, it's amazing, and… I also went to college here. I grew up coming to this farmer's market. I don't think the bandshell or its seeds entered my consciousness until I worked here. It was not a place, even though I was there.

[168:12] Throughout my childhood. could have walked over, it just wasn't in my mental map. So, interesting to have different, experiences of that. And then, Abby, I know the rendering that you're talking about with the atrium, and I've always appreciated the atrium as a fan of mid-century modernism, but it wasn't until the month of modern tour to go walk through Hobie Wagner's house, where I really understood the potential of the atrium with the soaring pyramidal roof with the light coming down. And I just want to leave you with the, the amount of change in that rendering to gut the entire building and put garage doors on it, and juxtapose that with Changes to the bandshell site, and what is a level of change that's appropriate for two individual landmarks?

[169:07] And Shahom, you would like to add something? Just, two additions to previous comments, So I appreciate there's been a few comments about safety and also programming the bandshell as much as possible. So while Parks, definitely works to program the bandshell as much as we can, I think this process will be, pretty helpful for us to create a space where Partners can come in to help us program the space and enliven it and invite more people in for better utilization for the future. And then I would just say part of that study is, the Nature Play pop-up that's out there today, so I think that was mentioned. We're doing a prototype and study on just different types of programming around the bandshell, and we've seen in the last two months a tremendous decrease in reported criminal activity to a police department in that area. So, we're trying a lot of different things, and so looking at the whole landscape, as well as the bandshell to have enhancements is going to be key for us.

[170:11] to create safety. And then, just the second thing, really quick, the comment about the east bookend and that whole process is separate. The good thing that we have is the 2015 Parks Plan in guiding us on there's this balance of, private sector investment, but public benefit. included in that. So, we are looking to kind of balance those two. Thank you very much. It was great to have your time today. Well, and when you just made those comments about a decrease in, the situation at the Bandshell, it reminds me of once Columbia Cemetery or Pioneer Cemetery. It's had a lot of wonderful names. Once it became a landmark and a National Historic Landmark, it had… been used for many nefarious reasons, and a lot of things were going on there. The minute it started being cared for, and there was a vision for it, and that vision was implemented, it became now a place where people, you know, stroll through and walk their dogs and whatever. So, at some point, some of the issues

[171:17] With the bandshell, can disappear, Once it's really… enlivened once it's really, cared for and cherished and improved and enhanced. I know on a smaller scale, on the Hannah Barker house, there were weekly calls from the police about break-ins and wonderful graffiti that you could find the culprit because they post it on Facebook, so then the police knew who did it. But the minute work started on rehabilitating that house. all of that stopped. So there is that phenomena that happens once the love and care is shown, and Brutally honest, once the money's being put forward, to take care of it.

[172:00] And I'm just gonna be the Debbie Downer on that part, is that, be careful, because also right around Memorial Day, it was known that we started Doing a lot more sweeps. On the Boulder bike path. And they're not allowed to… there's less camping allowed. So, I don't know the exact regulation, but I know… That there was specifically, some, Information that was, like, they were doing a lot more sweeps down there, so that could have… Yeah, so, I mean, not that… It probably correlates with both of them, but, maybe check into what they changed in the homeless situation. Or unhoused, sorry. Well, thank you all for your time and feedback, and thank you to the Rios team online, and With that, good night, Shuhomi. We will have, we will invite Christopher Johnson up to… The hot seat.

[173:20] Yes. You are dent. The emergency. Oh. Blazingly fast. It's just the vision for the next 20 years, so… piece of cake.

[174:03] So, our next… Are we ready? We're ready. So, I want to welcome Christopher Johnson, the Comprehensive Planning Manager, who also supports this Historic Preservation Team, and he and his team are doing a ambitious board show in September with, I think, every board, maybe, that exists in the city. Not quite, not quite every, but we are hitting eight over the next 4 weeks. Eight four weeks in 4 weeks. And we are one of the first, so, you are! So, the… That's all the introduction you need. Take it away. That's great, thank you. Good evening, Landmarks Board members. Thanks for having me. I will… This is getting to be, you know, actually a little bit later than most of our meetings have been, recently, which is, exciting, and thank you for spending the extra time to, to go through this. As, as Marcy mentioned, we,

[175:03] are at a point within the comprehensive plan update where we are making the effort to do the rounds with a number of our boards, that while you don't have a voting or take any action. role on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update. We are certainly interested in your feedback, and particularly As we will talk about tonight, your input on any policies related to your area of expertise and oversight, and have that go into, go into the comprehensive plan. Why don't we go ahead and go to the next slide? We will just very briefly… I'll provide, an overview of the process, really, and the update, and where we are within that process, and then we will… open up to a little bit more of a discussion that Marcy will help facilitate, particularly around the approach that we are proposing to a number of policy updates,

