November 29, 2022 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] The order the Um! I'd like to call to the order of the meeting of the Boulder planning board of November twenty ninth, two thousand and twenty-two, and I see we are all here. We have a full attendance tonight. So uh let's see Uh Brenda. Do you uh need to? Uh begin with the rules of engagement for this meeting. Absolutely. I will start by sharing my screen. Thank you so much. Um, Good evening, everyone. My name is Brenda Rit. Now, i'm with our communication and engagement team. Can you see my screen? Okay, right thing? Okay, Good. Um. Always always a good start. Uh: So just very quickly. I know that. Um! Those who are joining us may have heard these roles many times. Um, and appreciate your pat as we go through them quickly. Um! Just as a reminder, the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for a productive and meaningful and inclusive civic conversation. This vision is designed to support the physical and emotional safety

[1:08] for community members, staff and boarding commission members, and also supports democracy. For people of all ages. All identities, lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about the vision and the engagement process that that we um conducted. To reach this vision you can go online to Boulder, Colorado, Gov: And in the search bar put in productive atmosphere. That's how I find the best and easiest way to find that information. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder, Revised code, and other guidelines that support this, and we will uphold these during this meeting Tonight all remarks and testimony 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 this meeting are prohibited,

[2:08] and participants are required to identify themselves using the name they are commonly known by, and must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Um, I am currently seeing whole names, so it looks like we're in good shape there. Um, Currently only audio testimony is permitted online. Um, So these are what we will follow this evening. Um, Also just a couple of tips for those who might be new to this space for us. Um, if you would like to um speak when we get to open comment and our public hearings tonight. You can use your raise hand button that you should find at the bottom of your screen um, or if you've joined us by phone, But I think everyone is on computer tonight. Um, so you can press that raise hand button. Um! You can also reach out to me in the Q. A. If you have any technical questions, although I can't support any comments on the content of the meeting.

[3:05] Um, Also, if you can't find that raise hand button. Um! It might be in your reactions button. It might also be um. You might also need to push alt. Why, if you're on a Pc. Or option. Why, if you're on a Mac all right, and I believe that is all we need for tonight. I will stop sharing, and we can move forward. Thank you. Okay, Um. Our first uh item on the agenda is, uh regarding the minutes of August sixth, and October eighteenth uh would uh be interested if uh, if everyone has seen those, and uh, if anyone is willing to move their approval, I think uh, there was some correspondence that Laura made some changes

[4:00] uh that has should have been uh sent to everybody, and uh want to make sure you're aware of that. So do we have a um a motion to approve them. I will move to approve the two sets of minutes. I'll second that. All right, all in favor. Please raise your hands. All are in favor. So thank you. Thank you. Devin, for for moving goes ahead all right. The next item on our agenda is a public participation, and This is the time when, uh, members of the public can address planning board on any issue except that which is being uh dealt with in a public hearing tonight, and that public hearing tonight is the Uh site and use review application for the uh redevelopment of the site. Uh, at forty seven, fifty Independence road

[5:11] with the holiday in Express hotel. So if you have comments on that, please wait until the public appropriate time in the public hearing. But on any other issue. Now is the time, and we're eager to hear your thoughts. And, Brenda, you can run the show here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not seeing any raised hands. Yet at this point, although I do know that sometimes it takes a moment for folks to find that right hand button, so we will pause just a moment and see if anyone would like to participate in open comment this evening I am seeing one hand so, Devin, if you are ready with the timer. I will go ahead and unmute Lynn Siegel, and then you will have three minutes.

[6:06] You should be able to unmute now. Yeah, three whole minutes, and it's really nice, because last night it parks and wreck. It turns out you have to sign up ahead of time and put the reason that you're speaking, et cetera, but it's It's very difficult, Brenda. When this happens between different boards for this board you have to do this procedure, and for that board you have to do another, you know, and none of the boards that I follow of all eight require that. So I throw it to Sarah Hly and the others that you know you had to get some consistent things going on within the city, because um it's a slap in the face for the public to experience one thing and then have it completely different for another. Um, it's not very sophisticated, and it's very simple, you know. Just do it the same for each board. Same procedure.

[7:05] Just do it now, as far as planning board issues. I just say things like parks and recreation. You know people are complaining about tennis courts, you know, about not having enough money for anything. Well, you guys are ground zero for having the money to do this stuff and all you have to do is say, no, and guess what the developer is going to tighten their belt or they're gonna leave. And if they leave good. You know we don't need too much in boulder. We need what's just right in boulder and we haven't had what's just right. For a long time there's been subsidy after seventy. Look at through house. It's outrageous. I just discovered this. If you're under thirty five feet, you don't have this constriction with M. U three

[8:04] you um, you don't have. You? Can. You can do um the um inclusionary housing of um the a regular percentage twenty-five. But if you go to four stories. You have to have fifty of the twenty five percent on site. What if it's under? If it's three stories, you don't have to. So all the hours that I spent listening to planning board, Talking about details of through house was all for nothing, because the developer could just turn around and sell it and convert it to in Loo. What could you be thinking? Allowing something like that to be happening? Unbelievable, You know I I i'm stunned. Anyway, think about those things,

[9:02] you know. Let the developer pay. They can handle it, believe me done. Thank you, Lynn. I am not seeing any other hands up at this time, so i'll give a last call for open comments. Please use your raise hand button. Should you wish to participate at this time? Okay, Okay, there we go. Thank you all right. Well, uh, we we have no uh dispositions, or call ups to consider tonight, so we'll move right into our uh public hearing. Item, which is, uh public hearing and planning board action on a request to extend the approval of site and use. Review application Numbers L. Your two zero, one, six stack, zero, zero, zero, five, one and L. Ur two zero, one, six, zero, zero, zero, five, two for redevelopment of the site located at forty seven fifty Independence road

[10:15] uh, with a one hundred and thirty-eight room, three story thirty-five foot tall holiday in express hotel, and we'll start out with a staff presentation. Uh, take it away. Could he be planning board members and Charles Farrell and the senior planning manager and planning and development services? And today it'll be presenting a request for an extension to to development approval for a holiday and express as John noted at forty-seven fifty Independence road, the site and the user view. Approvals are granted back in two thousand and eighteen Um. And Devin. I was hoping you might be able to p up the slide deck. There we go, if you could pop it in the presentation view. Excellent! Thanks So much. So uh this evening the Board's gonna be asked to determine whether the proposal meets the specific criteria for an additional three year extension for the approved site and user view applications. Next slide, please.

[11:12] So the site is located at the southeast corner of the diagonal Highway and Independence, and was formally addressed as three thousand three hundred and sixty-five diagonal highway. When it was originally approved. It's located just to the south of the recently completed diagonal crossing next to the element next slide, please. Thanks. So the approvals were granted in November, two thousand and eighteen for a one hundred and thirty-eight room holiday in express hotel. It's a two point, two seven acre site um thirty-five foot height, maximum um and two and three story building elements. There was a twenty percent parking reduction. Um! That was considered as part of the original approval. So one hundred and seventy five spaces were required where one hundred and forty would be provided in a combination of surface and some grade parking. Um! There is a landscape, hardscape, um

[12:07] Central courtyard, entry, feature, detached sidewalks, landscaping and lighting upgrades site wide uh the facility will also include a cool and a fitness center uh building finishes we're considered high quality with uh composite wood, limestone uh facade elements. Uh, I should also note that no other modifications to the land use code. We're approved as part of the original site and user new approvals next slide, please. So the process to date on the site has been fairly extensive and includes a Concept Plan Review in two thousand and sixteen that was not called up by City Council. There was a second use review approved by the planning department that was not subsequently called up by the planning board or Council in November, two thousand and eighteen um, and addressing the conditions of approval that were part of the development agreement the applicant has applied for and received approval.

