November 5, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] The November Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the November 5th, 2025 Landmarks Board Meeting. It's… 6.02 PM. Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that the one public hearing for this evening has been canceled. The landmark alteration certificate for 1105 Spruce Street has been withdrawn. The rest of the meeting will continue as planned. Marci, will you please review the virtual meeting decorum? Good evening, Landmarks Board. The City has engaged with the community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports the physical and emotional safety for community members, staff.

[1:07] 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 testimonies shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants may raise their hands to speak during open comment, individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online.

[2:02] And this is, for those of you joining online, this is where you can find the raise hand function, is under the reactions menu. There are also shortcuts. Alt-Y on a PC, Option-Y for a Mac, or Star 9 if you're calling in on a phone. Back to you, Renee. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records archived and on the YouTube within 28 days of this meeting. We'll do a roll call and a brief introduction. Michael? Michael Ray, Vice Chair, Landmarks Board. John? John Decker, member of the Landmarks Board. Abby? Abby Daniels, member of the Landmarks Board? And I am Renee Globeck. Chair of the Landmarks Board. We have a quorum this evening. Does anyone have any changes to the alterations of the October minutes, and do we have approval of these minutes?

[3:02] Any changes? And, Marci, are we allowed to, approve these minutes with just 3 people? Yes? Yes, okay. I move that we approve these minutes. Second. Thank you. We'll do a roll call. John? Aye. Michael? Aye. And I say aye. Abby was not at the last meeting, so just to note that. Potential in-person participants. Aubrey, do we have any in-person… Participants for open comment. We do have one. Tim Plass? We're no longer swearing people in for open comment. So please state your full name, and you will have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Tim Plass, and I am the president of Historic Boulder, and I'm here speaking on behalf of Historic Boulder this evening.

[4:06] And originally, I thought we would be speaking to a, stay of demolition request for the four houses on Arapahoe Avenue, but seeing as that's been pulled, not going to be speaking to that. But I thought I would take the time here tonight during public comment, to address a process concern that includes the houses on Arapahoe, but it's bigger than that. And that issue is how site review intersects with a demolition ordinance. And it's a rather dry issue, but I think it's a really important one. The demolition ordinance is a powerful tool in the historic preservation toolbox for historic properties that are not landmarked. Of which there are many. Think of all the wonderful historic resources on Nuni Hill, for example. In combination with the city's ability to landmark a property over the owner's objection, these two tools undergird the continued existence of many worthy but unlandmarked structures.

[5:02] The step of landmarking over an owner's objection is rarely taken, and rightly so. It's a significant incursion into a property owner's rights. However, I would submit to you that when a property is brought forward for a demolition review that is part of a larger development proposal. the equation is changed, more particularly when a historic resource is on a parcel that will go through discretionary process of site review, the usual calculus regarding the demolition ordinance changes. This is the case with the four historic houses on Arapahoe Avenue. And here's the reason why, and it has to do with the site review criteria. And I just want to read briefly through. I'm probably going to run out of time, so maybe I'll just skip that. But there are site review criteria that talk about historic resources and their preservation, and that's a community benefit that we get out of site review. However, the way things are set up now, the demolition determination happens before the discretionary review process, so that all the usual concerns about landmarking over an owner's objection are there, without acknowledging the very different circumstances of such a proposal.

[6:11] The discretionary review process is a give and take between the city and applicant. who often wants relief from certain code requirements, for example, height limitations or setbacks in exchange for community benefit, one of which is historic preservation. So… Under the current process, it's very likely that the historic resource may well be approved for demolition before the site review has begun. That's a process that is skewed against preserving deserving historic resources. I urge you to reconsider how the process works, or isn't working. It has not always been this way. I understand the desire to have the Landmarks Board, rather than staff, make the determination of what should be preserved in the context of site review. But the current process has created an unlevel playing field skewed against preservation. Historic Boulder respectfully requests that we level that playing field again.

[7:03] Thank you. Thank you. Aubrey, do we have anyone else, virtual participants? Looks like we do have one. Brad F. I will allow you to speak, and you'll have 3 minutes. Brad, will you please state your full name, and you will have 3 minutes. Sure. I'm Bradford Forkas. I live at the Tortolot Squires House, which is listed as the oldest house in Boulder. I appreciate Tim's comments on historic Boulder and, historic preservation. In the context of that, I wanted to make a comment about 1105 Spruce. I'm not sure whether that's being reviewed today, or whether this is a fait accompli. But, the, the applicant and the town has characterized, that they are kind of rehabilitating and renovating the historic carriage house, which is roughly 1895.

[8:08] period structure. But in fact, if you look at the plans that were submitted, and I think at one point were approved, maybe they're coming up for review, It is not a renovation or rehabilitation, but rather a almost wholesale demolishment and rebuilding. The plans have every window being changed, every door being changed, the dormers being changed, and all the siding being changed, and a new foundation being installed to accommodate conversion to a residential structure. So I'm wondering how that is even possible, given, my own and my neighbor's interaction with the Landmarks Board, where even small changes are heavily scrutinized. How you're able to, to permit, essentially, the complete rebuild of a historic structure, acknowledging that the structure, like many historic structures, is somewhat run down, and I'm sure that the replacement might look nicer, but it will basically have

[9:13] Almost none of the original historic features, the original features that it has, but would rather be basically a rebuild in place of the existing structure with all new materials. Thank you, Brad. it looks like there's no, pending demolition applications or landmark alterations. Was there anybody else online who wanted to speak? We do actually have one more online. Sorry about that. Lynn Siegel. Lynn, I will unmute you and restart the timer. Yeah, I'm double-dipping tonight, because I just testified at EAB, which I never got… I probably haven't testified before them in 8 years.

[10:01] Ben, will you state your full name? Lynn Siegel, because the priority for me is the Landmarks Board, so I talked to them mostly about Landmarks Board issues associated with embodied energy lost, or carbon footprint lost by these demolitions. And when I got on, I didn't get to hear the rest of the testimony of that person, but deconstruct… or rebuilding something new, it said something like that. You know, that's what's happening all over, you know, I mean, I complained a lot about 1015 Juniper, a beautiful, bungalow that was demoed, and a $5 million giveaway, basically. Or 5 or 10, who knows, to that… that developer that built a complete monstrosity. Tom Meyer, my friend, lives across the street. He now's at Frasier, but he was also mortified by it. And not that you can control what something looks like. It wasn't, you know, landmarked, and it was demoed. And,

[11:08] It's just that, you know, every time I look around, I can't remember what this place looked like, you know? And… there's a lot… I know you do a lot of hard work, like I saw on LDRC today, I'm still really angry that I have to blow every Wednesday morning, because it's not recorded, and I've begged for years for it to be recorded, because sometimes I just have priorities, and it's just… I mean, that's how 7-7… 770 Circle got demoed on an LDRC for $8.1… no, 8,000 square feet, $6.1 million at baseline and Flagstaff. I mean, that should be… a crime.

[12:00] That should get jail time for that happening. Now, as it turns out, the last I know, and I've been up there, and I have friends in the area, it has not been demoed yet, but I'm sure it has to go before demolition again. Probably the people from England decided. It wasn't worth it, or something, and sold it, and… someone else will try that, and hopefully that won't happen again. Because, I mean, it was a Hobie Wagner or something, a flagstone house on the WUI. And LDRC approved its demolition. It's unbelievable. That kind of thing can happen. In Boulder. I mean, I saw a thing on Sand Creek Massacre yesterday, and it reminded me how really conservative this place is, in light of it looking like it's progressive. It's not at all. It's… it's… I'm ashamed to live here. I'm from Pacific Northwest, and I'm ashamed to live here. You know, originally, the East Coast was going to the West for gold, and Colorado was just a desert wasteland, until they found gold here, and now Sundance, you know? Anyway…

[13:14] Thanks for your comments, Lynn. Aubrey, there's no other… Open comments? I don't see anyone else, so we're good to move on. Okay. And, if it would be okay, I think it would be helpful to clarify with the, the application status that was mentioned by the first two speakers. So, the application that was withdrawn today, that the public hearing was scheduled for this evening was for the, deconstruction in… deconstruction of the contributing carriage house at 1105 Spruce Street in construction of a new building, so that decision, has not been made because the application has withdrawn.

[14:02] And then the four, demolition applications on Arapaho will be scheduled for the December hearing. So just to clarify what was pulled from tonight's agenda and what you all will be seeing next month. Thank you. So we can move on to matters. Let's move on to matters, and our first thing is a team update. Yes. Usually we have a public hearing to get to matters, so let me switch gears. So, it is, it is hard to… I'm still processing. I would like to let everybody know that, this is Aubrey Noble's last Landmarks Board meeting, and thank her for her time with the program, which started in 2022, and over the last three and a half years, she has…

[15:02] Seeing this program through a number of major changes, whether that's major staffing changes and, or transitioning from a totally virtual environment, which, she learned and handled, and then we switched to a hybrid. Work environment, so she has weathered, the many changes that we've had in the last three and a half years, and, with such grace as Abby has said, and just really appreciate all the work that she has done, and the dedication to this team, and wish her all the best in this next chapter, which will include graduate studies in landscape design, so… Thank you, Aubrey. Thank you, Marci, and everyone. I've learned so much from all of you, as I said in my email, at every LDRC, except for, like, two over the past three and a half years. I've enjoyed listening to you all speak about what you love.

[16:06] It's been really cool. Thank you. Yes, so we will keep you all posted. The city's, under a hiring freeze right now, for budget constraints, and so, we'll let you all know, like, if there's, any impact or adjustments that need to be made, but otherwise. We were working on a… a plan, and yeah, just wanted to recognize Aubrey at this last meeting. Great time. Best timing, I feel like, girl. So, thank you. Thanks, Aubrey.

[17:01] And I want to, thank you as well. As I said before the meeting started formally, is, you know, I've always been so impressed by your grace and poise, and your efficiency, and just how, you've been such grace under pressure, or… and I've never noticed you… ever hesitate to do anything, and whenever there was an email or a request, it's like, sure, I'm right on that, and it would magically get taken care of. And when I got your email yesterday, I mean, I literally got tears in my eyes, and I thought. at first, I thought, God, I'm old enough to be your mother, then I thought, oh my god, I'm old enough to be her grandmother, but I'm just like, you will be a loss to this program, but the cool thing is, you've left an indelible mark. So as you move forward. Rest assured, you've made a difference, and it will be remembered. So, thank you. Well, I'll have to say that I'll have to feel your pain, because I don't think I've been on the board without you, so I don't know what is yet to come. So, like I said, I'm just a little mat. Just a little mat.