[176:01] And I'll touch on this a little bit, but then also really more, more kind of insightful is, is what are the values of historic preservation that we want to make sure that we reaffirm, or are there new and emerging trends that we also want to be considering, for potential changes and input into the plan itself? Next slide. So, as I mentioned, I'll provide a quick update. We are going to ask for feedback. As a matters item, we're not asking for any decisions or, or anything at this point. Again, this is more of a dialogue that we are, attempting to Have with all of you and with the other boards that we're going to over the next month. Next slide. And these will be the questions that Marcy will help facilitate, and were in the memo packet, that we provided to you, so… We're interested in hearing from you about the approach, that we are taking related to policy updates, and really reinforcing the what and the why, as opposed to the how, so trying to move some of the operational

[177:03] aspects out of our policies, and really be more definitive about what is it, that is the policy of the city, and why is that a value of the community, and why, you know, why is that the policy of the city? And then secondly, as I mentioned, what are the… what are the values that we want to make sure we reaffirm that are already in there, but then also what are new, and emerging trends that we may want to be considering for future updates? Broadly speaking, for all of you, since you don't necessarily live in this world that I do on an everyday basis, but what is a comprehensive plan? So, it is an aspirational plan. It is intended to describe the community's long-term vision. It has a 20-year time horizon. And really is intended to guide how the community evolves and changes over time. It establishes policies that apply citywide. They address both current needs, but also future and long-term needs in support of that overall community vision.

[178:06] We do a major update every 10 years, so on a 10-year cycle, we do this, a major update, which essentially means that everything is on the table. All of the policies can be re-evaluated, the land use map can be changed. Really, everything is open for discussion. On the sort of off-cycle, 5 years in between those major updates, we do a midterm update, which is more, strategic and smaller, so just making refinements to certain policies, or… Minor changes to the land use map is what is covered during those midterm updates. Oh, I suppose I could use that, look at that. The comprehensive plan is really intended to fly at that 30,000-foot level, so it is, intended to be very broad, includes citywide policy. In Boulder, we also have things called sub-community and area plans that, are, as you might suspect, they hone in on a little bit tighter geography and further detail or refine the policies from the comprehensive plan to a specific location.

[179:10] And then, as you get onto the ground level, that's where zoning and the municipal code applies, and really sets the regulations, and the requirements for how, properties can be used. See if it works. There we go. This is kind of the overall planning framework within the City of Boulder, and you can see where the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan sits, as I think all of you are aware and know about, as the sustainability, equity, and resilience Framework of the City really drives all of our decision-making, within the city. The comprehensive plan falls underneath that and sets that 20-year vision. More recently, a couple of years ago, we, started developing what's called the Citywide Strategic Plan, and that is now going to be on a 4-year update cycle.

[180:01] That begins to operationalize the comprehensive plan, and then that flows down into our, our annual budgets, our capital improvements program. any of our annual work planning, etc. There we go. So, related to the comprehensive plan update itself, this is just an overview of the process. We began back in October of last year. The first phase we call the Boulder Today, which really provided baseline information. We understood what the current conditions of the city were. Really helped to orient the community as to the process and everything. We moved into the second phase, or a Boulder Tomorrow, which was where we established our vision, the values of the community, and identified, individual priorities, so that we ultimately identified seven areas of focus. That the community helped us, identify and define as far as what are the, really, the critical elements that people wanted us to focus on during this process.

[181:07] We are now in Phase 3, or a bolder direction, which will carry us through the rest of this year, and actually over into a little bit of the early part of the winter of 2026. This is really the heart and soul of the process, where we are evaluating a number of different policy options, looking at different, approaches to the land use map. And ultimately, we'll arrive at a preferred… a preferred alternative or a preferred direction, and then carry that forward into the final phase, which will be the documentation the writing of the actual plan, and then ultimately the adoption process. interestingly about the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is that it is actually jointly adopted by two different jurisdictions, the City of Boulder and Boulder County, because it includes not only the land within the boundary of the city, but also Roughly 3 miles or so outside of the city boundary, within the unincorporated county.

[182:05] We have the pleasure of, taking this to 4 different adopting bodies. So, the City's Planning Board and City Council, and then on the county side, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, so all four of those bodies need to approve the exact same document. Through that adoption process, there usually is a bit of horse trading going back and forth, and ultimately, if agreement can't be met on a particular policy or a particular, land use change. ultimately, that just… that falls off. So if you can't reach agreement after a couple of back and forths, then it falls off the… off the table. As I mentioned, the other boards that we're speaking to are advisory to the process, you're non-voting, but certainly we are very interested in, in your input, and really, this is an opportunity for you to help assist staff. in identifying and shaping any significant changes to relevant policy, and at the end of this process, we will, of course, encourage you all to, make a recommendation of support to Planning Board and City Council.

[183:11] If you so choose. I do have just a one caveat here. The Open Space Board of Trustees does play a more formal role in that they do have to vote on any changes related to land use changes that are, have any sort of impact or effect on open space land, so that is one extra step that we, that we go through with OSBT. Since October, we have received 5,000… over 5,000 community responses through a variety of different, methods and means. We've had 41 different engagement opportunities. Those have ranged from… Online feedback forms, and online meetings, or in-person meetings, workshops, and a number of different, just, staff office hours where we make ourselves available to community members to come in and ask questions.