[13:03] Um on the subject. Applications here on the screen, including final engineering, landscaping, Final architecture, Subdivision um as well as some easement and right of way. Vacations next slide, please. So under the three Year rule in the land use code, a development approval is provided three years to begin and substantially complete a project next slide, please. So there's an extension criteria that's provided for in the code that a lot the applicant to staff level extension six months each, and then subsequently a planning board level of extension, which is what's brought us here this evening, so as noted in the packet the applicant process. There are a lot of administrative staff level extensions. Um. And as before the board tonight Um. Requesting an additional three year extension to get them through the building, permitting and construction process. Next slide, please

[14:08] click one more time. Thank you. So there are three criteria to approve an extension. Essentially that the applicant demonstrate reasonable diligence that there's good cause for delays and construction, and that there may be um additional conditions imposed. If there's been relevant amendments to title nine, since the approval. So in this case um is outlined in the memo Staff found that the applicant exercise reasonable diligence and fulfilling a number of the conditions of approval, including several technical document review applications. Um, along with the economic impact from the pandemic on labor materials. Um, and pretty significant impacts on a leisure leisure and business travel industries. Um, indicating that uh criteria A and B. Then have been satisfied. Um! And as I noted it uh additionally, there haven't been any significant changes to title nine that would impact the existing approval. So Staff Isn't requesting or proposing any additional conditions this evening

[15:09] um satisfying uh criterion next slide, please. Thank you. So because the code is a silent about the duration of the timeframe for Extension Staff interpreted the three Year rule to apply to extensions, although it really depends on the level of finalization necessary. Uh, in this particular case. Um! An additional three years is pretty typical for what it is that we've seen um in extensions from the Planning Board. Um, And again, it's important to note that the applicant is required to abide by the additional conditions that um have been set forth in the original disposition of our group. Next slide, please. So with that uh staff recommends a motion provided in your packet. Um, as shown for approval of the extension to site and user view cases. L. You are twenty-six oh, oh, five, one, and L. You. R. Twenty, sixteen, Oh, oh,

[16:07] five, two for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this decision, incorporating the staff member. Memorandum of findings subject to the conditions of approval. Um! That were originally out uh back in two thousand and eighteen. So um we do have the applicant available this evening. They have a brief presentation, as always. I'm happy to take any questions at the board. Okay, Well, thank you. Um. We'll uh, I think what we'll do now is take questions for staff, and then uh ask the applicant if he has a presentation or any remarks for us to consider. Sure, Um, I just actually have one question which is more general than this application. It has to do with the three Year Rule, and i'm wondering if it might be worth planning Staff um codifying that because, in fact, it's if they, If the applicant gets to six month extensions, and then three more years, it's really four years, and there may be some value to that, but I feel like

[17:15] they should get codified as to whether it's three years or four years, including the staff extensions. So I just wanted to kind of make that comment. I appreciate that, and we will add that to our um ongoing list of uh clean up code changes, and I think it's a great suggestion. Okay, Ml: Thank you, John. Um, Good evening, Charles. I do have a question, and it would relate to the I guess it would be under additional conditions of um your chart. But are there any environmental factors that should be brought to bear? Given that the city has declared a climate emergency in two thousand and nineteen.

[18:09] So this project was approved in two thousand and eighteen. But we have kind of a different climate in regards to um how the city is looking at development. Well, how they should be looking at development. Given that that there is that declaration of a climate um emergency. So is there anything that would come to bear on this? I don't know that there would, although I appreciate um the suggestion and the thought Um, I think, from a regulatory perspective, the applicant is going to be bound by um. The regulations that apply at the time of their building permits of middle. So um! They'll be required to meet the energy code as it exists today. Um! So I think, from a regulatory perspective. I don't know that I would have anything to add um as far as additional conditions of approval would go.

[19:04] Okay, thank you for that. Mark um uh a couple of questions, Charles. Thank you for uh sending the technical drawing package. Um, I haven't spent a lot of time with them. But my first question is, does. Um this type of project. Uh, and I I I can. Probably I probably could have answered this question if I really spent a lot of time with the with the use table, and so forth. But anyway, i'll just ask you, Um, uh. Did this require at Site Review a Tdm plan that is separate from the technical drawings that you sent me today. It did require a Tbm. As part of the consideration of Site review that was memorialized as part of the original site. Review approval. Um! And back in two thousand and eighteen. It required eco passes for all the employees. Um supplemental bike parking

[20:17] um again. There was a parking reduction that one along with the approval. Um! There was like storage, I believe that was proposed for um employees. There is a bike share program that the um operator is going to provide for. Uh patrons of the hotel. There's also four bus stops within a quarter mile radius and access to um, you know, outloads and bicycle infrastructure um for patrons of the hotel to take advantage of. So I think those were the components of the Tdm. That were approved at the time. Have there Have there been any? And this may be a question for the applicant, or maybe the applicant might address this in their presentation.

[21:05] Um! Has there been, uh any accommodation either in the present or uh pre wiring for, uh vehicle charging bike, charging, et cetera, on site? I'll defer to the applicant on that, as they're getting their building permits the middle together as we speak, but I do believe that pre wiring um for ed charging is is a requirement of the energy code at this point. But we have Don Ash on the call, and i'm sure he'll be happy to speak to that. Okay, Um. And then I'm I'm looking at. Uh, you know all the different layers of these technical drawings, and you know, one of my concerns was the connect. That's a that is a path and recreation rich connection. I can imagine a lot of people uh staying at this facility. Um,

[22:03] uh, for using, using the soccer fields for tournaments, etc. I can also see people who live just to the north, having relative stay there, et cetera. So it's A. It's an area that has um the potential for really rich pedestrian and bike connections. And on the drawings I see a kind of um on the south, basing south, east. You know the whole. The whole thing is uh the whole uh southeast as a diagonal, as it's called the diagonal highway, and you have the kind of textured line to me, indicating a sidewalk or multi-use path. And then just adjacent to that you have a wide path that it shows trees up along that path, and that and that path is labeled as a bike path, so is there a separate

[23:00] bike facility from the sidewalk. And is that separate, And how does that separated vertically, uh by visuals, or how is that separated? Um In my studying of the uh original application? Um, I don't think that the bike peg uses were uh bifurcated on that um particular portion of multi-use path so I think it functions very much like most of other multi-use paths in town. The path is what as opposed to the uh area where the trees are. It it I I don't know. If you're understanding my question. I see this like long textured what looks to be a sidewalk, and then what looks to be a bike path

[24:05] south east of that, but adjacent to it with trees. Is that all? Just one surface, and that there's really no differentiation between the two uh surfaces. If you look at uh page thirty of the packet, though there is a landscape plan. Um, which I think lays it out um in in a way that's a lot more legible. Yeah, as opposed to that, you know, having all of the you know technical grading, and you know utility line work all over it. I think this the Graphic that's on page thirty of the packet. Um: Yeah. So in that drawing there's pink a kind of a salmon sort of pink color. The trees are purple.

[25:04] What is the surface of that salmon a pink color, I can. It's indicating a type of turf. So oh, so that is not paid. That is not concrete or pavement that is grass or something, I believe so, although I don't have to bear with me here for some reason, the key in my packet, Yeah, is clunky if you give me a minute mark during the applicant's presentation, if they don't know off the top of their hand, and that the pink salmon is some sort of natural surface with trees planted in it.