[18:12] I have one… one comment, and I just want to say thanks for finally getting my permanent name on the days before… before you took… I know that was sort of a high on your list before you… She was gonna leave a few months ago, but had to wait till that wasn't… no, I'm kidding. But all of those comments, I would say I feel the same. So, you'll be missed. Yeah. You will be missed. You have… you have always managed every… special need I had. Which were numerous and constant. So, I don't know who's gonna take that over. She's like ChatGBT for scheduling. Yeah, right, exactly. Aubrey, Aubrey GBT scheduling.

[19:07] Jeez, how you're getting all of our schedules to work on LDRC? But thank you. Yeah. Well, I just think landscape architecture is a great choice to complement your numerous other degrees at this point, and It… Can be brought into a synergy of practice of some type that Hopefully is what the future is gonna need. We're gonna need somebody to be able to manipulate reality directly. And not expect a computer to do it, so… If nothing else, you'll be able to do gardening. And now we have, upcoming webinars that she sent out. I should have put that at the end of the meeting, I'm sorry. So yeah, without a…

[20:08] graceful transition. Let me tell you about some upcoming webinars that have some, that you might be interested in. I'm planning to attend at least two of them, so, on Friday, there's one about managing change, preservation, and new additions for historic government buildings, and that's one that AIA and the Society of Architectural Historians is, is hosting, and it's a discussion about the destruction of the East Wing of the White House, and I think, I'm really interested to hear, kind of, the expert's take on that. It's a really interesting panel of speakers. And I think if you registered, it might be recorded, but you'd have to check the registration link for each of these. The next one is Design Review Roundtable, Evaluating Additions to Historic Structures, and that one's put on by the National Alliance for Preservation Commissions.

[21:07] And they always do really great trainings. That one's next week, I think next Thursday at 11. Very, kind of, intersecting with our work. There's another one about, kind of the federal level defending the National Historic Preservation Act in Section 106, kind of following up related to the congressional hearing, last week on, that topic. That one's in a couple weeks, and then there's a webinar about disaster and resilience planning in Colorado, same day, if you want to do a double feature, but that one is… specific to natural, disasters in Colorado, which, I think could also be really interesting. And then, looking much farther ahead, I wanted to, get on our calendars. The Saving Places Conference, is in February this year, February 11th to the 13th. It returns to Denver, right downtown at the Doubletree… actually, I don't know where it is. It's on Quebec.

[22:12] But the… the theme for this year is the case for preservation, and they're kind of aligning with some, major anniversaries, I think, of the… maybe the National Historic Preservation Act, and maybe the state. There's some anniversaries, and so the case for preservation is the theme. So, look for an email, in the next… month or so about registering for that. You're always encouraged to go, and there are, both in-person and virtual, sessions, and then the recordings are available afterwards. And as a reminder, as a certified local government, it says at least one member has to Attend one training a year, which seems like a pretty low bar, but…

[23:01] If you attend any of these webinars, please let us know, because that can go towards that requirement. I have a question about saving places. How many sessions are you and Claire presenting this year? Zero. Okay, you never know. And I don't say that as, like, a point of pride, but I am very relieved that we're not doing, any sessions so that we can take a break and then And then jump in, to another conference, but I am just an attendee this year. Oh, I might be on a panel now that I think about it. Well, you've both represented Boulder so well in the past, so thank you. Thank you. Alright, the next piece is the, the, bigger item under Matters, we also have a great presentation for you about the Japanese language school, for Claire, and I think before…

[24:01] we do that. I do just want to take maybe, like, a few minutes, to just, kind of… recognize how important the LDRC commitment is for board members, and, I recognize Chelsea's not here, she's sick, today, but she was unable to make the LDRC this morning, and, we had to scramble last minute in order to get a board member to, to attend. So, first, a thank you to Michael for jumping on. Renee, I know you jumped on, too. But I just wanted to… kind of reinforce how, important it is that… that the board does fulfill that commitment, because by code, those LDRC cases have to be reviewed by two board members and a staff member. There's not a way around that. And we have to do the initial review within 21 days. And so, for the two cases today.

[25:04] we would have had to delay them until next week. Next week's agenda already has 3 cases on it, so we would have seen ripple effects just from this one, meeting, but then the bigger risk is the circumstance where sometimes those cases are at the LDRC on their 21st day. And if we don't review them within 21 days, they're automatically approved. And so, for a case like today, which those ended up being approved Almost as proposed, though it was a very fruitful discussion on On one of them, that might have been, you know, unfortunate, but not… Not the end of the world. But for pre-1940 demolitions, those are approved automatically if we don't meet that code requirement to review them within 21 days. So, I know that the impact is also a strain on your fellow board members, to kind of drop what they're doing and jump in, but I will say we've done so much to reduce the

[26:09] volunteer time commitment, and so… and really, like, redefine and make the LDRC purpose more clear. So, just wanted to say and open up to the board for… for any conversation, I just wanted to reinforce that we can't operate our program without you all, and, so knowing that… emergencies do come up, they will come up for everyone, just please reach out and communicate with us as soon as possible. And, if there needs to be some sort of, agreement worked out or something, let's have that Proactively, rather than kind of struggle for a while before having to address it. So, can I ask a question? Today, if Michael and

[27:00] I know Renee was also trying to jump on and help. What would you have done? Would, the meeting have just ended and not… Yeah, I think I would have said we don't have the required committee members, and we will have to postpone this until we do have, you know, until the next week. And in all the years you've been here. Have you ever had to do that before? No. No, this is the second time it's happened in a couple months, and Michael… also jumped in on that one, but no, it hasn't happened before. Did you try to contact me this morning? No, we had it. I don't think so, I don't know. Well, no, no, no, I'm just curious, because… I texted Michael, then Renee, and Michael responded, so then I told Renee, never mind, you would have been next, John. That's what we… Well, no, no, no, I just… I'm not… hurt. Yeah. But the last one we were trying to get you on. I will definitely try to jump in anytime that I could. Thank you. I do have to test my Mac, though.

[28:07] If we can set that up. We can do that anytime, yeah. Is… is there… Just to… to be proactive, I mean, I don't know if this is the forum where on a month-to-month look ahead, we… we can sort of remind people of what they're… Sort of signed up for, and at that point, just reiterate a confirmation, or… Or, I don't know, maybe there's another forum, but it sort of seems like… I mean, I love… you guys know that I love this, and again, I mean, this dyes with… Why do you have that? Could my color be pink? No, No. But I guess I'm just thinking, like, I refer to it, I appreciate that all that stuff is in my both work and my personal calendar, because if it wasn't in my work calendar, nothing would happen, but,

[29:03] We did get an email on Friday from Aubrey telling us that there would be an LDRC today. I know they're, in a perfect world, they might try not to hold one the day of a board meeting. And so, you know, and that was even a reminder to me. I mean, I knew I was on in the back of my mind, but it's like… so we did know Friday, and that was really helpful, but what was also great is she said it was going to be short, and the time it would start was anticipated to end. So… Right, I guess I'm suggesting that's great to get that reminder, but for those that are scheduled. to get a confirmation from them so that if there's a need to replace them, it's not the morning of, it's happening on Monday or something. I appreciate that, and we're flexible, you know, whatever, method works for you all. I know some… I think the theme is… the calendar appointments are key, to see. I think for… for today's case, it was an illness that was not, you know, foreseen. So in that case, it's… the ask is to, like, communicate, you know, as soon as… as soon as you can. But,

[30:15] but we are open to ideas and am adaptable if there's something that we can be doing to… to help that. And to Abby's point, like, this hasn't been a problem in the vast majority of cases. It's more that because it happened twice in the last… month or so, it's… it's a pattern that I don't want to continue, and recognize that not all five board members are here, and perhaps there's another time to… to discuss this, but since it… is fresh on my mind from this morning, I did want to just, bring it up tonight. Yeah, and I was just thinking, like, if I was in the situation where I had to, you know, like, I just had my phone, or, like, I was rushed somewhere and had to do something emergency-wise, like.

[31:06] if I had the, you know, a… like, a… an email, or a text message, or a call, like, if I text message you've been text messaging me, is that would be your personal, or is that the work email? Like, is there… is there some way to, like, you know, because I would… if there was a situation where, you know, the emergency this morning for Chelsea, and I want to honor the fact that she was super ill, so, And if you're thinking, like. I mean, I would have been like, whatever, if I was that ill, but I also think that I could have probably popped, like, a text message off to somebody in the group, and I don't know if it makes sense for us to be able to share the email via, like, our text messages, or e… like, if I could have Michael's… You know,

[32:03] cell phone number, and then I could text him and be like, hey… I don't know who… I'm on today, and I'm super ill, I can't come, you know? Like, something like that, then, like, Michael could be on it, or I could do that to Abby. Like, if there was a text strain that made sense. And I don't know, legally, if we're allowed to have that, so that might be xnade on everything, but, emails are just as easy, and I think that, we also probably could pause the information and just see, like, what would have been easy for her to… You know, in both accounts that she missed it, so if that… that would have been good to… oh, yeah. I see Chris get… Oh, yeah. Yeah. Good evening, there's no legal prohibition on board members, having each other's cell phones, and communicating via text or phone call, just have to avoid having more than two people on some sort of a chain discussing the business of the board, because then that would be a…

[33:07] a meeting in violation of, open meetings law, but communications about, like, hey, can you come to LDRC? I'm, you know, I'm sick. That's… that's always totally fine. What if there was a text strain that was, like, you know, like a… you know how you have, like, group on a friend, right? Like, a friend texts. Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's… And it would be just absolutely nothing talking about the meeting, or any. Yeah, other… other boards and things like that do that. It just increases the risk of somebody saying, like, hey. Did you see this? Part of the memo, then engaging in some sort of substantive discussion on a… on a chain involving more than two board members, but if it's purely Logistical, administrative-type stuff, then that's fine. Yeah, I mean, I… and I think we could look to, asking Chelsea if that would have been more helpful, but, you know, just the way technology is, like, I'm thinking that that would have been helpful, or even, like, the morning of, you…

[34:11] you know, I get a text message at 8 o'clock, like, all of us do it. It's like, oh, it's a reminder that, you know, Aubrey… not an email, but a text message that says… from Aubrey right now. Abby and Chelsea were on today, right? And then… because I, for the longest time. starting this, I was like, oh my… am I on? Am I not on? Like, I always had… I would call Aubrey and be like, Aubrey, am I on? Like, I don't know how to find it out. And so, now I just reserve every Wednesday in the morning not to book a meeting, if at all possible, right? And then… even on Friday, because we get the emails that says about… everybody gets them, and then I double-check and be like, okay, my name's not there. So, like, I'm, like, double-checking and rechecking, because I have that fear.