[184:00] This is our… our goal before we started the project was for this to be the most inclusive, comprehensive plan update that we have done so far, and I think we are, making good on that promise. We are… Investing a lot of time and energy into reaching people that we haven't typically heard from. We are using new tactics, including something called the Community Assembly that you may have heard about. Where we selected 48, random individuals through a, representation model, so they, they represent a very broad. demographic distribution of the population of both the city, but also county members. They are, specifically deliberating on the topic of 15-minute neighborhoods. what does that look like in Boulder? Is that even a good idea for Boulder? So, that… that group is meeting… Over 7 Saturdays, they have, they met twice before a summer break, and they have had one more meeting since coming back, so they've got four more before they will ultimately present their recommendations directly to Planning Board and Council in December.

[185:06] This is the, the draft vision, so our community works together to ensure everyone belongs, to create opportunities for all, and to sustain the health of the Boulder Valley for future generations. There's some additional language that's in your memo that speaks to the commitments that we make related to this vision. We are using the 7 goal areas of the SER framework as our organizing structure for the Comprehensive plan as we move forward, so ultimately. Rather than taking the more traditional approach of having policies related to the built environment, or transportation, or, Utilities, as an example, they will very likely be organized, or at least have the opportunity to be sorted in a way that they relate back to these seven goal areas of the SER framework, so that linkage and connection from that planning framework I showed earlier will be more direct in this way, and that's what we're hoping to achieve.

[186:03] The areas of focus that I mentioned, so these are the seven, areas that the community has identified as really key issues they want us to focus on, through this update. There's… you will see things that are probably not a surprise to you, things like housing choice and opportunity, or travel options. But there's a couple of really, kind of newer ideas that have emerged, related to, an inclusive local economy, making sure there are opportunities for small and local businesses, food systems, getting back to this notion of the farmer's market and really supporting our agricultural community and this relationship that we have with the county. And our open space lands, and the use of those for agricultural purposes. And then multi-generational, multicultural communities, so how do we… how do we plan for and strategize the community and the growth and change of the community as our demographics are changing. Boulder is aging significantly. Our fastest growing cohort is, 65 and over.

[187:03] But also planning for the youth generation, because this is a 20-year plan, so they are going to be the ones that will be inheriting the choices we're making now. 20 years into the future. The… this is really kind of, you know, this is one of the, key conversations we want to have with you this evening, but also this is something that we as… staff have really, taken on as a challenge that the… the current sort of iteration of the… of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the structure, with the open space boundary and… and directing growth into the city itself. That was started back in the 1977 plan, so we are looking at this really as a 50-year update, as opposed to one of our regular 10-year updates, and so we are taking, very, very fresh eyes on what the comprehensive plan should be for the next 50 years. And so one of the things that we're focused on is

[188:02] If you've looked at the comprehensive plan lately, it is a very complex document. It's very long. It uses a lot of jargon that most people won't understand. There are 210 policies, and many times. Those policies can be duplicative, or they can be contradictory with each other, and so one of… a couple of things that we are, Approaching as we look at each of those and begin the process to edit those is, how do we make those policies clear? So how do we limit that redundancy, say it once, say it well, and then move on? How do we make it simple? So how do we make it easier to read, more understandable for all of our users, which include community members, our staff, the development industry, policy makers, and decision makers like yourselves? And then how do we make it more resilient? How do we make the land use strategy and the policies that are embedded within the plan keep those at the appropriate level of detail so that they can help guide decisions within changing conditions. What we have seen, certainly more recently, and the pandemic really, I think, emphasized this for us.

[189:11] Is that the comprehensive plan carries too much specificity right now, and so it's not as nimble as it may need to be when certain opportunities present themselves, or certain challenges do, right? Just a quick note on upcoming milestones, so we do have a, a open community workshop next Tuesday at Casey Middle School. People are gonna get to play with the map, the land use map, so we have a new idea for how to paint the map, and so we're gonna be asking people to play around with that a little bit. We will have a statistically valid survey coming out. That'll get mailed to 5,000 randomly selected households, in about a week or two. That'll be open through, mid-October. And there will be an online companion survey that'll be open to everybody, so that'll help capture people that are not residents of the Boulder Valley, but people that might go to school here or commute here for work. That'll be available with the same set of questions through the, project website. And then December 11th, we are…

[190:17] Really aiming towards, an opportunity. It's a joint meeting with Planning Board and City Council, where we are intending to bring forward staff recommendations on any significant policy changes, so that we have that… can carry that direction into the beginning of next year, and begin to actually draft the plan. We are… so I mentioned that, January, there's a couple of public hearings related to a few other, associated efforts that are going on. And then March is when we are hoping to release the public review draft, so that would be the first draft of the full plan, proposed land use map. We are aiming for March 2nd, so the whole month of March would be open, for that public review process, and in March, we will be doing a second round of Board Roadshow, so we'll be coming back to you, to have a conversation about