[26:10] Not exactly sure what happened with the coding on that, as the the Pdf. Got uploaded. But, um. I can pull the original drawings here pretty quickly. Okay, that I I think I think we've We've answered my questions. That's a That's it for me right now. Thank you. Okay. Um. I have a a quick question that also relates to the Uh. Tdm: and that is whether the bus service continues to be the same now as it was when it was originally uh approved. And and I bring that up. I think i'm the only member of Planning Board who was who was involved with that initial approval of several years ago. Um! And I remember there was some concern about it then, too.

[27:04] But I know that in the meantime bus routes have changed, and I wonder if that has resulted in any meaningful impact on the bus service to this area To the end to this facility. And so, John, I don't know if the top of my head, so I know that all of the four stops that are within the quarter mile radius of this site still exist. I don't know if there's diminished service based on Covid ridership at this point. Um, that's something that I could look up again during the applicant's presentation, unless Down knows off the top of his head. Okay, well, thank you. I I think that would be a useful information any any further questions for staff. All right, then. Uh, we'll invite the the applicant to uh

[28:00] to inform us about the latest and situation, and what's going on there, and how things have been happening. So please go ahead. Great. My name is Don Ashton, with Site works. We're a local engineering, planning and design firm in Boulder Jeff Lamont on the line he's with the ownership group uh with Lamont companies. And um yeah, we're excited to bring this site review extension to you guys. Um, let me see if I can get this screen share ten. We'll need to give you permission, John. Give me just one moment. All right, You should be all set. Okay, So um, you know. As Charles mentioned, this is the holiday and express. Just for um a little bit of concept. Here. Um! This is a triangular parcel that's wedged between diagonal highway, forty-seven Street,

[29:13] Iris and Foothills Parkway. It's just south of diagonal crossing north this to the right of the screen here. Uh Pleasant view fields, friends, schools directly to the west. Um, you car um is directly to the east. Um, you know currently The building plan is for eighty-two thousand square feet. There's one hundred and thirty-eight rooms as charles. Mentioned, We have one hundred and forty parking spaces with a twenty percent parking reduction. Um, our um bicycle parking requirements are met. We have um forty-eight spaces provided um twenty-four of those we're at the main entrance. Here um! And then we have twenty-four that are located just down the ramp kind of in this um space on the south side of the building. Um. The buildings primarily used for hotel. We on the first floor. We have hotel rooms uh the purple areas are meeting rooms, lobbies uh back of house spaces. Um like, I said, it is three stories. So the second and third stories are all um hotel rooms.

[30:20] Um! Here are some building elevations, um! And then getting back to the salmon hatch. I guess. Um right now. The plan is to extend the ten foot multi-use path that comes down along the east side of a diagonal crossing. Um! It would cross Independence Road. This would be a ten foot multi-use path which would parallel the diagonal, and connect down to the intersection of forty-seven, and the diagonal, and then forty-seven. The street goes north There's a five foot detached sidewalk along the east side of Forty Seventh Street, and then there's an eight foot uh detached sidewalk on the south side of Independence, and then the gap here between the um. There's new carbon gutter that would be installed along the diagonal highway.

[31:15] Um, and the area in between the multi-use path and the curb and gutter would be filled in with soil for the tree lawn, and then right now. Um, the um seed mix we plan to use is a short grass. Mix um, so it's pretty low maintenance. Um, and should provide a nice buffer between the diagonal and the multi-use path. Um, So you know, Charles kind of went through the timeline a little bit Um, I just kind of want to reiterate some of the project schedule here. Um! We started our site review process back in two thousand and seventeen um at the end of two thousand and eighteen we had site review approval. That's when we went to planning board for the Site Review Amendment.

[32:05] Uh, we continued working on the project in earnest. During two thousand and nineteen we submitted the final tech technical document review. The architectural plans and the landscape plans also get reviewed during the tech talk. Um! We had preliminary approval from Staff at the end of two thousand and nineteen um. Pending some final details with the subdivision agreement and the financial security. Um, And then, of course, the beginning of two thousand and twenty is when the pandemic hit and um, we sort of put the project on a slope role at that point. So um! This was interesting to kind of summarize for last couple of years. Um, but you know we were hit pretty hard with some travel restrictions in early two thousand and twenty. That put a big decline in leisure, travel, and business travel. Um! We also had some major concerns about construction working on a major project like this with social distancing at the time. Um! And then we ran into some financial challenges with our financial partners. Um, just trying to get funding for the project.

[33:13] Um! All of this really continued in the two thousand and twenty-one uh we've seen a big reduction in business travel. Um, We continue to have supply chain issues um, and then, even towards the end of two thousand and twenty-one um Christmas time with Delta and over Kron um really still prevalent. Um! We had a big window here where we really felt like the project needed to be um sort of slow down for the most part to We got to a better situation economically. So that's when we um submitted the first level of staff review, which is twenty twenty-one, and then um! We kicked the project off again in earnest in two thousand and twenty-two um We were working with our financial partners. We got the financial security approved for the public improvements. Um! We went ahead, resubmitted the tech docs, got the final tech documents

[34:10] for landscape, civil and architecture. Um! The final plat was approved in July of two thousand and twenty-two um that went to planning board for a call up uh the pl was recorded as, along with the development agreement, and then we worked in earnest in uh the fourth quarter of two thousand and twenty-two um pulling together, our our building permits for architecture, for structural, mechanical, electrical plumbing. Um! We have engaged a a local permit specialist, specialist. Excuse me um to help us um navigate the city's review process. Um! So she is working on pulling the final permit submitals together. Um! And that brings us to the site review extension here at the end of uh two thousand and twenty-two. So um, you know, this is our schedule for the next couple of years. Um, hopefully after we get the staff.

[35:08] Excuse me the site. Review. Approval. Um. Tonight we're going to move right into building. Permits middle um first quarter, two thousand and twenty-three hopefully start construction spring, summer, two thousand and twenty-three um, and that construction period it would extend into two thousand and twenty-four and um right now we're proposing a tentative opening date at the end of two thousand and twenty-four, so that three year um extension would fit nicely into our construction schedule so um with that I don't think I have anything else to present. Um, if you want, I can talk about some of the questions you guys had as far as Ed Parking and the bus locations and stuff like that. Well, I think if you can address those sufficiently, this is a good time to do that.

[36:01] Okay, So um, yeah, uh, hello, yeah. Sorry i'm trying to get out of this screen. Oh, oh, here it is sorry, John. Um! So as Charles says, I mean, there are bus locations directly adjacent to us. The bolt comes down from Longmont. There's um two stops on the diagonal. There's two stops on Iris. The bound is over on Thirtieth Street, which is pretty close. Um, i'm not familiar with the service. Um reductions that Rtds been proposing for the last few years. But you know those stops are still operating and local to our Donald interrupted just really quickly. Um, So it looks like the bolt Um has a lot of availability. They're running buses between six Am. And midnight routinely

[37:03] um Monday through Friday. So if it did experience any interruptions, it looks like it's still high frequency. The flex also serves the site which is regional transit in Northern Colorado in addition to the bolt. So it looks like all four bus stops that are within that um quarter mile. Um. All have high frequency service at this point. Thank you very. And you know, as far as the ev charging goes. Um, Charles is right. We have to meet all the energy code requirements. I don't have the specific number. Um, but ev parking stations are required as part of the under code um checklist um, and I believe that's on the mandatory checklist. So I think that's it on my end. If you guys had any other questions, i'd be happy to

[38:02] see if I can answer it as well. Thank you, so we'll open it up to questions from the board. Ml: Thank you, John. John. Thank you for your presentation. I have two questions uh one. Well, i'll ask the general one first. So, um! How does the parking reduction work for a hotel use? Do you anticipate that your guests will be coming in an alternative transportation, or how? What's the What's the thinking on a parking reduction when the majority of the building is a is I'm assuming out of town guests. Yeah, it's It's a little bit of both. I mean, we have roughly one hundred and forty rooms. So. Um! The parking code requires one space per room, and then uh, the parking code also requires that we park one space for three hundred for the non residential area. So for the lobbies, the meeting rooms um, other back house spaces are all parked at one for three hundred to sort of accommodate for um for the different employees and stuff.