[35:02] Of doing that, so I don't know if a text message in the morning would be, like… I will say, that I think the… method of emailing the whole board on Friday to say, here's who's on next week, and then sending the calendar appointments to the two people who are on. I would ask that you put your calendar alerts on, rather than rely on a human to text you in the morning, like. Don't forget you're… you're on today. We also don't have city cell phones, and so, I would… Rather have, like, a… that email on Friday, oh, I'm on, let me just quickly reply to that, hey, I'm sick, I can't make it. And kind of use email or phone more, since we don't have city cell phones for texting. When you send us the e-bites, doesn't it automatically give us the, like, alert?

[36:01] Like, when I send somebody a meeting. I alert them, like, the day before, I choose day before, and then I choose, like, 30 minutes before the meeting. Do you have that? I don't… I can't remember if that comes up on me. I get alerts in the morning, and then I get the option to put on Do Not Disturb, but that's just my calendar. And also, when I get up from Aubrey. I will hit Accept at the bottom of the calendar thing. Now, I don't know if you ever look at that or see that. I do see those. You do look at it. I see them, yeah. And, it's… the other thing is I also have gone… especially on a Tuesday. gone and looked on the city's website, and it also says who the two board members are assigned, you know, because I'll do that kind of double check, double checking. Yeah, it looks like I have an alert 10 minutes prior, and then I just clicked on day before. Yeah, I didn't know I could edit it before sending it out. That's interesting. the invite that I have from you, calendar invite, has a 15-minute

[37:03] Before notification. That might be a city thing. Oh, Renee's is 10? Yeah, mine's 10. Interesting. I think you can set it yourselves for… I got something an hour before. Oh, nice. I think there's, probably a lot of solutions to this, and again, it hasn't happened many times, but when it does happen, it has a big impact on on our ability to run the program. So, I might suggest, like, if you have thoughts Afterwards of, like, you know, this would actually be more helpful, or if you're like, things are working well, and I just reinforce how, you know, that it's important, that's great. Or if we schedule another time, kind of at a retreat or in the future, But thanks for… jumping in, Michael, and everybody's willingness to jump in. Really appreciate it, and, appreciate the work you all do.

[38:00] Alright, the… Next thing is the letter to Council, and we estimated that this discussion might take up to 45 minutes. It might be shorter, it might be longer, but as a time check, it's 6.40 now, so, Wrapping up around, what is that, 7.30ish? this is… let me frame it. So, City Council doesn't ask for letters from boards and commissions every year, and each year they… each time they do, they, have slightly different asks of the board and commissions. So, oh, I… no, that was my… oh no! Oh, no. Oh, no, where's my other… Oh, boy, I messed it up. Okay, pretend you didn't see that. I had a really… sorry, Claire.

[39:01] It's in here somewhere. I had… I'm gonna start here. The letter to Council this year is due on December 19th, which is a month and a half away. There is a template prepared so that all the letters look the same, and they are no more than two pages. With 23 boards and commissions, you can imagine why Council did that. The intent this year is to inform the Council Retreat for 2026, which sets a two-year kind of work program for Council and priorities. So what they are asking for across all the boards and commissions are ideas for council priority projects. They ask that, the projects need to be less than 12 months to complete, but realistically, the Council priorities will be set around March, and then the,

[40:01] kind of election season comes in around November, it might be shorter. It might be more like a 7-9 month project that needs to fit within that time. The project also needs to be aligned with the citywide strategic plan and any kind of department plan. So for us, it's the historic preservation plan. So they would want to see how does this project advance these other goals and strategies. So, last meeting. the board, you all decided that you did want to write a letter this year, and that we would set up a meeting to discuss, like, what might the idea be, and talk about it. So, instead of setting up a separate meeting, we decided just to add it to Matters, today, and then figure you all might set up another meeting or two before the December 19th deadline. So, I was thinking… that any project that any board and commission comes up with likely has a major

[41:06] staff work plan impact. And so, I wanted to think, like, what what project would we as staff recommend to the board as a council priority project? It is your letter, your recommendation, your project. So, don't feel confined by this recommendation, but more we're offering an idea for a potential project. I already blew what it was, but I will pause now if you all would like to kind of brainstorm some ideas, and then hear the staff recommendation, or if you'd like… Me to pitch a staff recommended idea, but then you all have space to talk about other ideas that you might do instead. Well, we saw it, so just… I didn't see it. I didn't see it. Oh. I think… I think we should brain… brainstorm a little bit first. Yeah, great, don't let it… don't let me…

[42:06] fence you in. Well, then I'll try… I'll try not to blurt it out. Well, you can blurt it, yeah. I… I almost want to put on the table What was offered today about how the site plan review That was a really… I mean, I didn't know if he strategically put it today, but, like, the process of which was interesting to me, and if I understand it correctly, and I wish there could have been, like, more of a dialogue with him, which we can, you know. to better understand. So, it has to come, and I just kind of want to know the process he's talking about before we… want to change it, right? So… Marcy, they… we… they bring in, and they want to demo a building, they have to go through landmarks first, and then we say yes or no, and then if it's yes, they go to site review, and in site review…

[43:03] there is a place for them in SciReview that offers them advantages for keeping the historic structure. But because we've already offered to demo it. they… why would they… why would they do that? Isn't that the conflict he's bringing up? Kind of. So, in a nutshell? In a nutshell, I thought, I thought Tim captured it really well, what the… what the problem is, because the Landmarks Board… in preserving structures has different tools in the toolbox, and one of those, which you're most familiar with, is the demolition review process, where we identify eligible buildings, you all decide whether to put a stay or not, and then at the end of the stay of demolition, you have a decision. are we going to let this one go, or are we going to initiate landmark designation over the owner's objection? Which happens very rarely, and should, but that's a major step to take, where you're asking, is the preservation of this building imbalanced with the,

[44:12] Kind of the goals of the comp plan, and then, value to the community for historic preservation. You're only looking at that balance, this one building, compared to, like, the public community value of preserving that building. Another tool in the toolbox is the Boulder Valley Comp Plan Policy 2.27, which talks about preservation of historic resources through discretionary review, like site review. So, in the comp plan. The policy states that if there is, if there are eligible buildings or structures, on a property that comes through the discretionary review process, then the city should, preserve those through that process. And so the way that that has worked in the past is that

[45:05] The historic preservation staff and the development review staff meet when a pre-application comes in. looks at what's on the property, whether it's the First Christian Church, on 28th, or the Armory in North Boulder, and say, that's an eligible building as a condition of site review. you should landmark that building. And then it goes from staff to the planning board to… for planning board to say. In all balancing the site review criteria and the different goals of the community, affordable housing, they're asking for a height modification, they're kind of looking at the whole formula. They say, okay, preserving this one building or these three buildings, is part of that equation. And then the Landmarks Board sees it after the site review process is done. And you see it as a new landmark designation application.

[46:01] So… that's how it has historically worked. And then a couple years ago, the process has changed, because it's actually not in the code anywhere of, like, what that sequence is. And so, there was a desire at the staff level, but also from the applicant, to say. You know, that's a very big decision to be made at the staff level of whether this building needs to stay and could be landmarked or not. And so, what we… with guidance from the city attorney's office, decided was to, Recommend we use a process that's already… In the code, which is the demolition review process, which assesses the eligibility of a building. You all review that in a public hearing to determine, is this building eligible? However, the process then continues on to a stay, where you then have the decision to landmark over the owner's objection, or

[47:05] you know, to start that process, or to let the building go. So… That was bigger than a nutshell. But did… are you following a bit in terms of, like, the two… the difference between those two tools? Yeah, so… but why would the… why would… why, like, I haven't really seen in… a… This sort of situation where they're doing a big site review plan, have we? Recently, yeah. St. Aiden struck me as something that came to us out of order from how I used to, and I didn't realize that 2 years ago that change was made. So I was like, wait, what? And the thing that… I took away from it, and I… Marci can correct me, is it's very likely despite the decision the Landmarks Board made, and the… the…

[48:02] I guess you have a year to demolish it? No, yeah. You have a year to apply for the demolition. You know, but sometimes things like that, and… the pastor was wonderful, because she said sometimes it takes us 8 months to pick a pink color, but the point is, I remember thinking, they could very well be back in front of another landmarks board, because they may not get through that process in time and have to reapply for it. So, it's… Yeah, they were… it's a switch, you know? And St. Names is one that comes to mind immediately. Why wouldn't site review or, like, something as big as that have its own it could go in conjunction, or… because I feel like if we review it, and we agree to demo it, right? Then it doesn't… it doesn't… There's no incentive to save it when they're going through site review.

[49:00] I think that that, because… because the process… That's it. The process of demolition review is incomplete. In the sense that… We… we… Make a review of a building. As to whether it should be preserved or not preserved. And that… by the… the petitioner is interpreted to be, then you're saying, I can demolish it. And there's a whole nother category of things that should be considered as to the impact of the demolition of a building that aren't really considered. That's what a lot of people have been saying, that's kind of what I've been saying. I mean, I see the double-edged sword. Is that when we review a building with the criteria we have.

[50:02] It is, is this… is this a historic resource that needs to be preserved, or should be preserved? And if not, yeah, it can be demolished. From our standpoint, but that should not be a complete process. In the… in the… in subsequent processes, through planning, it should be reviewed In terms of the environmental impact of tearing the building down, in terms of All these factors, like embodied energy and utility beyond, you know, as other types of a built resource. And… And in fact, in terms of its… Non-historic impact on The city's character, and… factors associated with use, and… I mean, there's a whole category of things that we can't even talk about.

[51:01] That should come into play on this. And it's… it's… some… my… my… Partial understanding is that other cities have a different process. And… I saw… I saw one at a preservation conference that we went to about San Antonio's process, and that was particularly focused on deconstruction. But it was also focused on a broader kind of analysis of what demolition does. And… Because it has impacts on other resources, like… You tear down a building, and the stuff… even if it's deconstructed, it may not all be effectively reused, and it's gonna have to go somewhere. And that means that you have to have facility to handle that as a city. And if you have hundreds of demolitions occurring, or deconstructions.

[52:04] You're still having to landfill a massive amount of toxic material and etc. So, somehow the process is not complete the way we're being brought into it. Whether we're on the front end of it, and then it goes to site review, or it comes from site review to our review. We're not making a complete decision as to the value of the building. And I'm hearing, kind of two distinct… ideas between the, you know, tighten up, define the site review process, and how it intersects with landmark. the Landmarks Board, or Historic Preservation, and then this kind of holistic view of the… all the impacts of deconstruction, and if the board, chooses the deconstruction one, you all might think about partnering with the Environmental Advisory Board to combine your forces. But back to the letter.