[191:11] the full plan itself, but specifically about any of those policy changes. And it's also very possible that Marcy or the Historic Preservation staff may come to you in between with more… discussion on any specific policies related to historic preservation, so that can then be trans… transmitted back to us before that March timeframe. And then a few revisions in May, hopefully only a few, and then, begin that adoption process with those four bodies in the June-July timeframe of next year. And you can find pretty much everything you need to know about the Comprehensive Plan at this, project website, which is abolderfuture.org. All of the existing conditions information from A Boulder Today is available there. The vision and goals from A Boulder Tomorrow, all the FAQs about the plan itself, any, information about community events or the online companion survey, the link will be there, all of that kind of thing. And then you can also reach out directly

[192:15] to staff if you have any questions, but there's also a project email of future at bouldercolorado.gov that you can send any questions to at any time. So with that, I'm gonna pass it to Marcy to… Begin some discussion. Great. Thank you, KJ. So the two questions, again, are about questions about the approach to the comprehensive plan, and then what aspects of the value of historic preservation are most important to reaffirm in the comp plan. So, to kind of bring it from project-wide and, like, the whole comprehensive plan, I thought it would be helpful to, bring it down to the historic preservation kind of program specifically, and so I thought this graphic of the planning framework was really helpful, where the SARE Sustainable Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework

[193:10] kind of guides everything we do at the city, and then the comprehensive plan is a major step in that. And then, for the historic preservation plan. We're guided by three main, documents. One is the Historic Preservation Plan, which lives kind of in that, the green kind of layer of department plans and strategies. It's… it's a vision, but it also has specific strategies of how the work gets done. And then the Boulder Revised Code is our regulations. That's in that red Kind of granular operational level at the, the lowest, layer, and then the historic preservation… annual work plan is also, in that operating budget of, like, what are we taking on this year, and… and how the work gets done. So,

[194:04] One of the kind of light bulb moments for me is, in part of this update, is looking at the current policies and saying, That is a specific idea of how to get the work done, woven in with the value or the idea of why. And so, if you're like me and thinking, okay, well, it's a good idea, where else would it live? The answer is likely one of these three. Maybe it belongs in our preservation plan, maybe it belongs in our code, or maybe it's a work plan item, a specific work plan item. So, the, second piece of what would I want to know if I was a landmarks board being asked for feedback is, well, what does the existing comp plan say about historic preservation? And so, if you haven't read it cover to cover recently, there are six policies, specific to historic preservation, they're all housed in Section 2, which is the built environment. And so, we've got… I'm not gonna read them. I would summarize, kind of the

[195:08] what are the values that are reflected in these six policies? This is my take on it. I think we could have a whole conversation about the values in the existing one, but the themes for me between preservation of historic and cultural resources, leadership and preservation of city and county-owned resources. Historic and Cultural Preservation Plan, Eligible Historic District and Landmarks, historic preservation conservation tools, and preservation of archaeological sites and cultural landscapes The themes, to me seem to be a commitment to preserving significant objects, buildings, and sites. Ditches and agricultural buildings are specifically identified. Of all the things that are important, those things are called out in our comprehensive plan. Leadership for a city in publicly owned resources. This idea of proactive planning, of saying. What the plan will cover. It actually calls for a joint historic preservation plan between the city and the county, which currently doesn't exist.

[196:08] And also proactive planning of identifying the map of potential historic districts and the designated historic districts. And then it includes an idea for a range of tools to achieve historic preservation objectives. So, my next slide just returns us to the questions, so I am going to take one more minute and just go through each of these, because I think it would tee up, kind of, the conversation, for tonight. So… The preservation of historic and cultural resources defines the commitment to identify and protect significant resources. This is also the comp plan policy that calls for preservation through site review. And in my opinion, that is a very tricky place for it to live, because it's not in the site review criteria for planning board to weigh whether a building should be landmarked as a part of an annexation or a site review. It's in this comp plan policy.

[197:08] The second one, leadership and preservation for city-owned… city and county-owned resources, states how the city and county will be leaders in preservation by evaluating and protecting their own properties. We have a number of, city-owned landmarks that… that do that, and have… are a direct result of this policy. Historic and Cultural Preservation Plan outlines that preservation issues will be incorporated into the Comprehensive plan and continued implementation of the City's Historic Preservation Plan. I think this is also the comp plan policy that talks about, coordination with other values of land use and zoning and housing. I don't know if housing is in this version, but of the goals, broader goals, and how historic preservation should be coordinated with those. Eligible historic district and landmarks directs readers to a map of potential districts and, designated ones.

[198:04] Historic Preservation Conservation Tools describes a variety of tools that may be employed. It's a little redundant with what's in our historic preservation plan that talks about financial incentives or conservation districts. And then, the last one is preservation of archaeological sites and cultural landscapes. Kind of elevates the importance of, archaeological, sites and a desire to create a plan and process to preserve those, significant landscapes. So with that, here are the two the two questions that we are hoping, you all will provide your feedback on. So, the first one is about the approach for the comprehensive plan update, and how the policies should be clarified, simplified, and more resilient. And then the second one, which we could probably be here till midnight, so we'll try and…

[199:01] keep it, keep it focused is what aspects of the value of historic preservation are most important to reaffirm in the comp plan, what emerging trends are important to capture in the plan, knowing that those would then, guide the update to the historic preservation plan. Mariah is going to be taking, notes for us, and, I would recommend we do, similar to the civic area, where we go question by question, and… With that, we welcome your comments. And as a facilitator, it is 9.20, I think we would… I think 30 to 40 minutes would be plenty on this. conversation. You all can agree if you want to go later, but I know it is, you can say a lot in that amount of time. I didn't mean to shake my head no.