[39:10] Um, you know we do have, you know, local regional uh bus locations that are pretty close by. So we think that. Um! A lot of employees and guests would utilize the the local bus networks. Um, you know we would love to provide some sort of bike share or kind of uh we are planning on providing some, you know, local bikes at the hotel for Guest to use. Um. I think some users would, you know, Use the shuttle. Um. So we're trying to promote some alternative modes of transportation. So nobody really has to drive a lot of cars into the hotel. Is that the history in the hotel, in in your hotels, that people arrived to the hotel without a car? It varies at different locations. Obviously. Um, I was talking to Jeff earlier. He's got some other projects in Colorado and Montrose and Durango. Um, i'm sure the car utilization rates are higher in some of those other areas. Um, you know. I know, for instance, in border that uh people are pretty um

[40:20] game to use alternative modes of transportation. So if we can provide a shuttle and get people in from an airport, or um, you know, provide the shuttle back and forth to town. I I think that would help kind of reduce the trip traffic. That sounds sounds like it. Could. Um, It's great. Thank you for that. My second question is so. Um! One of the um reasons that the project was stalled was market conditions, labor, shortage, and material change disruption. Do you have things in place? Has the market changed enough? Um, and the labor, shortage and material chain disruption changed enough to be able to secure the kind of timeline you're looking at.

[41:09] So we believe. So. Um! You know the business travel segment Um, surprisingly is still quite low. Um, they're projecting a fifty percent decrease in business travel in two thousand and twenty-one prior to two thousand and eighteen. Um. So the business travel segment still, you know, quite low. Uh, we've seen a big in uh uptick and uh the leisure travel segment. Um, which is where a lot of hotels are sort of catering to right now. So um from a market standpoint we feel like we're in a good position right now. Travel wise and pandemic wise that, uh, you know, the business would be quite good. Um, Jeff Um and I were talking earlier today he's got some other um uh prefab structures that he's working on in Colorado. So we might be able to utilize a prefabricated type construction

[42:07] method to do the hotel. Um, I wouldn't say that set stone right now. But um, Jeff has um been working on plans along those lines so that that's probably going to help out, too. Um! And it seems like the markets sort of stabilizing a little bit. Um, I know labor really is really tight, and certain materials go up and down over the course of a few years. But um from a construction standpoint. Um! I feel like things are not crazy, and out of the ordinary right now just somewhat expensive through that way. So if you were to go to an off-site construction strategy like panels um wouldn't that impact the building permit what you got identified on your building current. Or,

[43:03] yeah, the design would be the same. It would just be more of a modular construction. The engine, the engineering, the structural engineering, or any of those, because it sounds like I think you were going for the building permit, like now, right so that doesn't impact that doesn't change the building. Permit. Um! What's approved? No. So you know we have the Site review approval, which is the architectural plans that we're in the package that staff packet or the planning board packet. Um! And then we have the technical document plans which were approved earlier this year. So at this point we really don't want to change with the building. We don't want to change materials and substantially alter the structure. So we've been moving, you know quite steadily on structural engineering, mechanical plumbing, and electrical on the plans that we have in place.

[44:00] Um! And if we went with something prefabricated, it would just be uh more of a How can I put this uh panels? Yeah, I mean, like it wouldn't be a We wouldn't change a material. Sip, brand it like that. It would be more of just modular construction that we can. Okay? Well, those are my questions relative to the um key issues that the staff identify, and I appreciate your answers. Don Great. Thank you, Mark. Uh thanks, uh, Don. I appreciate the answers you address for me earlier. Um, and I I uh, I appreciate the the the quantity of uh bike spaces that it sounds like you're providing um, and your efforts to provide some sort of bike service as a as a product or a manatee of the hotel.

[45:04] I I would simply say that um. I would certainly try to take advantage of older b cycle, or a contract with one of the bike shops, et cetera. Here in town, you know, Bowler is is a cycling community. We're very rich in that regard. And um, and my experience with hotel bikes uh all over the world is usually that they are in, you know they they The hotel was built, or they went through a period of a reconstruction or whatever it's like. Yeah, we're going to buy some bikes, and and then very quickly they they fall into a state of disrepair, and and you're really not able to to use them functionally, and it's kind of a. It's just kind of an embarrassing situation and boulder be cycle has. Uh, I don't know if you know, has has recently totally revamped their fleet. They're all electric now, and uh, and the popularity and usage by uh, a polar be cycle has skyrocketed uh during

[46:11] in the last year or two, and um and they are just. They've gone from being kind of marginal and almost on the ropes to being wildly successful. So anyway, I I would encourage uh a independent contract, or from rather than we trying to rely on hotel staff or hotel programming to deal with your bike stuff. So that's my only comment there uh and uh final one would be um, you know we are. We are coming into an age where people will be bringing uh electric bikes, and if you don't want them in the rooms um, which maybe maybe that there's no way to avoid that. Given the cost of many people's electric bikes uh you should have some of that, some facility for electrification uh and charging

[47:02] uh outside as well. So that's my input mark. I'm a huge cyclist, and I laugh because the bikes at the same Julie, and have about fifteen years of dust on them. Nobody ever uses them. Um! And I think the big change, I think, in the last few years has been with the E bikes, and I think it's pretty easy to put some charging outlets in our long term storage area, and we can bring the bikes in the garage and provide a little power for people to charge their bikes. I think that would be a great idea. Yeah. And boulder be cycle as A. You know It's like they arrive. They're there, they pick them up, they charge, and they maintain them, and it's an amenity that really is a of no cost other than a a space uh, you know, outside facility, space to the to the hotel those e bikes would be cycle, I think, have been a game changer this year, too. So um we we entertained be cycle a few years ago, and at the time they weren't into a big expansion area. Um.

[48:06] You know what they have, the old red bikes. But now, with diagonal crossing, I I think there might be some we can look into as well. I think there are boulder be cycle bikes at diagonal crossing currently. So, anyway, some is worth checking out. Okay, Any other questions of the applicant. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Ashe. Um, Thank you. So I think we'll we'll begin our public hearing now. So this is the time when, if any members of the public have comments or thoughts that they wish to share with the planning board on this matter. Now is the time. And Brenda, if you take charge of that again. That would be great. Thank you. I do see one hand up so. Um, we will go ahead and start with Lynn Siegel

[49:01] uh Lynn. I will enable your microphone when reflecting on um propellio and how they wanted um, you know one hundred and sixty spaces, and they wanted them so that the pent houses can have two parking spaces in the middle of the B. Vrc. And here Don has this place out on the diagonal, and he's getting a parking reduction of twenty-five percent um like Ha! What sense do you make out of that? You know? Um, it, you know And And even though this is a hotel, and they're doing twenty-five percent less very good. And they're doing all these buy things and stuff first. Of all. I don't know that people that are coming to that hotel are going to be. I would think they'd be driving their cars more because it's kind of out. It's not in Central boulder.