[53:05] No, as a letter, as your recommendation for the letter. This is just the kind of an idea I had, is… I think that, based on all the kind of constraints that were put on what Council's requesting. I think we should, in the context of Updating the historic preservation plan. I think we should encourage Council to stage some type of… educational event to more broadly engage the community about the Historic Preservation Program. About what we're trying to accomplish and what we think it means. to… the… community. And… I feel like that would be something that could be easily accomplished in the 12-month cycle. It could be a singular event, it could be a series of events.

[54:02] It could be used in a way that gathered public input into Informing the process of updating the plan. Like, the discussion about windows and doors, for instance. And things like that, that the community has very strong opinions about, and that is, in some respects, threatening their, kind of. I guess… I'm looking for the word, just… the support of the preservation program, because it inhibits this other goal, which is energy performance, and… Or the opposition, right? The opposition, where we get so much pushback for certain things, and hearing what they want to… what the community wants to, preserve, and what they don't want to preserve. Yeah, what they think is important, and… And what they don't. For the site review thing, I feel like…

[55:03] And maybe we just, like. bring it to an idea, but, like, if… If the… if it… if site review is asking for this from staff, like, staff does its initial, like, what we would get. and, you know, the in-depth of what Claire presents. So, like, if that was what site review… because if I'm thinking, if I'm an applicant, and I'm a developer, and I want to develop this site into whatever, and there's an older building on it. I want to know what I can do to that building. So, coming in and getting all the information that Claire has. So, going and putting application in for the Landmarks Board, but taking that information, but not actually getting a demo permit, but getting an opinion and all the information about the thing first. then going back to the site review, so, like, it's, like, kind of one together, right? So then, site review can have this information, like.

[56:06] My gosh, you know, You know, this person lived here, and this is important, we think this is important, so let's try to push to preserve it, rather than Like, our only… our only… I don't want to use that word. Our only… recourse. Recourse. To keep a building and not demo it is push it to be landmarked against the opposition of the owner. Right. Which is a big deal, like she said. So I feel like if we have something that's, like. Okay, site… the planning department says, hey, we'll give you, you know, 5 more feet on this height requirement. if you preserve this part of the building, they're more likely to have incentives to do that, rather than us say, okay, it's not worth anything. Well, it is worth anything. Every building in Boulder is worth

[57:03] saving for so many different reasons, right? And then… and it's just in the eyes of the beholder of what's to save and what isn't, but if you're talking about the environment, which Spoulder really wants to be part of on the edge of energy conservation, it's every building. It's greener to save every single building than tear it down. That's true. So… I mean, that would be just something to maybe change it up so that it's not like a… I don't know how to even change that, but that would be a suggestion. That could be one, and then anyone else have… Well, this isn't so much about the letter, but very quickly, what's interesting with that change about the process of site review and coming here first… is I have personally felt different pressure responsibility. If someone's in front, and it's just one house on one street, or what, you know, I sort of know, with all the criteria, how to land on a decision, on a vote. When it's a whole development, and then you…

[58:06] Even though use is not under our purview, you start feeling sort of, well, but we're going to do this, and this is going to be this great community benefit, and it sort of takes it out of the more straightforward. decisions we've made before, and the only… and the, you know, in the past. And so, when it comes, kind of, to us before site review, I feel… I feel a different kind of… stuff coming at us that wittingly or unwittingly might guide our decision or whatever, and the only other thing I'm going to say, because I'd be remiss if I didn't say this. And when I wore a different hat, and was more in the advocacy, and now here, I know, as Landmark's board member, we don't do the advocacy, we make the judgments, is… The reality in Boulder, I can think of 18 properties that started out as initiation over the owner's objection. Only two have ever been landmarked in this city. Marcy, I think it's two or three at the very most over the owner's objections, and for several reasons, it's because the conversation changes when that discussion begins, and there are people that will say.

[59:19] that, oh, you've demonstrated to me, you know, that this is valuable, I want to save it, or we could do this, or we could do that. So, so, when people talk about and I do understand the personal property rights of that, but the reality is, is that we're lucky we can bring that up as a landmarking. Other communities, that's not even an option, but it's very… I think only two have been landmarked over the owner's objection in this city. But there have been ones that have been Hotel Boulderado, our net… I mean, many, many, many of our landmarks started out over the owner's objection, but the conversation, it's demonstrating the value of preservation and that particular property that has worked, but

[60:07] And that's not in light of this letter, but I do think the process is interesting that you're talking about. As, as one of the, as the project. I will share that Planning board is also very interested in tightening up, and… and… improving this process, because… and this is a couple years ago, where one of the, current planning board, members… oh, Laura Kaplan was the ex parte, or the ex-officio member for the Landmarks Board, said, look, we on Planning Board are tasked with determining what this balance is, and all of these different trade-offs or factors. And she said. we're not the Landmarks Board. We don't know if something is eligible or not, and so I know that, that she also, and other planning board members, too, feel like they would like the Landmarks Board to say.

[61:09] yes, this is eligible, we recommend it be incorporated into the redevelopment of the property, or it's old, but it's not historic, we, you know, we don't think it should be saved. So, there, I think, both with the deconstruction impact conversation that ties to other boards, and is also in the citywide strategic plan. There's a policy related to what John was talking about, or this, how does the Landmarks Board and Planning Board review process integrate? I can see, kind of, these synergies between your work and other boards' work. Yeah, it just feels like making a decision on whether a building's, like, is Worth landmarking or not. Doesn't feel… it feels like a concrete decision rather than… You know, working with the planning board, being like, okay, we have staff's recommendation here, is it, like, all these things are really great, and you're not recommending to keep it or demolish it, but yet it just gives

[62:12] The planning board, or the applicant, all that information. To then be able to use that as a chip for… I mean, preserving that should work. That was… we had… extensive discussions about incentivization a couple of years ago, and Bill and I were both really involved in that. In a subcommittee. And… That we're not… In terms of how we're enabled legally. And what our criteria are, we just… we don't have the latitude to do any kind of horse trading. Yeah. And we can't… we can't apply… we could… we could suggest

[63:01] Possible incentives, but we can… we can't guarantee It's like we can't say, well. We may be able to give you relief in this area of your development on the height limit. if… this becomes… A preserved component that… that… Sets up some aspect of the site plan and maintains the… Kind of urban qual… or… Urbanistic quality of this development. And, you know, we can't do that. We can just say, this… this building… It was built at a certain point in history, and it satisfies this set of criteria, and It should be preserved. Or… It's, like, right at the edge of being preserved. But then we also, increasingly, have pulled back from going against the property owner.

[64:09] For good reason. Yeah, I just feel like we don't have any… And because that is property rights. We don't have any… we have, like. I mean, I feel like when it comes to us, like, we really have no… Like, it's… we can either… we can either say it should be preserved, and we're willing… we're going to put a stay on it, we're going to discuss this. And I think that… that… that more likely, all of us don't want to see anything demoed, so we're willing to do this stay, and then go explore, and see if we're willing to… But… Past that point, if someone's really wanting to Develop something different than that's there now. they can just keep pushing, and we're going to… like, we don't have any recourse. So, I feel like if the site… if planning could give us some incentive. It might be worth

[65:03] having that conversation. I don't know what that looks like, but… But to be on the letter, let's go back to the letter. So that's one… that's one point. Let's try to minimize it so we're not here all night. I thought… no, I think… No, I'm just kidding. I think John's… John had a second item, which was this educational programming idea. I… I went down a rabbit hole in my head about how that would almost be tailored to development. and developer, you know, communities. In my short experience, mostly LDRC. It's where you get the complaints about the… Oh, these windows are this, you know, it's gonna be a… It's gonna be a problem, it's gonna be a timeline problem, it's, you know, it's gonna… Crush our pro forma, that's where I think we, at least, again, in my experience, where you get the most blowback, so if there was…

[66:05] A way to be… more proactive with the development community, particularly who have their eyes set on historic districts or historic properties. Just to… grease those skids a little bit, so that it doesn't blow up at LDRC. I have to agree with that. I think if, if, if… this… This idea of this educational outreach event was aimed at the developer community Particularly in the current kind of atmosphere. of… the Council's desire for project delivery of Of residential, multifamily, high-density kinds of things.

[67:00] Bringing the developer… development community into Discussion of these things, and into a better understanding of how the preservation program could serve their ends. In the sense that… If you just allow… or unleash. A type of development based on, say. An increase in the density limits. Without any kind of… kind of thematic, or… Kind of… Urban Design Guidance. You get… A lot of blocks that look like a lot of other blocks. And you lose a lot of the… Kind of visual character. I mean, we're… This… this is one of the reasons that I personally feel preservation's important. It's a component of a city's urban design, the historic Pieces of it.

[68:04] And if you… Allow the loss, or allow for the loss, of a lot of those things. You've effectively changed the… Character and imageability of the town. From an urban designer's kind of discussion. And… If you do that, I mean, it's not necessarily negative, but it's not the same place anymore. And if you have enough commitment, if there's qualities in the place. At the urban scale, that have a lot to do with Where you are, and your sense of where you are. Those things should be identified and preserved. And if you've got a development community that is brought into that process, they're gonna… celebrate those things in their developments. They're gonna… name the developments around these things. They're gonna… I've seen it happen in other places.

[69:02] And… And so that's… that's kind of… where I'm going with this, and I think it's a great idea to aim it. Much more directly at The development community, because they're the… Players in this town right now, in the… in the context of housing. push that… We're experiencing it, along with… every other U.S. city. Yeah, and I went down that. Sort of conceptual rabbit hole, just when… I think it was Sean and Abby were talking about trying to develop consensus from the community. What does the community want with respect to preservation? And… I think you… I think you get a lot of people who say, yeah, we want pres… you know, we want preservation, but it's really the development community that's going to be the challenge, and that's where I think the education really should be focused, rather than the broader community.