[200:01] No, I don't agree with you. Yeah. Second, sir. Okay, thank you. Okay, for the first question, I'll keep it short. I like the approach. And I think reading through, I did read all of the 6 policies, and I even… searched the word historic in the entire thing, which there are, like, 80-something, references, but… there's a lot of redundancy, and some of it I was actually really surprised by how specific it was. So I think it makes a lot of sense to focus on what it is and why it's important, and then to have the specificity live in the other elements of the work. I totally agree with that, and I love the emphasis of the why over the how… how.

[201:00] If you really know the why. how comes down… how you implement it, what is… is… comes down the road sort of organically, to use a word that Michael used earlier about the East Bicket. I think that the why is the focus, and I think Chelsea hit the nail on the head, that it's… it's a little… there is redundancy, and it's… I don't want to say it's cumbersome, but it's just sort of words, you know? And so, getting kind of to the heart of the matter, and I think why is the heart? I… I think… It's a pretty, I guess, straight-ahead comprehensive plan update process. I've been through a couple of these. And, I think that it's… It's a valid approach. And I think that… It appears that steps are being taken to

[202:05] Some… somewhat broaden the outreach in this process. from, say, the last time this happened, I remember that being a very… Kind of, it just happened kind of process. So, I think that I agree with that. I'm… I'm interested… what I'm really interested in was these these group… these meetings… the community meetings That you mentioned there were 3 of, and there was this kind of representational selection process. done, and I'd like to know more about that, actually. Yeah, I'm happy to talk about that a bit. So, a community assembly, sometimes it's called, a community jury or a, or a, civic assembly, you know, has… carries a couple of different, names. They're not used terribly frequently within the United States. They have become more, more common in Canada and Europe, and down in, Australia.

[203:16] But there's a couple of examples that have happened in the States. We believe we are the first one to ever use one as part of a comprehensive plan, so that's… fun, and so the, we worked with a consultant, based in Toronto that, has done, I think, upwards of 40 or 50 of these in, in various locations for various topics, like, you know, universal healthcare and, you know, pretty big, meaty things. And the purpose, you know, of these assemblies is to bring together a, a representative sample of, of a community or of a, constituency, and deliberate on a… particularly sticky problem, to ultimately reach some level of consensus and then deliver those recommendations directly to

[204:09] People in power, or people that have the ability to actually do something about that. So we worked with this team to develop, to develop our approach. We used a representation model, and actually the breakdown of all the different demographics that we used is available on that project website. There's a tab at the top for community assembly, and you can go to that and look at all the information. For that process, we sent out 10,000 invitations to randomly selected households based on that representation model, and, then selected down from those, from those responses, this, the 48 individuals that are participating, you know, based on… I haven't been working here in Boulder for a terribly, you know, terribly long time, a little over 3 years now, but we've done a lot of outreach for a variety of different projects.

[205:03] And when I walked into that room for the first time, for that first meeting, I did not recognize one person in the room, which was awesome. Like, that was the best thing that I could have wished for, is that they were all new people, a very, very diverse group of ages, and socioeconomic backgrounds and races, and so it's just… it was… it's a really great group. So they've come together, they're… they are working through this question of 15-minute neighborhoods, and specifically, we wanted, rather than, you know, charge them with trying to figure out the comprehensive plan, we needed to give them something very tangible. And so the process they're working through is to learn about what is a 15-minute neighborhood, what's some of the controversy associated with those, and so they have a balanced understanding of the topic itself. But then, really, what they're working on now… And ultimately, what the recommendations will be is.

[206:01] what, what does a 15-minute neighborhood look like in Boulder? It's not gonna look the same as New York or Paris or San Francisco, and so what does that… what does that mean in Boulder? What are things… that people will actually walk to in Boulder, or want to walk to in Boulder. You know, if walking is the definition of 15 minutes, maybe it includes biking 15 minutes. So, again, they're working through all those nuances. What's… interesting and kind of fun about this is they're actually working pretty independently from us. We have been, you know, we have, they're working closely with our engagement team, so there's city staff that are there, but there's a facilitation group from CU that's helping to facilitate those conversations. We are there as subject matter experts and provide input, but then we leave the room, so it's, it's very independent. We don't know exactly what they're gonna come up with, but we are empowering them to, you know, to come up with those recommendations, and then ultimately deliver those directly to us, but more importantly, they'll be delivering those directly to Planning Board and Council at that December 11th meeting. So,

[207:12] It's… yeah, it's a new… it's a new technique. I think we're learning a ton from it. It's been a lot of really great things. We're learning, you know, some of the challenges associated with it as well, and there's a balance to be struck between. You know, allowing them to work in independence and have the safety of working, sort of behind closed doors, but then also making sure that there is some transparency about those conversations, and so there, I think actually the next… either the next meeting or the following meeting, there'll be, media access and public access to those meetings, but for the most part, they've been, they've been closed to public access for just the… the safety and independence of the people that are working on it.