[50:01] But, uh, who knows? Um, stranger, things have happened. The Hill Hotel, you know other other hotels that are coming into town, the millenniums that being taken over by the Cu students. So though the use of different spaces for hotels is getting basically extracted out the diagonal right because it's all c. You owns Twenty Eighth Street. Now you know It's all student housing, Steve Wallace. Refurbish that place best Western, all kinds of money thrown in there, and then. See you take and just scrape it, or whatever they're doing, completely redoing his redo from like a couple of years ago. It's just, you know. These things need to go through environmental review. They need to go through the environmental board or something, because, you know, you can't do it with someone. A personal house. When someone's got their granite countertops, and they're the wrong color for the next person, you know.

[51:01] But you can do it for these larger projects, and you know, in Cuba. They don't have hotels. They don't do that, you know. I mean, maybe in Havana, or if you're for for the business traveler, or but not nearly as much. The United States should take the model of live in. When people come and visit, they come and stay in homes locally, and they really experience the area in a in a much more profound way than a hotel. Um, you know. So i'm kind of you know. I can understand Don's project, you know, because there's no hotels in Boulder anymore, because, see, you owns boulder. And now they really own boulder after, you know. See you south past. So we're in a pickle here, you know. But, uh,

[52:00] I suppose, what can you do? You know he's gonna have this another hotel, and and i'm glad that actually Covid slowed things down. I think that the leisure industry is taking over the business industry, which is an interesting concept. Isn't it because the business people aren't getting out when they're doing zoom. So then they want to do more leisure when they're off. So in that sense it's good. But i'm trying to see the bright side here, you know. Thanks. Thank you. And I don't see any other hands just taking a pause for last call. I think our other colors on the phone. You would press Star Nine to raise your hand on the phone. All right. I think we can safely move forward. Okay, Thanks very much. Brenda.

[53:02] Um, Okay, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion. Now, I think you've uh you've all seen the look matrix that Charles is prepared to to help us uh go through, get through the issues we need to think about, and I open it now for discussion. Wow! Rare that it's so quiet. Okay, I'm looking for my hand. Um, I will. I will use uh the matrix and just go through the three Um, The three issues that are identified there. So the criteria for demonstrating reasonable um uh due diligence. I do believe that the applicant has met that um starting in two thousand and nineteen with the tech docs and the final platform, do you?

[54:01] And the recent middle in twenty one, and going through building permit uh planning um in this in this year, so I do believe that that has been um has been met uh the second issue, the criteria for demonstrating good cause. Um, you know, I guess i'm not. I think it's still a difficult market, and I think to be able to accommodate the schedule as proposed. Um! I like the idea that the applicant is looking at some offsite construction, some modular construction, which, of course, uses an entirely different labor pool, which is a little bit more stable. Um, But I i'm not totally convinced that, uh the timeline can be met within the next three years. But I don't have any

[55:05] hard fact knowledge, saying otherwise, I Yeah, It's so that that's that one. And I think it would be. I appreciate um. The applicants thoughts about i'm looking under additional conditions, and my concern with um what has been brought to the table? Given the environmental um the uptick in our environmental thinking and concerns and considerations, I think that the idea of the bikes and the alternative modes of transportation to the hotel. I'm not sure. Um. I think i'm in agreement with. I think we didn't have that that people are going to be coming to that particular hotel on the outskirts of Boulder by anything other than car. But I like the idea

[56:00] that you're suggesting that you have a hotel, an airport shuttle. I don't know if any hotels have voted they have in your portion. Um, you know I know we have. We have the um different shuttle options to take as individuals, But I think that could be a big uh a big um means for people to not bring a car into town, so I like that kind of thinking, and I and I think you've got the kind of thinking again with that and with the um constructability, and and where we're at with all that. Uh so I um. But those are my thoughts and my concerns. There isn't anything any concern that I have that would um preclude me from approving. This extension just concerns to be thought about. Thank you all right, Laura. I'll try to keep it short and sweet, and focused on the question of granting this extension or not. Um. I do believe that the applicant has demonstrated reasonable diligence in the steps that they've taken towards completion.

[57:11] I do believe that they had demonstrated good cause for the delay, obviously with Covid and the labor shortages and supply shortages. It'll be hard to argue against that. So yes, on good cause, and I I am persuaded by Staff's arguments that um there should be no additional conditions placed by this board, given that there have been no updates to title nine that would affect this application so for me. Um! I I am certainly eager to hear what the rest of the board has to say, but I do not personally see any reason why we would not grant an extension. Okay, Alisha. Um, very much the same. So I won't. Um quote the language again, since you just did it beautifully. Thank you. Laura. Um. But yeah, I I think they've met the necessary criteria. I don't see any profound or compelling reasons con um that would go against what Staff found in terms of it, making sense to

[58:05] put an extension in um. Perhaps someone else on planning board will convince me otherwise. But um as of right now I I agree with Staff's findings, and I think it makes sense to proceed. Okay, Other thoughts mark Well, if if we're ready, i'm i'm ready to make the motion. But I don't. I didn't mean to cut anyone off, that, having any additional comments, George's thumbs up on making the motion so well, this may be the fastest uh public hearing in history for us, but uh, to approve an extension to site and use review case, number case numbers l. You are two thousand and sixteen dash zero, zero, zero, five, one, and L. You are two thousand and sixteen dash zero, zero, zero, five, two for a period not to exceed three years

[59:12] from the date of the decision on the request incorporating the Staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. I'll. Second, that okay, any discussion. All right, Let's move to a vote. And I think, uh, do we need to do a roll call on this, Sara. Hi, Laura. I ml I, George. Hi,

[60:00] Lisa! Fine mark. Aye, and I vote I so unanimous approval. So congratulations to the applicant. Great, Thank you, guys. Okay, Thank you make it beautiful. Thank you. All right. This is uh moving along pretty quickly. Now we move into matters uh from planning board, and i'd like to take this opportunity to make sure that we all have met to Devon, either in person or virtually, who is working with planning board. Now, having replaced Cindy um. I think most of you have have met Devin, but I just want to make sure that everyone is aware of that. So appreciate that, John. Thank you, and as always, i'm really excited to work with you all. And uh, um, yeah, Always here for you guys.

[61:11] Okay, And uh Brad, uh, are there any matters from staff that uh, we should think about tonight. We had with a council on November the tenth. That was an overview of Boulder Junction two as well as an update of eighty us. But really it was a broader conversation about how to manage all the different priority uh projects that Council has, and work program items. Um, We came out of that with a very good um, but aggressive schedule,

[62:11] and I encourage you to maybe look at that and know that that has implications for the planning board, because any work sessions that we um schedule with the Council, and certainly the ordinance and any ordinances ah include a a lead up to planning board. Ah! These topics specifically, in addition to the two that I mentioned Um Boulder Junction, Two and and adu regulations also include occupancy regulations and zoning for uh housing affordability. Um, In that discussion Council was very clear that they want to move um very decisively and um quickly to the degree that that's possible on ads and occupancy. In particular, they recognize that there has been one

[63:05] uh significant input uh, both formally, through city processes. Um, but also um de facto through. In the case of occupancy, for example, the uh bedrooms are for people initiative from a year plus ago. Um, in the case of a to use a lot of public commentary and analysis over the years. Um, so they really um made it clear that they didn't feel it was necessary to initiate Ah! New outreach uh in that, in kind of the traditional sense of starting a project, but that that really was very ripe and mature, and so we are working towards um direction from them to bring forward, you know, fairly specific edu uh language that would eliminate the um saturation requirement and fairly specific uh analysis round occupancy that probably centers on a specific number of unrelated that differs from the current standard