[70:02] In terms of, you know, maybe it's selfish for me to say it, but to make all our lives a little bit easier when it comes to those contentious proposals, if there's… Some sort of forward-thinking, proactive, educational… program. that… that really, really addresses the development community. I think that's… That would… be a win-win for everybody. That… I don't know what it looks like, but… and I'm also conscious of, like, what does that mean for staff to develop, but… but… I think it would, at the end of the day, be… Create some efficiencies, perhaps, that would be realized with staff and the board. It's interesting, because that's not at all where I thought a potential letter might go, but since Council is asking for a project, and Marcie's kind of laid out how kind of that

[71:06] Time frame of a project is kind of squishy, you know, because there are board members come off city council, you know, elections, all of that, but But… So… it's not what I was… but… and I… you know what? Ultimately, I'm not as worried about the community and demonstrating the value of preservation. I think you're right, you're hitting on the group that maybe it's… and I even think I've always thought… voice had this dream, and it never happened, but, you know, sometimes I think we have city council members that would be great to take on, like, show them the preservation successes, and the few losses, but there's been a lot more successes in Boulder than there have been losses. But just while you two gentlemen have been saying this, we have people that bridge that gap in some sort of

[72:01] event or presentation or something. You know, first of all, I don't know if you all know Tim Plass, who was here, used to be the chair of the Landmarks Board and serve on City Council, but we have a city council member who looks like he's re-elected that was a developer in New York who never tore down a building. and Mark Wallach, you know, there's someone like that. Michael, you mentioned in a meeting today someone like Chris Shears, who has done a lot of development, but was one of, like, Historic Boulder's early board presidents, and I mean, he can bridge that gap. Nori Winter, there are people in our community who are some of the most articulate people who, to me, can bridge that gap between, yeah, we want to develop, and even we want to make money. and the value of preservation, so I just had to put those names out there. So, maybe the conversation is not maybe education in the letter, but maybe where we could

[73:01] like, the develop… like, what we're saying is we kind of want a little more tools in our, like, in our toolbox to be like, hey, let's preserve this building. What are the incentives to preserve the building? What… what could we do to help them? Because… I mean, let's… you're right, you have people that are heartfelt and want to preserve the building as a developer, but it comes down to numbers and money in the end, and I… I… it… I don't want to say that it, you know, but for a developer that's not into preserving a building, they're gonna think it's cheaper to demolish. So we have to somehow have something in our toolbox to educate them to give them that. But that's, like… so that's one part of a letter that we could… table one, so we have two things right now, right? An educational outreach, and then Three, is there something on the LDRC That we get constantly, all the time.

[74:03] That we would like to… Is there anything that, like, comes up for… That we would like to… I mean, we're… we're asking the Council to change something in the… in the, guidelines? Is that what we're asking? Well, what I do think when it comes to guidelines, and it hasn't come up recently, because now with the changes that were made to LDRC and things that now are on… staff's played and not cases we hear. The thing I've been struggling, this was more 2 or 3 years ago, is all about materials, and, like, cementitious siding, and what's fire-resistant, and all of that, because if you look at our current guidelines, and you look at the National Park Service guidelines. Those still aren't approving some… the new technology, and the… and the materials, and, you know, things that are more life safety. So, you know, I read the guidelines, and I think, no, we can't let that on that house in Mapleton Hill.

[75:01] Because the guideline says we can't… I could be very wrong. Do you know what I mean? Well, I think that… and then I would say to you that the person who's presenting it to you has to show you where the life safety happens, and then that's the way, as… Because it's a guideline, so if… I say that this door needs… or window… I mean, the easiest one is the window egress from a bedroom, right? I'm now making this historic building have a bedroom. I need 100% a means of egress. That is life safety. Oh. That is like life safety, so I'm easy… I can present that to you, and we can then have… the discussion on if that's an okay proposition in this window. And the window could look like something else, but it could have a different operable. Like, there's many different things. For me, it comes up more with, like, siding and materials on the side of a house. We… well, we have… In the coming year, we have two opportunities.

[76:01] In the sense that… we have… We have the process. Of the guidelines being revised, or being updated. And that, I think, is where the window-door technology materials discussion should happen. I think the letter to Council should be oriented towards something that… Per their… per their set of constraints. Gives them something that could be staged. or executed in this period of time, with a minimum of demand on staff. And… And… Would obtain something that could be useful going into this second opportunity, which is… the… Window Door Technology Materials discussion.

[77:01] I have a… I have a third idea. Okay, great. If you're asking for one, it sounds like. Well, I'm throwing out. I do think, just to wrap up the material thing, I think the fire ratings based on the new… the updated, fire codes is… will be… will have to be addressed, as John said, when we… when we talk about criteria and materials. The third… a third idea, and… this is a little bit of a third rail as the third idea, but can we have the council Can we… can we request that the Council Double down on a commitment with municipal Buildings, city-owned buildings, to… Be more… Aggressive in their redevelopment, primarily for, you know, functional… And programmatic needs, but to be… to try… ask their agencies to try harder

[78:01] To rehabilitate buildings, rather than just tear them down for the next shiny object that is the demand of their particular agency and its technology and whatnot. The fire department is the one that comes to mind. And… and I think as a… sort of more political persuasion that the council could… could… B… A conduit to those agencies to request commitments to keeping buildings. When they have, you know, needs for bigger trucks, or whatever it is, that there just be a little bit more careful attention made to not throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we're losing Really cool, old buildings. Like, the one we're reading. Sorry, yeah. That one. Don't throw the baby out. Well, I don't know, and I don't know if that's…

[79:00] an item for the Council, but it certainly seems that from a political persuasion perspective, they could… They could… they could say, no, we're not gonna do that, but… we could ask, and I think it would… be it would be parallel with our… with our overall mission to save buildings. And last thing was about, like, you want 3 things. So the guidelines, which we're talking about with… so now we have 3 ideas. for what the letter should be, but the guidelines that are, like, for the WUI, or the windows, or materials. That is as… am I correct by saying that John said that we have time to review those and change those within ourselves, or we have to ask for Council to change them? No, you don't have to… Council doesn't need to, be involved for the Landmarks Board to update design guidelines. Those are adopted as administrative rules, so it's more of a decision of work planning and what the board's priorities are, etc.

[80:08] And I didn't mean for materials to become part of the letter, but you had asked what kind of things continuously crop up in LDRC, and sometimes at the full board. Well, I think windows are, like, 100%, like, wood windows, you gotta use wood windows when, you know, other materials are… I think that in terms of the discussion that we've been having, I think that the thing At least in… you know, Any kind of significant development or redevelopment. The things that crop up the most are demolition. And demolition. And usually demolition… Well, we don't want to be called the demolition Board. Exactly, and we have been, but… Marci, do you want to give us your, fourth idea, and then… Well, I'm on number 7, listening to you all, but… No, you have it. 11 teen.

[81:05] No, I appreciate that. Yes, so, let me queue this up. Go back to the beginning. So, where we were thinking about this, of, like, what fits into that 12-month, time frame, you know, if I were to poll the board right now, what is the number one issue people have with historic preservation? What's the number one point of friction that, in your experience, People have with historic preservation. I would say Windows, but… I would say that we hold up their projects. Process. Windows. Being told what to do. Fair. Or perceiving they're being told. Right. In my experience, Windows always come up. If I… if I'm at a dinner party, and I say…

[82:05] They're like, what do you do? And I'm like, I'm in historic preservation. They're like, that's so cool. Those leaky old windows, blah blah blah, and then they go on a rant. Or, if I, you know, if I'm… I would say that this is the… number one thing across the last… well, in… over my entire career, that this has been a main point of friction, and not just in Boulder, but, like. Nationally, there are conversations. Is historic preservation losing the battle over windows? Is it this culture of preciousness that the Relevancy Project talks about, where So many more people might identify with the value of historic preservation, see the value of historic preservation. But they get hung up on windows. Like, I love old places, I love visiting old places, but those leaky old windows, right? So, when we discussed a number of ideas, this is the one that rose to the top.

[83:04] Which is to update the window and door design guidelines to allow for greater flexibility for replacement of non-character windows. So, I'm not coming here with a, like, the… outcome of what this process would be, that we would then approve this or not approve that, or this is how the guidelines would be written or not. It's more this process would update the design guidelines. Our current design guidelines in the whole design guideline document, they are the most verbose and complicated, right? And not by accident. Like, it really asks us to look very carefully at windows. They were adopted in 2008, they won an award in 2008. They strongly encourage repair over replace. That's also aligned with the, National Park Service guidance. And it asks us to look at the location, its visibility, significance of each window, and condition.

[84:07] Since the guidelines have been Written, there is a greater availability of replacement windows that match characteristics of historic windows. I learned at the Saving Places conference, last year in a workshop, or in a session about windows, that our kind of golden solution that preservation has been holding up for decades to retrofit the sash, take the sash out. route it out, put double-paned glass in, put it back in, is starting to fail. Those sashes and the weights were never meant to hold that weight of the double glass. And so, as we're learning more, you know, in the years since these guidelines were adopted. The technology is changing, the approaches are being time-tested in a way that we didn't have back then.

[85:03] And I've had conversations with the City and County of Denver, who just updated their window and door design guidelines this last year. They, They look at it as two categories of windows, where we say. Are they original, or are they not? Their Denver program now looks at, are they character windows? Leaded glass, stained glass? arched windows, windows that you couldn't get off the shelf, or are they non-character standard windows? They might be original, double-hung windows, but those can be replicated And the whole… kind of character of the historic building could still be maintained with replacement double-hung windows, where You know, in a… House that has stained glass windows, you can't… once those are gone, it's, like, the integrity has gone down.

[86:00] So, Louisville is also, I think a little bit more flexible than we are in terms of reviewing, Windows, they… regularly approve clad windows for, historic buildings as long as it meets the character of the rest of the components of the windows. So, So, this is… a project that I think would, address concerns that I've heard for many, many years. In this case, I don't need to go to a forum to say. what's the biggest issue? I feel like over the years, this has been the one thing that has come up in my experience. I think that it would… Address an issue that homeowners have, individual homeowners have, maybe as well as developers, but I think it's…

[87:00] kind of a cross-section, I think in the… City Council Candidate Forum. Windows was a real theme in, in that, in their answers that… when Historic Boulder asked about that. Looking at the Historic Preservation Plan, These are policies that, this might contribute towards. Ensure regulations and design guidelines are current, relevant, and provide effective protection of historic buildings. Continue to address common energy efficiency issues as technology evolves, to address window rehabilitation and replacement, solar panel installation, and use of alternative materials. Undertaken publicized energy efficiency studies. I think one thing that… is really important. And that… Denver has done is that they still incentivize rehabilitation over replacement. And one of the ways that they've done that is to Say that,

[88:05] For estate tax credits, which are now up to $100,000 for property owners. If your windows are beyond repair, and you replace them, then that's a qualifying cost. But if you… if your windows can be repaired, but you choose to replace them, your whole project is disqualified from state tax credits. So they will allow the replacement of windows, but you forfeit Up to $100,000 in tax credits for your whole project. So, are there other grant funding mechanisms? Are there other incentives? I think, Laying out the case for sustainability and energy efficiency for rehabilitating windows, and giving people a reason to say rehabilitation has a lot of, benefits. Or, for somebody to look at it and say.