[208:00] Just one, one quick second question. Defined statistically valid For the survey. Yeah. It's a term of art. I am not a survey consultant or expert by any stretch of the imagination, but we are working with a consultant. It, again, uses a similar, It's a, you know, scientifically rigorous process to receive responses, from, from a broad demographic and representative demographic. Of the community, so that you're, you're attempting to reach people, you know, broadly and equitably, as opposed to some of our open comment or public meetings, where the people that show up for those tend to be the same people that either have the time or the money or availability to be able to interact. In those types of forums, and so it intends to create, more of a level playing field, so that the responses we receive, we can

[209:05] compare those to some of the more qualitative feedback we might get through that online questionnaire, which will be open to anyone. Those two things will be looked at separately, because they're two different methodologies, but we'll be able to, I think, interpret some and take away some different insights from both of those opportunities. So, in other words, it's the validity is gained by how you select the components of the sample. Correct, right? Okay. Yeah. And as your, facilitator this evening, I do, I, would just… say this is probably the Landmarks Board's, one opportunity to provide comments specifically to the historic preservation aspects of the comp plan until you see it again in March. And so, there are probably a lot more questions generally about

[210:02] the approach or et cetera, that, that KJ's team can offer, you know, a conversation or an answer, kind of offline or beyond, but I am… Just concerned about the… time right now, and, running out of the brain cells that we collectively have. So, this is your time, but also want to bring it back to preservation. So I can do that. Because I'm going to combine the two into one. So my… My interest in, specifically emerging trends in historic preservation have to do with their… the inter… weaving of preservation and sustainability. And I… and I know that Boulder is… is a unique somewhat unique, but… but really does talk the talk, as a community about sustainability, and,

[211:06] So, I think… I don't know that I'm… I'm in a position to provide guidance or anything, but my question would be, how seriously is the preservation world going to take the interwovenness that's happening as an emerging trend in the community and the profession? industry, if you will. The, the, the issue of sustainability and, and, no demo permits, maybe. I'm being extreme, but I do think, and I'll just go backwards, and then I'll be really quiet, but… I was… I was kind of interested in this conversation about how The community is being solicited to contribute to a comprehensive plan, and my immediate thought is. you know, how do you filter somebody who lives in one part of Boulder, and what their vision is for the rest of it outside of their little 15-minute community or neighborhood?

[212:10] When… You know what I mean? Like, there's a lot of, sort of, like, what happens in my backyard kind of mentality that could happen, like, oh, this is the vision I have for Boulder, but really not in my neighborhood. And… and… so… so to bring those thoughts together, I… I… I guess I'm interested in… in how preservation can actually be a catalyst to remind, within the comprehensive plan sort of language, that we as a larger, bolder community. do, sort of, Talk the talk, walk the walk about sustainability generally. And how that can be part of every single community, not just historic districts, but… How we remind our own citizenry of their commitment to that aspiration.

[213:05] By not tearing down. Specifically, city and county-owned buildings, right? Sorry, I'll just stop there. Yeah, no, that's a great comment, and I won't take the time to, you know, respond or say that I have an answer, but certainly that… That's perfect feedback that… for us to be receiving right now, because part of… part of this next phase of the work is really working through some of those different policy options and what the potential trade-offs are, and having those conversations with community members about the potential trade-offs, because there are… In a number of different ways, this is a very good one, of, you know, the balance between historic preservation and also the opportunities that that presents from a, from an environmental sustainability perspective and zero-waste perspective. And then also, that dovetails into opportunities for affordable housing and the trade-offs related to that.

[214:04] Or just housing in general, and adding that, and what, you know, what are the potential impacts to other, other qualities that we have, you know, the opportunity to support more businesses if there's more people that are living near those areas, and things like that. So, this is, it… your… to your first part, your first question of how you filter all that stuff, that's… yeah, that's the job. And I think, It's… it is, Recognizing and being truthful to, you know, those individual comments, but then also thinking more broadly about how those comments can be Applied at a citywide basis, and how… and again, engaging people in some of those trade-off conversations, and there's just… there's a lot of education that has to occur in order to have those meaningful trade-off conversations, and we're… we're really kind of right at the… At the first part of that step.