[64:06] and and really move those through. So um again recognizing planning Boards engagement on that, I certainly encourage you to kind of track that as it as it moves forward, those and the other council priorities are prominently situated on the city's website, and has a real time kind of uh ramp up to that, so you can check that at any time uh planning and development services. H: Five of councils uh ten priorities. So uh uh, I guess we we I don't know what that would be, but they were. We're happy to to be working towards councils uh desires in that regard, and they they did acknowledge that that's a lot for the department especially given that, uh, we have had to ship some of our resources to development. Review uh development is continues to come in at very high pace, and so that, coupled with a few months of having lost staff

[65:08] um uh essentially three senior planners uh for the department who had left at one point, and we're rude back. So we have people coming back that are able to hit the ground running. But we did lose a few months there, and Carl Giler in particular. Um was moved over for a couple of months here to development review. Just so we weren't uh, you know, dramatically late in processing the types of applications like the one that you saw tonight. Um! Beyond that, uh, we continue to work on operational excellence efforts uh, including our electronic submittals. Uh, We are not one hundred percent there yet, but we're making steady progress. And again, that's something that is real. Forward facing for planning board,

[66:30] having to answer any questions the Board members might have. Well, thank you. Uh Oh, well, I see. The hands of popped up right away, and we'll get to everybody. I guess I can catch them as questions, but they will be semi rhetorical. Uh the idea that there's been adequate public input on eight on eighty. You revisions is actually laughable, since the only conversation that has happened was that have.

[67:04] Secondly, uh, the public has spoken about occupancy limits. Uh, however, the occupancy limits vote does not match what the current City Council majority wishes. So I would suggest that Um, that there has not actually been there has been adequate public input But I think this Council would like to ignore that. Um. And so I will whenever I have the opportunity. I'm planning for bring up the need for more public input. Thirdly, we actually have a public participation, participation, participation process and for city council to just push that away because they think we have adequate input seems to me uh, really unfortunate and throwing process out the window. Um! It was a fourth thing I wanted to add, which I can't remember, so I will leave it at that.

[68:03] I understand the rhetorical nature of your comments or your questions. I I appreciate what you're saying. I'm um. You know it as as staff. I. I try not to fall into this uh response very often, because it's a little bit of a cop out, I will admit, but um to some degree. I I know you appreciate that. Um, i'm the messenger of these things, and and that the policy center. But understand and appreciate their multiple views about uh the process to date and and and the direction of of where that policy might go. Yeah, let me just follow up with that in two thousand and eighteen city council embrace the public particip participation. Proposals that were the result of a one or two year process. So for council to just throw that out the window because they want to move forward quickly on certain agenda items

[69:05] is, if you want to understand why the city council has why the city has such low trust in the community. It's because of craft like this, and I know that you're just a messenger, but people expect to have a voice here and for this city council to just silence people because they want to move forward on a particular set of agenda items, is just going to create more uh um frustration, and I think it's a I just think it's a terrible mistake. And you are. You guys staff are the ones who have to deal with frustrated, angry, annoyed residents of Boulder and i'm just telling you this is not the best way to move forward on some of these issues, and I will leave it at that. I heard what you said, Mark. Uh Brad. I watched a portion of that Council meeting, and then uh, uh

[70:06] didn't and um. One of the things regarding ad use was, I I believe, that uh hab and uh community groups at five uh avu items. And uh, my, and that's your position or Staff's position was that they could depending upon this matrix of of available time and decision making, et cetera. Um, My question is, uh, did you settle on addressing three of those, or are you addressing all five of the uh proposed changes? This is spring in the bell, or it might just way off, Base your time. That changes specific to eighty years,

[71:00] that they had had that come with a list of five, eighty, you items, and depending upon where you landed and the other tasks. Uh that there were. You were proposing to address three of those eightyu items, and again I I may have gotten that wrong. It was a it was a complex uh evening of uh it. It it was, I think. Um, mark you, alluding to the fact that Um, the staff had gone to council with a recommendation of calendaring schedule, which which by implication included scope for the six different work program items that we presented uh seven, if you include. I'm sorry. No, it was seven eight, If you include a general acknowledgment of number of downtown related uh planning processes that are kind of bubbling, and in bringing forward that recommended uh

[72:02] order and scope, we offered a couple of options, and one of the options was specifically an expanded edu option, which obviously would then expand the the time by which it was completed. Um! Trying to remember whether that uh, we take a quick look at the right here in front of me. If that recreate that was that there were um, and the decision was to keep the scope narrower as as identified. Yeah, sure. I think that's I think that's fine. Um!

[73:04] And I I I just I will uh offer a slightly different perspective, and Maybe it's a disheartening to have two different perspectives on on the on A to use and occupancy. But i'll i'll offer. I'll offer mine, and that is that. Um, that it is. It would be unwise to disregard a very recent uh edu process and a great amount of public input that happened. Um And, John, you you participated, I believe, on planning board in this whole A to you thing. So I don't. Was it two thousand and seventeen, two thousand and eighteen, etc. So there is. There is a lot of public input that I believe that is still valid that can still be taken into account and doesn't mean that we need to restart every every aspect of a public input. Um

[74:05] uh! In regard to eight years. I do respect uh Sarah's comments about uh respecting what what Council has adopted in terms of public process. We have a public process model, and I think that public process model was employed on prior adu uh subjects. And uh and I think it would be um all also dangerous to disregard that that prior input and the results of what our prior ad you effort uh yielded, which is not very many new a to use, and I saw, I think, that a realization that a course correction in our a to use a to you. Policies uh does not necessarily warrant a revisit of all things a to use and all things public process. So, anyway, I think there is a valuable information and public input to be had going forward. And there is valuable information and public. Input

[75:10] That is a part of the record. Uh in the past and regard to occupancy. Yes, we uh, as a city voted down uh the bedrooms are for people proposal, and uh, and you sure we need to respect the will of the voters. One of the things that I heard repeatedly during Uh, during my involvement in that election was that we want fair, better occupancy uh regulations. The bedrooms are for people. Proposal was not, uh, was not what they were looking for, but that did not mean uh that, that the community would not support uh, an expansion of occupancy limits That was a fair and more thoughtful that the community in some regards thought the bedrooms are for people. Proposal wasn't refined enough. So that's my that's my comment on that.

[76:18] Thanks. Lisa. Yeah. Um. Well, first i'll say congratulations on successfully luring back three planners. That is no small thing. I think one of them is Darren Wagner, and you'd be good to her, and you hold on to her um and everyone else. Um! And then, uh, you know, on to this topic, I I think it's a fascinating one. Um, I have multiple top thoughts on it. I'll start kind of at a relatively high level, and that is that I feel like, cause I think we have a great deal of agreement in my opinion, around missing middle housing, you know, on this board and and um,

[77:02] and sometimes I think we get pulled into conversations and and kind of turmoil around things that maybe Don't actually address our housing issues. Um, you know I I am not. Uh I i'm kind of okay with ads. I think Denver's eighty. You um situation is very interesting, because I need to look back, but I think they like a lot It doesn't use by right in a whole bunch of zones and areas, and then nobody built any, or like a handful got built because it's incredibly expensive to build them. So like, even if you're like, Yeah, sure. Go for it. Um, you know you still have to pull the I mean a lot of the costs that are involved in building a structure of that size are equivalent to what it might be to build a larger structure, or just equivalent to what it would be to just go by an apartment or something. Um, and so I you know I don't know, so I I I I think it's really important that the process be done. Well, I did not listen to or attend that meeting, so i'm honestly not up to speed in the way others are. Um. It sounded like, perhaps