[89:02] I'm still gonna choose this one for the non-character windows, would be an important piece here, because, A question in… in the case of Denver and Louisville. Is there… is there a review process? Comprehensive between planning and historic preservation. In other words, how's the incentivization work? To where the power is there to… Appliant. I don't know that I… It's been a long time since I've taken it. …know the answer to that. Bye. I don't know, I don't know. Yeah. I'm just curious. I know that… I worked at different scales and different types of projects, but in Aurora, Their process was… This is a long time ago.

[90:01] Was, you came in with a project that was gonna go through their review. And the last time I did it, it was initial construction. You're at a… kickoff meeting with the city, where every… The member of every division of the city that was going to want to look at your project was sitting at a table. And you knew you were gonna have to… work with… Public Works, and you're gonna have to work with the engineers, and you were gonna have to work with historic pres… you know, it was like everybody was there, and you… kind of got a master list of how you were going to do it. And you still had singular meetings, and you still had to engage the fire district separately and that kind of thing, but you at least knew who all you were going to have to deal with. For Boulder's process, in…

[91:00] 2025, earlier this year, Council passed a code amendment to require permits for window replacement, where before, they hadn't, unless it was a multifamily building. And so, before the historic preservation program would review window replacement, but then there wasn't a follow-up permit for windows, so I do think that Moving forward, now that that's a permit requirement, we might be seeing more window permit… window replacement applications, That get caught in permit, that we wouldn't have known otherwise. but no, I don't know Denver's process well enough to know the kind of connection with their planning. Permitting. A couple other strategies from the Historic Preservation Plan that updating the guidelines would,

[92:04] Would advance or collaborate with owners of existing landmarks and properties in designated historic districts. Having an engagement piece of updating guidelines. And then pursue collaborative approaches to integrate preservation with other, city operations. I put the relevancy guidebook in here, which talks about the culture of preciousness and their statement that preservation focuses too much on material. Are we kind of losing the bigger picture by being so specific about like, a window on the side of a building, which I stand by our long conversation this morning. It was a very good one. But, Like, overall, like, is the… Is being stringent about the materials and windows on each side of the building, kind of losing the bigger… side of the bigger picture. And then they had a quote in here about balancing the effort to protect natural resources and historic details with the economic burden that it can create for low- to moderate income property owners. Stop treating the materials, such as windows, as what is most important.

[93:12] See the big picture about the challenges that this raises when there are questions about affordability, availability, and energy efficiency, and study and develop a more flexible approach to achieve a preservation outcome. The citywide strategic plan, had 5… kind of strategies that I thought might relate to this, but there's none that are, like, a one-to-one, but there's one that… that talks about, Reduce bureaucracy, improve efficiency, facilitate quicker approvals for initiatives that align with and enhance the city's priorities related to sustainability, safety, economic vitality, and community well-being. I will say, for all of the landmark alteration certificate scopes of work, Windows is the most, complicated review for a property owner to go through and for us to review, so there are some streamlining, potential there.

[94:10] Expand efforts in preparedness and resilience strategies, including, this wildfire protection plan. The WUI requirements right now require tempered glass… tempered glass on additions and new construction. It doesn't require, window replacement on existing buildings, but what the fire, folks are saying is that that tempered glass is a safety piece when that glass heats up. So I do feel like, related to the conversation earlier about Citing, this guideline update could be tied into the wildfire, requirements. There's another one about, high-performing safe and well-maintained, buildings. Another one about a resilience, strategy.

[95:02] And then, I said it may conflict with the one that talks about develop policies that reduce the embodied carbon in the built environment through the use of low carbon Alternatives and adaptive reuse, because this is, not reusing. That embodied energy that's in those historic windows. So… I've had a little bit more time with the team to think about and brainstorm different ideas. I don't want the board to feel, like, constrained or that our recommendation carries the weight of a board member, or anything like that, but wanted to offer, an idea for you all to consider, for a project, and, That's it, that's it. So, having been involved in a variety of city council letters, some that were absolutely epic fails, you know, which was no one individual's fault, but just…

[96:09] too many voices on too short of a timetable trying to race it in, and, you know, that's okay. And also, you know, I think what I've realized with some letters in the past is that City Council has a lot of things they're looking at. And they're getting all these letters from the boards, and when we say. You know, we want to prioritize, like, And I'm, I, I'm… this isn't accurate that we put it in a letter, but I think it was discussed, like, PayPal or whatever. That's not gonna be high on their priority. My initial reaction is this. is that… for City Council, the more kind of tangible and feasible it is to do and to bring them along. it appeals to me in that sense, but then it also appeals to me as to consider forming a subcommittee of two members that might discuss some event in the spring with developers and do all of that. And, you know, it's… it's…

[97:16] So the letter must be due in about… 7 weeks or something. So I'm also cognizant of that. I… I know that in… I wish I knew the whole history, but it's all I heard about in 2005. There was some huge window issue on Mapleton Hill, and it might have been that the owner had taken out all the windows. Yeah, so, so what I mean is, is that's what… 20 years ago. So, I mean, Windows is… and you, you, you know this about this from… I mean, you've mentioned LDRC this morning. both of the applications had windows, you know, that were being removed, or replaced, or added, or whatever. So, I mean, I do think that's valid. I think that…

[98:00] you know, what I forget… I mean, part of me wants to look at this, if I were on city council, you know, coming in to me, versus all the different things, we would love to get in front of them, you know, we have other ways to get things in front of them, to try to engage with them. down the road, so I'm just trying to be mindful that it's November 5th, and, you know, If this might be a good path to travel. The one thing I will say when you came… when you mentioned the citywide goals, the one thing When it comes to economic vitality. This city, historic preservation contributes so much to this city's vitality, and whenever there's a tangible thing you can claim about that, you know, is… is… can be very powerful. I'm thinking that, like, are we… you're saying, are we allowed to…

[99:04] what's the mode of, like, communication, so we can all kind of, like, chew on this and then have a conversation without, like, appointing or coming to a decision for the letter of counsel, but maybe next week? A week from today, Everybody reaches out. to one person, and gives them their side, and then from there, like, we… we develop, like, a vote? Or could we put it… like, could we put our… four things, if I'm… if I'm right about that, four things into an email, and then have… Aubrey, for her last task, send out, like, a… like, a survey, and we can all fill out the survey and write our, like, two cents about each one, and then everyone gets the survey, or how are we allowed to do that? And I'm sure I'm gonna get a… check in here in a minute. But, like, what do we… how do we… because I remember last time, we were able to communicate with two of us, and then…

[100:02] if I communicated with Michael, then Michael was allowed to communicate with John, but I wasn't allowed to be on the call with the two of them. And then John was allowed to communicate with Abby, so, like, is that how we're gonna do it again? Here's Chris. Yeah, that's… that's kind of exactly what you're not supposed to do. That's describing the serial… serial… serial meeting. So yeah, you either have to do it, two people get appointed by the board to basically write the draft and then bring it to the next meeting, or you have to have a special meeting that's publicly noticed to do it all together, but you can't just have one person talk to one person about it, that person talk to another person about it. That's… that's a serial meeting, and you can't do that. Serial meetings. Serial meetings. Okay. There's even a name for them. But you said something, Renee, that I thought was important, is you wanted… it sounds like, and I agree with you, giving board members, and there were a couple of great ideas here tonight. Now, we didn't have the cool slides and graphics and everything that staff had the luxury of putting together. You… are you thinking, too, about just letting

[101:07] people walk away tonight percolating on which… Yeah, which ones, like… Which prior… yeah. And then how to communicate that to the staff. Yeah, how to communicate, like, can we… can… Chris, are we allowed to tell… like Marcy, like, hey, I feel like what's most important to me to communicate to City Council is The demolition aspect. Yes. Is Marcy allowed to then tell… all of us, that that was the agreed upon, or do we put together… how many days in advance do we have to have a meeting? Like a… So in two weeks, we can have another… on-call meeting, or something? Oh, you mean the lead time to notify… publicly notify meetings? Yeah, publicly notify. Yeah, it's like 3 days? It's just 24 hours. It's 24 hours. So, I would… I would recommend going old school, and just having a meeting, and talking about it, talking through it.

[102:08] that's one option. I think it's the simplest option, other than juggling, schedules. I think you could also, if you wanted to, each write your thoughts based on what others have, said and said. here's my top priority, or here are my… I would support these, I don't… I'm not excited about this one, and then bring that… either share that in advance or bring it to, a meeting so that you all can discuss it and hash it out a little bit more. But… If we do such a meeting, And I'm… Out of town after the 13th, so… Hmm, so next week. Well, no, I won't be back till, like, the 25th. Yeah, scheduling, I think, will be hard, because the holidays are coming up.

[103:03] Are you able virtually, though? Like, to be virtually on a call, because I remember the last letter we did, we were allowed to all be on the call. Right, right, you could… You just noticed that. If it's noticed, and there's, like, a Teams meeting or something. Yeah, we just had a Teams meeting, and we all were doing this, but we were all just not in the same room. I'll be in Mexico. Virtual capability, I'll have. So, my issue will be the 9 hours ahead. Yeah. So, there is no decision made, but I think the decision is, is maybe we, Michael, do you want, since they're all going on vacation, you and I, appoint ourselves? putting it on somebody else. We're doing a subcommittee, and maybe everybody can write something to Marcy, and we'll take it into consideration. I don't want to do it by myself, and you're the only person on my vacation. Well, no, I'm willing to contribute something before I leave. An email will be easy to… I'll just email something.

[104:09] Are we allowed to email? Yeah, you're allowed to email us. We can email Marcy. You're allowed to email me. I… I like that idea of the board members writing something. I thought Tim, Tim's written comments were, like. A very, good example of how you lay out an argument and, like, a need for for the case, but I don't want to add a bunch of work to you all. You could also, you know. do what I did with this, which is, like, 4 bullet points and some strategies that it might… relate to, but it's really up to you all. How do you want to do this work? What… what works best for you? And then understanding the kind of guardrails. You don't have Chelsea, so I'd like to get her… Her input, yeah. …on what she… Like, out of all these bullet points. And she's a really great communicator in the… Yeah, writing, she's, like, awesome at writing something, so…

[105:06] Can I make another suggestion? Mariah is taking notes on these ideas. Could we send them out, you all read them, and then email us back, individually, what your top 3 are, and any that you are, like, not interested in. Be brave. And then… and then we set up a meeting from there to talk about, okay, which one are you going to propose? Okay. Okay. The… the other thing I just want to say is I heard some great ideas tonight that, like, you know, you'll wake up at 3 in the morning and think, this would be cool to do. But… Those may still be something we could explore outside of a letter to City Council. So… I don't want to lose them. Is there a way, since Chelsea's not here, and I also agree that she has great ideas, is there a way

[106:06] Legally or whatnot, protocol-wise, to solicit some ideas from her that go to… go to this collective list. Before we get the list. Why don't we send out the summary, and then ask her to… to add any ideas? Okay, somehow. Somehow? Are we on the female landmarks board? About this? We gotta have a… better… process next year for this. There's a way to… there's a way for you all to collaborate to write a letter. It's challenging with the requirements, so I think we have a good plan, which is to invite Chelsea to add her ideas, for us to, write notes based on your conversation today, and then for you all to kind of narrow it down.