[215:03] So I don't want to say Michael stole my values estate. No, I think we've all echoed that at many meetings, LDRCs, and full board meetings over the years. And now I forget the words, the phrase that you… what's the first word in the phrase the city has? is sustainability. You know, it's right there. And you know what else is in there? Equity. And I think that's a value in preservation. And then even resilience, you know, but I think that the very first word is sustainability, and that really resonated with me simply because I think at its core, preservation is sustainability. I think, just to take it a little step further without taking any more time this evening, the one thing emerging trends that I'd like to see discussed And whether it's the update to the historic preservation plan, or the ordinance, or whatever, is the two things that I think are critical and important are looking at that relevancy

[216:09] guide, roadmap, what… that came from the relevancy project, but I think the thing that, to me. That is very important. Is to really discuss emerging technologies and materials. Which, right now, not even the Secretary of the Interior standards approves, but that where we live in our climate, and with our wildfire threats, and with the changes there is, you know, I feel like sometimes I can't vote for something because it's not in a guideline or an ordinance. about, yeah, this is okay today to consider that if and where appropriate, you know, because, I think we need to just look at that in a broader sense, and I don't know what the outcome or answer is, but it has to be discussed.

[217:06] My two cents is, overwhelmed? Just because I've… never been looked at a comprehensive plan update. I'm the one with the little trickle at the bottom. So, and if I put my two cents in the trickle at the bottom, is that there's this idealistic Situation that ha- happens at the higher level. And, and… On… when it gets trickled down, and they start Sustainability, historic preservation, They all… they intertwine, and at the same time, they crash. And they burn, to say the least, because I, like, deal with that within, sustainability aspect of, like, keeping something, but at the same time, I have to have energy efficiency, and now we're being the most energy efficient we are. So,

[218:09] back to what's at hand, I'm overwhelmed, and, maybe… I know we're on the board. Am I able to, like. Put my comments into an email. Okay, great. Yes, yes. Thank you. Yes, you are… you are also a community member, and… and since you're… this is, legislative action, and you're non-voting, you are… you're welcome to participate. I can come… I put down in my calendar for Casey at… on the Tuesday? Yeah, May, yeah, September 9th, Tuesday. Yeah, Tuesday, okay. the day before I go to Open Space Board of Trustees. Spring. I wrote it down because I… I… Can't think any longer. Okay, so… for the question of what are the emerging trends, or the things that are important to capture. Okay, so here's… here's what I wrote. I wrote.

[219:09] Preservation should not be a way to prevent change, but instead a way to keep us rooted in where we come from and guide us to where we are going. And I do think that there is something broken about our current designate or demolish model, and that there are elements of our program that… like, I think we were all… oh, sorry, having a mind meld. But anyway, I said that there… Are elements of our program that are in conflict with other city goals, whether it be environmental goals, housing goals, fire mitigation goals, the list goes on. Historic preservation just can't happen in a vacuum where we don't consider how the decisions here impact the community as a whole, now and in the future, so I think this is the right time. With the comp plan update and the historic preservation plan update coming up to identify and tackle those challenges, I don't know, like, the answers, I don't know. But I think asking the questions and

[220:15] really, I, like, like we were talking about in our previous discussion, just naming those challenges and saying, this is something that, if we don't fix now, well, we're probably not gonna fix, like you said, for another 50 years, so we better try to do something now. To address those issues, and it's both exciting and overwhelming. But mostly exciting. Can I build on that? Okay. Also, could you send me that? Yeah! That was very… that was very articulate, and I don't have this written down, but I do, I… my thinking is in the same vein of what you all are saying about interconnectedness and,

[221:06] interwovenness with these other things, and it goes back to that relevancy project, where if you're ever curious, like, what is Marcy's compass about historic preservation? It is that relevancy project, and what really resonated with me is that it isn't, It… it is… Broadening the tent. is a way that one of the keynote speakers said, to say. If we stop being so precious about preservation, whether it's the material or the… whatever it is. And we kind of expand. there are so many more people who would never say, I'm a preservationist, that would say, that definition of preservation means something to me. And this, sustainability, equity, and resilience framework is the guiding, you know, main thing of everything that the City of Boulder does, and as I was looking at this, putting these slides together, and I know that font is hard to read, I can see preservation in

[222:12] Every single one of these. And so, starting with environmentally sustainable, that's the materials, keeping them out of the landfill. Reuse is more sustainable than scraping it and starting new. the… safe community is probably gonna have to think about that one to make that connection a little bit more, but to me, it's something about, a vibrant neighborhood, it's something about enlivening it, it's something there that's related to the work that we do. economically vital, is… Boulder's tourism industry. Chautauqua, the Tea House, Boulder, the Pearl Street Mall, all of those are historic districts or landmarks. People want to come to a place with authenticity and with character that can't just be manufactured out of a catalog. And so, I don't think we've done a great story

[223:12] Saying preservation has, contributed significantly to the economic vitality of Boulder. Responsibly governed is the world that we… are living in in 2025, of our process improvements and making sure that what we're doing is efficient, it's responsible, it's criteria-based. Livable, to me, relates in the, like, in the most tangible way to the 15-minute neighborhoods, where those historic neighborhoods are inherently walkable, because they weren't built around a car. And so, what lessons can be learned, or kind of reinvigorated from these old neighborhoods that still have that infrastructure with these little mom-and-pop shops, or something in between?