[78:01] again I'm. I'm not like overly opposed to these. I also don't think we're going to get like a million, even if we make it legal. But I do think we need to be thoughtful about um. What if we're permitting them? I would personally be fine, with more permissive permitting. Um! How are we taking into account. You know how they're done, making sure that whatever does get built, who knows how much or how little that is is done in a smart way? You know it sounded like maybe some stuff moved pretty fast um, and and and some stuff, and so I I have some concerns about that, and I I don't know if it planning board has a place, but i'd be very curious to get perhaps a read out of what exactly is going on, or what decisions are being made. Um, in a way that was more digestible than that meeting was um, and then um occupancy, I think, is a fascinating one, too, because i'm not gonna say I mean I I I've been over occupancy. I'm currently under occupied right? I mean, I I do not have a person per bedroom right now. Um. And and at the same time, when I see things like that, we're going to be closing elementary schools, I suspect that what's going on, and and I don't blame people for this is that we have a lot of older adults, either couples or singles, living in large single family homes who don't have an attractive other option to move into, and

[79:13] Aren't going to move in a ton of roommates. Um, anyway. So so I just want to say that that I think these are all things we're talking about, and I and and I think, respecting you know what voters have done while also saying, Okay, but we somehow want to address this as important, and I also hope that we can continue to keep in mind that in some ways this is nibbling around the edges. Um! And and we can get very focused on these specific use cases and conflicts that i'm not saying they don't matter. I'm not saying this, isn't worth worthy of attention and time um from us, and from others, and from voters. But it doesn't actually address the broad things that are happening demographically, and broad things that are happening with how people are using our housing stock. Um, and what's getting built and not built, and you know. So, Anyway, that's I'll just put that in there, and then i'll say broadly, Perhaps you know we don't get super in depth on it tonight, but if there's time in a future meeting. I I would love to educate myself independently more on this, and I I think I would also benefit from hearing from staff, or coming from someone from have or something to just understand Better like, What exactly are you doing? And what did you take into consideration and like, Where are we at?

[80:17] Um? Because I don't feel one hundred percent up to speed on it. George, you're muted Josh: Sorry um. I'm a little. I'm a little speechless, because I think what Lisa said just now resonated entirely with me. Um! And and I appreciate her thoughtfulness, and and putting that out there, I, too, am not necessarily opposed to a to use one where it direction. I don't think they're going to solve much um to to what I've seen and understood in the country, but I i'm not necessarily opposed to it. I'm not sure that there's been enough public process in that. Um

[81:08] a more so as it relates to occupancy. And again, I think there are varying opinions of how it would actually it could actually be detrimental to affordability um in our town, and that's one of the reasons why the voters spoke the way they did um, and to suggest that enough public process has been done there. Um to go contrary to that vote, or even near contrary to that vote, I think, is a very dangerous thing for city staff to be directed to do, because you guys are ultimately going to bear the brunt of that, and that was a very contentious process. Um! And I I think it really needs to be thought through, and I think the public needs to be brought into that process regardless of what the outcome is. Um! To make sure you guys develop trust for the community. Um, I I I think that's real, because a lot of people, you know, are are concerned about the democratic process and boulder um.

[82:09] You know the votes, whether you like them or not. Whether it was this election or the prior elections, the votes, or the votes, and when when the city starts to go against the democratic process in the city. Um! The community is gonna get fired up. Um! So I I would. I would urge abundant caution on that process, and I would not make statements. Like enough public outreach has been made on these issues because Um, the outreach was made, and the vote was pretty decisive on what that outreach Um, you know the ultimate outreach is to vote um, so I I again. I I wouldn't want to be in your shoes being directed to do that. Um! But I wanted to bring it up again, Because, Brad, since you haven't had the benefit of being in boulder when that process happened. Um! It's worthwhile to study it, and really understand where the where the community is. Add on it. Thanks,

[83:07] Laura. So I I don't think tonight is necessarily the time or the place for us to try to. You know, litigate what happened with occupancy limits, and to use. But I do appreciate what my fellow Board members are saying is that that was a a very contentious process, especially on occupancy limits. As I recall, it, was a pretty close vote, and, as I recall, quite a lot was written about it and said about it in public uh in newspaper editorials. Um at City Council meetings, so I think that there is a lot of previous sentiment to draw upon. I suspect that most of the major arguments that we're going to hear about it in the future. We've also heard about in the past, so I think it would be a very useful effort for um city staff to try to summarize. What kind of input do we think we have received on A to use and occupancy limits? And what are the arguments? What are people concerned about, and why?

[84:01] Um, And why do people want these things? Um, you know what are the reasons in favor and the reasons against? And really um try to detail that rationale, because I suspect that we pretty much understand the playing field, and I think um, you know I did not watch that city Council meeting. I would be surprised if they said, we're not going to take any more public. Input, we're just gonna craft something and vote on it. I think my understanding is. What they said is, they did not want to restart from ground zero from scratch with a, you know, two or three or five-year public process prior to considering a new ordinance or some kind of new direction. But i'm um fairly certain that they would expect that there will be public outreach components just, maybe not as extensive as something like the East boulder. So community plan that started from zero and took three years, and was extremely extensive in terms of public outreach, so I think it would be worthwhile to try to map what we think we have heard so far, and where there are gaps, and continue to have public input and public outreach as we go along, even if it's not quite as extensive as some of the other processes where we don't have this large history one

[85:10] I know for myself. Um! For the next time we talk about this i'm going to make sure that I read that documents that have put together, that I think was forwarded to us as a board, and I haven't read it yet with their recommendations on a to use, which I think, is what city Council was acting upon. So I want to, uh understand what that process was, and what their recommendations were. I'm going to go back and read uh and watch that meeting that video of the discussion that city council had about this. So I can understand what exactly they were saying about um, the extensiveness of public input, and what their expectations are and their direction to staff. And I would encourage my fellow Board members if you have not done those two things. I hope we would all do them together, so that we can uh approach it from the same uh basis of information. And if folks have other things that they think we should all be reading or watching, or educating ourselves about um, in addition to what Staff will will bring forward to educate us with. I am completely open to to learning about all of these things, and a different perspectives and concerns that have been expressed.

[86:06] So. Um, brad, i'm! I'm super excited uh to hear about the priorities for the next year. I wish you good luck in your tasks, and also big congratulations on your your three uh uh rehires. Um! Are you at full staffing at this point, or do you still have positions open? Um! We still have positions open within the two planning divisions: um comforts of planning and and development review planning. We have some vacancies, but they are due to new budgeted positions. So it's for all the right reasons, and we actually jumped on the advertising for those before the Budget was approved, you know. Got an early start, and I think Kj is actually just this week making an offer, and then Charles will have a couple of you yet. Yet. Uh coming. But uh in department-wide is another issue, too. It's It's just a tough labor merger.

[87:02] Yeah, Well, good luck filling all those positions with excellent people. They've They've got a great team to join. So um! And that's very attractive. So hopefully it won't be too long until you're fully staffed. We're working hard on that. Well, I appreciate. I can't resist the chiming in a little bit Also, on this I you know I I have to say that I agree with all of my colleagues comments here, but there are two uh two elements that I I would like to stress. One is that I I can. I I think we need to be clear about what City Council is really suggesting with respect to the public process on such a an issue that is so fundamental in Boulder and uh, so I, without wanting to put words in their mouth or or your mouth. For that matter, I I think,

[88:00] uh, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, we have gone through a a major effort to improve our public process in the city, and I think on on an issue, and that was recent, and on an issue of such widespread interest on on all sides. I think it would be a a mistake for us not to follow that process that that the city has adopted, and I'm. I'm. Not sure that Council really indicated that we shouldn't follow that process. But, as Mark said, there are things that have happened in the last few years that needn't be repeated. But nevertheless, we we do have a process that I think the city has accepted and agreed upon. So I I would just uh stress that um beyond that. Uh, I i'm the uh mark and I are both uh working as lies on to have,

[89:05] and I I have to say. I was present at the meeting, where the at the meetings, I should say where the letter was developed and written, and I think, with all due respect to have uh and uh, my! My urging them to consider explicitly some conditions which they might not have fully considered. Uh, I I personally am, think that their letter needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Um! They, uh are pushing hard. They have good objectives, but but their full consideration of many of the issues of concern, I think, was uh was lacking, and so I I would just uh mentioned that. Thank you. And again, Thank you. Everyone for the comments that um

[90:02] it it's. It's a balancing act. Every every aspect of land uses every uh communication. And yes, there were certainly nuance in uh Councils comments about. So thank you all for the input that's very helpful. Well, you're on the hot spot. So it'll be interesting. Yeah, my my seats getting hotter all the time. Here, Laura, I see your hands is up. Yeah, um I saw on the calendar that for December there is December twentieth. There is a matters informational. Item: Staff debrief to planning board on council's, two thousand and twenty-three priorities and affordable housing plans. Is that in addition to what you told us tonight is that a further refinement of what you told us tonight? That's on our calendar for December twentieth.