[107:03] And pick one. Okay, I think that that's… I also would love to see the template. We will send out the template. Okay. Now, we can move to the Japanese language school. Oh. That was abrupt? Can I… Just making a suggestion. I'm gonna second that suggestion. Yes, okay, I do just want, I do want to say, this is the board's letter. Council will pick whichever one. these all have a big staff work plan impact, and so as a staff member, I just want to, tell you all that I think for The ones you discussed today, this site review process and the kind of design guidelines update are ones that resonate most with me. Talking to a room full of developers and trying to make the case for preservation, in my experience.

[108:02] is not a good investment. One, I'm not… Great at that, in terms of persuading people, especially an audience that is, hostile. I've gone to the board… area board of realtors and made presentations about the importance of windows. I didn't feel like I changed a single heart or a single mind. I think that the, Saving Places Conference theme of the case for preservation, there's something there about how do we articulate the value of preservation here in Boulder? Is that something historic Boulder would be really great at? about the economic impact and all of that. Is that a story that we tell through the Historic Preservation Plan? But I know my strengths, and I know my team's strengths, and that is… leading by example. How do we have the most efficient process? How do we have clear design guidelines? How can we kind of be on the forefront of preservation, planning and kind of lead by example? And so when developers come through the process, they say.

[109:12] that wasn't as bad as I expected. Which… Is the highest praise. I've gotten friends. From that type. So, anyway, I… it's your letter, and it's your project. I just want to respond to that idea to say it's, it's not our forte, and I… and I would just put that one on the bottom of My own list that doesn't come with a vote. Thank you. suggestions to move to the Japanese language school. -Oh. Claire, can you do it slowly? I mean, get… Oh, okay. Do I need this? Does, somebody would like a brick. We would like to ask for a brick.

[110:05] Marci, I was thinking, because we're kind of on a little break while she's going, I was thinking about the window thing. The only way to change someone's mind about the windows is have a window you just put in, that's a vinyl, cheap window, and have them like, it deteriorated, right? And then you have another window that you preserved, and it's been preserved for 4 years, and opening it! Because it's really the only way, because that's all the clients, you know… And half the time. The new window doesn't open. Well, but half the time, it's because the opening is not sufficiently Sized, and you replace the window. And the window's been doing the work of bearing that wall. And has it… re-collapses. on the new window, it ceases to work pretty quickly. Yeah.

[111:01] It's invariably the fact that it's undersized lentils in the openings. Oh, I see what you're saying. In residential, and… An old window. was better at holding… Was it structural, was actually kind of more structural, and vinyl windows are very poor. Structural re-ads. However, Anderson Windows With their fibro, whatever, behave like wood windows, structurally. We lost it. And they do a good job. I did not say… I'm always, like… we get, like, recorded. I'm always, like. And I'd rather, like… I'd like to, like, not, like, say the least on these things, and then when I… it's like listening to yourself on the old…

[112:07] voice messages, right? You're always like, Yes, yeah. Yeah, Lana wasn't. camera. Okay. We're back. We're back. Claire, will you please do the honors? Certainly, I will. Alright, so the, United States Navy's Japanese Language School opened in Boulder in 1942, to teach Navy and WAVES officers Japanese language. to aid the US during the Second World War. And the story of how the graduates contributed to the war's intelligence effort and humanized the treatment of Japanese civilians during the occupation has been told in books and by the Navy's own historians. But there's a rarely told story of the school's impact on Boulder.

[113:07] As Boulder citizens struggled with hosting Japanese Americans from concentration camps throughout the West. And why these highly educated teachers and professionals didn't stay in Boulder after the war. The University of Colorado at Boulder was one of the few universities that continued to accept students of Japanese descent during the war. And it also hosted U.S. Navy schools. This is now Baker Hall, but during World War II, it was the men's dormitory for the Navy men and, the administrative offices for the U.S. Navy Radio School and the U.S. Navy V12. The Navy's Japanese language school was not conceived in Boulder. Early in the conflict, the federal government engaged Albert Hindmarsh, who was a professor of international law at Harvard University, to help develop a training program.

[114:12] And the original schools opened in the fall of 1941 at the academic power centers of Harvard. and the University of California in Berkeley. The Harvard school stuck with traditional teaching from textbooks. For the California school, however, Commander Hindmarsh hired Professor Florence Wallhn. A language instructor at UC Berkeley. Florence was born in Arima, Japan, on August 19th, 1895, to American missionary parents. She was educated in Japan and was fluent in both Japanese and English. In 1931, she moved to Berkeley, California, to complete her doctorate in Japanese literature. She taught Japanese as a way to support herself and her studies, and often taught her classes in San Francisco's Japantown, so students could hear how native speakers use the language and understand the social context.

[115:13] Florence believed that, quote, possession of a language meant nothing unless accompanied by knowledge of the civilization it expressed. The Navy restricted the language program to white applicants. This meant that the majority of students had to learn Japanese from scratch, and the Navy expected them to be deployed ready to intercept, decrypt, translate, and interpret Japanese radio traffic. Translate captured Japanese documents and interrogate Japanese prisoners of war. All within a year. Florence hired Sasumu Nakamura. As her teaching assistant. Sasumu was born in Berkeley on July 9th, 1912, to Japanese immigrant parents. He attended San Jose State College and trained as a teacher, and was fluent in both English and Japanese.

[116:09] Florence and Susumu had a visionary approach to teaching their students the language and doing it fast. But it was an approach that also helped the students understand and appreciate the culture of Japan. Eventually, there were 12 instructors at the Berkeley School, including 7 Nisei, American citizens of Japanese ancestry, born in the United States, and 2 Ise, Japanese nationals who had emigrated to the United States. The other three teachers were professionals like Florence, who had learned Japanese by living in Japan. With the school barely underway, everything changed on December 7th, 1941. Two months later, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 1966, which allowed for the creation of U.S. military areas from which people could be excluded.

[117:06] The order targeted Japanese Americans because of widespread fear that they would spy for the Japanese government or engage in acts of sabotage. The executive order and laws that followed were used to force mass removal and incarceration of all Japanese Americans on the West Coast. By early June 1942, more than 125,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry were in army custody. Held without trial or due process in detention sites throughout the US. More than two-thirds of those imprisoned were US citizens , as the government had made no distinction between American citizens and non-citizens. Although the instructors of the Japanese language school in Berkeley were not initially arrested. For the language school to continue having access to native Japanese speakers, it also had to move.

[118:07] Earlier in 1942, people of Japanese descent were encouraged to self-evacuate away from the West Coast. Colorado Governor Ralph Carr offered Colorado as a place to voluntarily relocate before the expected force removal, and CU was welcoming to Japanese American students. So it made sense that Commander Hindmarsh and Florence Wall considered Boulder a perfect location. They began negotiations with the University of Colorado to move the language school away from the West Coast. The university signed a contract to host the Navy's language program beginning in July 1942. Baker Hall, right here, would host the Naval students, and the University Faculty Club. would host the Japanese language school itself.

[119:00] Florence relocated to Boulder and set up her school at the Faculty Club, where she also lived. The building was completed in 1939 as a project of the Public Works program funded by the New Deal. It included classrooms in the basement and main floor, and apartments upstairs. Susumu Nakamura joined her in Boulder as assistant director. Susumu and Fumi and their children, Edwin and Evelyn, lived at 751 Grant Place in Boulder, about a mile from the faculty club. Florence's stellar results so far had convinced the Navy that access to Japanese native speakers was essential to the growing program. She began to travel to the concentration camps to recruit native Japanese speakers who had teaching experience. She focused on recruiting Nisei, who were experienced teachers or had parents who were teachers.

[120:04] By September 1942, Florence had recruited 47 sensei, the teachers, from seven internment camps. They were expected to work almost round the clock to ensure their students passed the fast-paced fluency program. But they were paid, and they were free to move around Boulder within some limitations. It was not exactly a welcome situation, and the sensei did not have the option of refusing. The alternative was a prison camp with an unknown outcome. Their wives, who were soon allowed to join them in Boulder with any young children, were expected to host students to practice social conversation and cultural situations. The women not caring for children were also expected to volunteer for the war effort through knitting, growing victory gardens, or as nurses' aides. While Colorado Governor Ralph Carr publicly supported Japanese Americans and opposed internment, and CU welcomed the Japanese sensei.

[121:03] The residents of Boulder made it clear through the actions of City Council that they did not want Japanese Americans permanently settling in Boulder. On August 4th, 1942, a month after the contract was signed between the Navy and CU, City Council adopted a policy that restricted anyone of Japanese descent from moving to Boulder. Potential residents had to prove they were an American citizen. Have the promise of employment for at least a year, and get prior approval of City Council, the Chief of Police, the City Attorney, and the Commandant of the 12th Naval District. In addition, the City Council capped the number of Japanese Americans residing in Boulder outside of the Japanese language school program to a maximum of 75 individuals, or 25 families. CU President Stearns and other university leaders sought to, quote, sell the community on the idea by appealing to residents' patriotism for the war effort.

[122:07] An ad placed by the University and Chamber of Commerce promoted the Japanese language school, saying, Boulder turns out the translators and interpreters who might be responsible for the security and safe return of your boy. The university and chamber also called on Boulder residents to help house the sensei, who were marketed as loyal US Victory Instructors. They called it patriotic service to offer a house, apartment, or room to the sensei and their family. I want to highlight Joe and Miyasano, as they chose to remain in Boulder after the war. Joe Sano, shown here on the left, was one of the men that were recruited from the detention camps. Joe was born on September 3rd, 1900, in California.