[224:00] Accessible and connected feels to me like the equity work that we have been doing, this sense of belonging. Can I see myself in the mirror when it's held up? Can everybody see themselves in that mirror? stories that have been… And telling those stories that haven't been told before, and making sure we're being honest about the history, and telling a complete story, and not just having this pantheon of… of… Figures. And then healthy and socially thriving probably weaves all of those, together of… about a healthy community, a thriving community. I can see preservation in every one of these, and rather than having a silo to be like, okay, go to the… preservation policy, okay, now go to the housing policy, which one are you gonna choose? They're actually… how do you… like… see the benefit in preservation? How… how does…

[225:01] preservation contribute to these other goals? There will be conflict along the way, but so often it's not an either-or, like with the earlier conversation, but framing it as How can you have a historic neighborhood that's also affordable? How can you have a historic building that's also energy efficient? They don't have to be an either-or. decision. I love that, and I think it's so important that in our comprehensive plan, whatever is said just gives us the freedom to execute that at those other levels, because I think right now. It probably doesn't. So… I don't know, I love it. Thank you for sharing all of that.

[226:01] No, I'm overwhelmed. No, I didn't… I didn't mean to take the last word. Are there any other… other thoughts? I would also encourage, you know, if others want to think about this, percolate, and follow up with an email, or we can put a matters item, in a future board meeting, or something. This isn't intended to be, like, the one Opportunity you have to give us all your thoughts, but it is beneficial to hear each other and build on it, and it feels to me like what I've… main points I've heard is, like, the current comp plan is overwhelming, there's a lot of redundancy. Kudos to the, to KJ's team to say, make it readable. Make it clear, concise, and… and, resilient so that it can, flow with the things that we don't… Yet know what's coming. And then, for the aspects of the value of preservation, environmental sustainability is, like.

[227:00] key, and the, city of San Antonio, Texas, is one of the leaders in preservation and sustainability, Portland being another one. What can we do to, like, bring those two values together, rather than just, like. reinforce this false… you know, conflict between the two. But it's not just sustainability. There are so many other, goals, sustainability, equity, and resilience that all, they're all related, rather than saying. you know, preservation is a… is a single issue. It's not. It touches so many things, and it can be a benefit to those things. So, Marcy, can you go back one slide to, like, the… nope, nope, that… So, you've done a lot of brilliant things in your years here at the City, but on the right side, how you've listed the three separate, and I'm not going to…

[228:02] I want to use the word three buckets, which so dismisses what each of those documents and policies and ordinances are, but for me, to start thinking in terms of those three things is kind of a paradigm shift and a really good way to approach it, like. Where should it fall? And then… What changes need to be made in each three, and some will obviously be in all of them, but… that really… Has spoken to me about how to look at it, and look through a different prism. Chelsea won't. Last comments? No. Well, thank you, thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you, that was great. These were two, very full policy topics where we typically have, cases to respond to. So, if you go home and can't sleep and put your brilliant thoughts down in an email, send those

[229:14] to us, or maybe even in the next week or the next month, but, I'll continue to be working with KJ's team to really start taking this guidance and saying, well, how do we take these six policies? And kind of go… going forward, and keep you all informed along the way. With that, the only other thing I wanted to mention, was that I participated in a neighborhood, education community event about wildfire preparedness in historic buildings up in Mapleton Hill, and there's more… that I… maybe I should do a little presentation on it, but I will say that when the wildfire urban interface, the WUI code, was being developed, and I saw our historic preservation design guidelines, I thought, -oh.

[230:12] what are we gonna do? And then, working with our colleagues over in the fire department, going out on these, detailed home assessments, there's actually not that much of a… of a conflict between… how do you, make these buildings resilient? How do you, make them more, resilient to fire and preserve their historic character? So, the long and short is that the majority of things you can do The biggest impact is the vegetation. It's the fencing. And none of that touches the historic materials themselves. Once you get to the building. The siding that makes the biggest difference are the bottom 6 inches as the fire goes between buildings, and then putting mesh in your vents, and

[231:02] underneath your decks. So, it… there are going to be conversations that we need to have in updating our guidelines, especially when it comes to, siding and windows, both on, the… the additions, which is what's required now, but also guidance, on the historic portion. But really, like, the biggest takeaway is that, The theme of the night. It's all connected, and they're actually not in conflict with each other at the same scale that a lot of… a lot of people assume. So, with that… That's all… that's all we have for staff under matters. Renee's gonna kill me, but when you said that about the vegetation, and I know we're talking locally and our risk locally, but in the Palisades fire, the one reason the Getty Villa and all its priceless artwork was able to stand is all the work they'd done on the vegetation around the property. That's what saved it.

[232:03] Well, they have these special smoke walls that come down, and I know that, but the vegetation on the out… the vegetation helped it from approaching closer. They also ran their sprinklers for 2 days before it came off. So, I would also, since, all of you must live in Boulder to serve on this board, put a plug in for those detailed home assessments, the fire, Folks from the fire department come out and walk you through, like. fix that eave, cut that tree back, like, they give you a full, list of things you can do, and there's money for you, to do the work. So, That's that. Meeting is adjourned at 9.53 p.m. Thank you, everyone.

[233:06] Next time, I suggest that I'm allowed in the.