[123:03] His mother, Umesano, was pregnant during her journey to the United States, and her husband, Yoshizo, Joe's father, was not able to emigrate until two years later. Once reunited, the Sano family lived in San Francisco, in the neighborhood they call Nihonjin Machi, translated as the Japanese people's Town, or Japantown, as it came to be known. As the San Francisco Board of Education had passed a law that excluded children of Japanese ancestry from attending public schools, Yoshido and Umesano, Joe's parents. helped open Kimwon Gakun, Golden Gate School. They taught elementary through high school to children in Minhonjin Machi. Joe and his siblings attended the school. After graduating Kimmonga-kun, Joe went to Stanford University, where he pursued a degree in mechanical engineering. He graduated in 1925, and went into the printing business. He ran the cooperative printing company with a partner, and then bought out his partner and ran his own printing company, JY Sano Printer, in San Francisco.

[124:14] He provided printing services to the Japanese community. Joe married Mia Lily Fujita on August 21st, 1938. Mia's parents had emigrated from Japan in the 1890s. She grew up in Hamilton City, California, just outside of Chico, where her father worked on a rice farm. Joe and Mia lived with Joe's parents in Japantown, right next to the printing business. In 1940, Joe's parents, Yoshizo and Ume, made the decision to leave their lives in San Francisco and self-evacuate to Hawaii, which was more welcoming to members of the Japanese community. They left on December 28th, 1940, for Honolulu.

[125:01] Yoshizo fell ill on the journey, was hospitalized on arrival. Once he heard of his father's illness, Joe immediately left San Francisco on the ship President Coolidge. The ship had set the speed record for the eastbound journey in the 1930s, and would be used during the war to evacuate injured patients and as a troop transport in the Pacific. But it still took about 12 days going west, and Joe arrived 4 days after his father died in hospital in Honolulu. Joe escorted his heartbroken mother home to San Francisco. Ume never recovered from losing her husband or the round trip by ship from San Francisco to Hawaii. In April 1942, she was incarcerated along with Joe and Mia and approximately 8,000 other Japanese Americans at the Tampharan Racetrack, which was being used as a temporary detention center. The inmates at the Tamferan Detention Facility lived in converted horse stables.

[126:04] Joe, Mia, and Umay were placed in family quarters, shown here, because of Ume's poor health, but the living conditions were still dire. According to Mia, the Navy intelligence officers came looking for Joe at the detention center almost immediately. Joe had been questioned multiple times in his print shop searched by the FBI, looking for evidence of Joe printing material against the US government. So the family was scared he would be interrogated again, or worse. Mia remembered that. They knew he was a Stanford graduate, and his folks were Japanese teachers. They found him right away, and they wanted him to come at that time, but he said no he couldn't, because mother wasn't feeling well, and he wanted to bring his mother along, but no, you can't do that. Eventually, the Navy convinced Joe that he had no choice, so he left Mia and Umay, not knowing when he would see them again.

[127:03] When he first arrived in Boulder in early 1942, Joe rented an apartment at 2229 Broadway, the Oliver Bowman House, which Grace Bowman had converted to apartments the year before. Grace rented apartments to Joe, as well as Takeo Okamoto and John Yamoto. Sensei also recruited from the Tamphoran detention facility. The wives of the three men, Miyasano, Kathleen Kazuko Akamoko, And Vicki Yamoto. were held at Tampharen until months later, when the three women were escorted by armed guards to a train where they were transported behind covered windows to reunite with their husbands in Boulder. Friends and family members were moved from Tamphoran to concentration camps throughout the West. Oblivious of what had happened.

[128:00] Mia's father, Nobutaro, was incarcerated at a machi concentration camp in Granada, Colorado, until he was released at the end of the war. Joe's mother, Umay, was moved to the Topaz concentration camp in Utah, and according to government records, was deported to Japan in August 1943. We don't know if Joe ever saw his mother again. Other sensei and their wives and family have similar stories that have yet to be researched and told. In October 1943, the Navy acknowledged that the graduating class was the largest group of Caucasians ever to learn Japanese, and presented each of the sensei with an engraved certificate for outstanding faithfulness and diligence despite conditions of racial unrest. Between 1942 and late 1946, when the school in Boulder closed, the Japanese language school program produced more than 1,100 Navy officers fluent in Japanese language.

[129:11] After the war, few of the sensei chose to stay in Boulder. Many had parents to consider, who were Issei, and would not be allowed to become citizens until 1952 when the federal laws changed, and therefore not allowed to move to Boulder under city rules. Joe and Miyasano, however, chose to stay. They lived at 651 College Avenue between 1946 and 1953, Joe worked as a printer for the university, as a binder for Johnson Publishing, and later as a translator. Joe and Mia bought a house on 9th Street in the Newlands neighborhood in 1978. Joe died on June 7th, 1979, mere on December 5th, 2011. They are both honoured on their family grave marker in Green Mountain Cemetery.

[130:09] We have a few snapshots in time showing where Sensei lived in Boulder. The language school records include a list of the sensei with addresses in 1946, just before the school closed. Comparing this record with the 1950 census shows how few of the senseis stayed in Boulder after the war. Buildings help to tell the history of our city, but sometimes they only tell an architectural history unless you know where to look. This building, the faculty club at the university, was used as the Japanese language school from 1942 until 1946. It has a multi-layered history hidden within its iconic architecture.

[131:03] The Oliver Bowman House, an individual landmark designated in 1994 as one of Boulder's best examples of Queen Anne architecture, is significant for its association with the Oliver family, early arrivals to Boulder, and for Grace Bowman, who purchased the property and converted it to apartments in 1941, Grace operated the Shangri-La Beauty Salon at the front of the building, but she also rented the apartments to three young couples, Joa Miyasano, Takeo and Kathleen Kazuku Okamoto, and John and Vicki Yamoto, who each made a distinct contribution to ending the Second World War. Six years ago, City Council recognized racial inequalities in Boulder and resolved to seek out and support ways to honour, acknowledge, and memorialize the lives, deaths, struggles, and contributions of people of color from Boulder.

[132:01] As preservationists, we understand the power of place to honor, acknowledge, and memorialize people in our history. But how do you even start if you don't know the story? And are we willing to talk about the difficult histories, or ones that might not reflect our community values today? This photograph was made somewhere in Boulder. I don't know where. But if I did, it would be a great place to show people this image and tell the story of the sensei of the Japanese language school and their families. Places connect us to these stories, but only if you know the story. It is our role, as preservationists, to tell these multi-layered histories. But sometimes these stories are hidden in plain sight, and other stories, there are just no physical remnants. But that doesn't mean the stories can't live on. We just need to be willing to do the work.

[133:09] Did anyone have any questions? I'd never known there was a Japanese language school here. I'd be curious to know if there… And this would be outside of… Where you were going, but… were there… I have to imagine there would have been German language schools. you know, that… not in Boulder, but I'm just saying it's part of the war effort. It would be… And… and I… I… if I'm remembering right, wasn't there… And I think it was Woodrow Wilson? sorry, I'm… I'm hatcheting American history here, but that, there, there was, like, an,

[134:01] some sort of mandate about speaking… there were so many German communities, and I think this was specifically World War I, that… and I know for a fact that some of those communities exist in Missouri and still speak German in their communities. But I thought in the early part of the 20th century, maybe around World War I, that there was a mandate against speaking German. And I, I just… I guess I'm just trying to draw a parallel In a broader sense of other foreign language schools that were… created… With this filter of… there were… American citizens who spoke those languages, and… You know, there's this weird history about employing them to help, but also imprison… you know, somewhat imprisoning them. Yeah, the Navy and Army had language schools across the country. I would go out on a limb and say that CU's program, Florence Waln's program, was pretty unique because it used native speakers. Japanese is not an easy language to learn.

[135:14] So to become that fluent within a year is pretty incredible, and I think it was the way that they were taught. And the other schools, the one in Harvard, stuck to textbook learning, and was not as successful. How did you know about this? That's a good question. William Way, our state historian, has written about this many times, and, and also, David Hayes is the archivist at the Norland Library, and he is, I, I think… Would say that he's made it his life's work to collect this information.

[136:01] And he is an incredible resource. So, I credit those two people for pointing me in the right direction. Well, thank you, Claire, for another, incredible presentation, and I, I learned… so much in this one. I'm learning about American history. layered onto what little I knew about the state history, but I had no idea And how powerful it is to see an ordinance passed by the Boulder City Council. And I'm looking at the date saying, was that decision to exclude Japanese citizen made in this room, and no, it would have been the previous, city hall by a decade or so, but, like, the power of sitting in this room, where these decisions are made, and thinking, I had no idea that on a local level.

[137:02] the City Council was responding to these, International events, and it really… you really have a… Gift of bringing something home. And making it tangible. Through a slideshow. And I just, continue on. Well done, and thank you so much. Well, and it captures the upcoming team of Saving Places Conference, because you're making the case for preservation. Yeah. Yeah, Claire, it's… I mean, it's amazing. like, this is… and… I mean, what comes up for me is… how… today's society comes full circle. Yeah. For concentration of groups of people, so… Just how history repeats itself, and… how we would think we would be above that in American society, and…

[138:03] We're just as scared and as fear-ridden as we were back then, so… Interesting to hear about it. And it happening in Boulder. So, somewhere where we all… Think and feel like we're… That way. I'm being recorded, so I don't want to do it in this State of the Union. So, I thank you for that, and it's… are you collecting these things and, like, putting them? Are you… I mean, is there gonna be a showcase at the library that, like. Maybe a PBS special called… Right! Podcast… History with Dr. Or you could podcast before. You could become a preservation influencer. That's a little TikTok next. So, We are working with the engagement folks, too. and our team to put these on our website, to take the recording that we do here at the Landmarks Board, and then just have these 15 to 20 minute

[139:07] kind of presentations, and then the engagement folks, are excited about taking snippets and putting them on social media and kind of, like, building momentum for them, so I think… is this the third or fourth one? in the series, the third one. So it is becoming almost like a podcast, season, or something that people can watch to be like, oh, I want to learn more about that or that, so stay tuned. But even if there's a place at the Like Library that, like, has these things. Yeah. In an interactive, like, situation where there's the map, and you press a button, and you're like, what happened there? That's close to my house, you know, like a little kid. And being like, oh, or that's my house, right? And I push the button, and… It's, like, shows you what happens. Yeah. Well, and I think that… I think the thing that means the most to me is It's easy to talk about and celebrate the good things in history.

[140:03] What's harder and probably more important is to tell the chapters That, you know. This country wasn't at its best, too. But good things like this… Are part of that history. Oh, you're so excited. Are we allowed? Okay. Oh. Can we… is there any other matters that we can all talk about? Or can I have a meeting adjourned… landmarks meeting adjourned at 823?