[91:07] It says um matters information. Item staff debrief to planning board on city council, two thousand and twenty-three priorities, and affordable housing plans your names on that, Brad, as well as Christopher and Charles Great. Thank you. Okay. Um. Were there any other matters from staff? None at this time? Okay. How about the city attorney? No, no, none from the city attorney's office. As well. Good to see you, everyone at night. Well, I think. Uh, there might be several uh issues from uh from the board to talk about Mark uh sent a an email a couple of days ago That, I think now is the time to to let Mark talk a little bit about that and see how we respond and think about it.

[92:15] Okay, John. Thank you. Um. I'll try not to. Uh hold the floor. I I I purposely sent an email to try to make uh, let us have a starting point for our discussion that um that we where we could start, and and if if if Board members have uh issues, or think that what I've outlined in my email is incorrect or uh doesn't reflect our our operating procedures, I I would love to hear those thoughts. But my, the real purpose in this is is in any um

[93:05] organization, you know. Uh rules and procedures are, I find, I'm. I'm a structured person, as my children will, you know, uh, tell you with with some degree that you know uh they called me sorry, so I I I like structure, I think. Structure uh encourages both efficiency. Uh, I think it encourages fairness. I think it encourages uh, even camaraderie. And uh, as as people uh um put forth positions uh those positions may be voted down. They may be voted up, but uh they should come away. Um, knowing that, uh that that the matter was fairly uh adjudicated, that the game was fairly played, and not that I consider this a game or a a win lost thing. But I i'm that's the best metaphor. Uh I can I can come forward with, and

[94:13] and those structures Don't serve as an end in themselves. They serve so that this board which serves uh city council and the citizens of Boulder uh here from us, and that our thoughts are conveyed, our uh concerns are conveyed, and that they're conveyed in a way that um uh that the community and Council can uh read in a in a fair and concise way what uh, what happened in uh, in our meeting, and and really what our what our recommendations uh or concerns are. So uh,

[95:03] my goal is that we should all agree on the rules and the procedures, and uh and do that now in in a in a calm time, when we don't have a a tough topic in front of us, so that when we do get into tougher topics um, we can debate those tough topics fairly and and not we're. We're not uh debating. The rules are calling on a referee or the calling out the referee, or having people cheer from the sidelines. Um, let's let's concentrate on the on the matter at hand. So we aren't debating the rules. So that's my little intro, and i'm curious uh what the what the rest of you have to say, Lisa,

[96:01] i'm just looking at your email mark. And um, I don't think I I I think I would feel comfortable affirming those two things. But my take on kind of what happened is something I think a little bit different. Um, i'm trying to think of like how to how to it. Well, um, And that is the I. I don't think we have to have one hundred percent. Yes, votes on things. I think it's okay to just go ahead and take a vote on something, and if someone doesn't like it they can put it down, and if they mostly like it, they can vote for it while creating their teeth, and that we could trust Staff to take some notes showing that somebody didn't like a certain part, or you know I I've done that I I've been the one person funny against something, because i'm like, I just really don't like this thing, and i'm like, Make sure you put that in the notes, you know um, and and and that that was kind of my um what? Where I was coming from, in the way that I conducted myself and approach that meeting was that I just I was like. Let's go ahead and vote if you don't like it, but against it that's fine. We don't have to come to one hundred percent consensus on everything. We don't have to split everything off into little pieces,

[97:13] you know, like, let's let's move ahead, which I think i'm bringing forward, because I I think again, I I don't necessarily not affirm what you brought, but that to me isn't the crux of what happened. Um! So i'm not sure that me affirming what you put forward would necessarily address a similar situation in the future. Um, that's my take, George. You're uh muted. Sorry I'm. I'm just i'm agreeing with Lisa all day long today. Uh I I i'm looking at your email to. I I think number one is easy. Number two is again, I I think anyone can make any motion. I'm sorry if we're going to refer to Mark's email we should probably pull it up on the screen so that members of the public can see it because they may not have seen it. So we're going to talk about Number one and number two. Let's just make that transparent.

[98:11] Sorry to interrupt. So, Devin, can you or Brenda? Can you do that? Yep. I'll pull it up right now. Okay, okay, uh, is this: I You see, I just find the correct screen. Alright, So um as I was mentioning, I number one. I don't have an issue with number two in general. I don't have an issue with either. I I think that's the way that planning board has operated that anyone can make any motion. Um at the end of a vote.

[99:01] Um! Where I diverge is the idea of infinite minutia that we vote on um, and i'll use my example that I used when I was talking about Cu out. It's kind of the same thing Right? What? Exactly what Lisa said. We went through a process. Everyone made commentary. Their commentary is in in the notes. I don't think anyone that voted on to you South either for or against, or abstain necessarily got everything they wanted, and we didn't vote on every single one of those issues independently, because it would be less powerful. Number one as a vote, and it's also would be infinitely exhausting, and also hard for anyone to interpret what we're actually doing as a board. The the vote that we were that we that this came up on was actually a pretty simple one. We were talking about three things, but those three things could either easily be thirty things, and our meetings could get sabotaged by trying to go into minutia on from anyone's perspective. Um,

[100:11] so um I I and I don't think that's the way anybody of our boards or council actually operates. Um! What I would suggest that isn't in here that I've been thinking about to make sure that people's voices are heard properly. Um! And I would put this up for a suggestion is, I I think, the way that the planning board has function generally works, but It may be, in fact, that people don't feel like there to what Lisa said when you don't agree with everything that that's captured in a way that is easy to for someone else to digest in the minutes, so what I would suggest is at the end of a vote. Um! And at the end of the vote in those particular minutes that um members who want to explain why they voted the way they did, and um what they opposed in that vote, even if they went for it, or what they,

[101:08] what they, what they thought was good about for that vote, even though they would against it. I think it would be great to have a a simple summary um at the end of the vote like that where people could express themselves. So we don't get. We don't get into that minutia. That, I think, is a very dangerous precedent. Um, but we do have an opportunity for people to voice exactly why they did what they did. Um, in a way that can be easily documented. And for people to easily read. Um, So that that's my thought. Okay, Do we have uh mark, go ahead. So I I I wanted to respond to this, and I and I I didn't. I didn't put everything in the email, and you know I just said, Let's let's Let's have this discussion,

[102:00] and I have a I have a whole bunch of minutes on my other screen, and I I think there's a spectrum between all things. It would be I I don't think any of us would say we need to combine everything into one motion all the time, and and that you know, when we have an agenda item, that you you have one motion that up or down you vote yes or no on that on that entire agenda on them, and then no one, especially me, is advocating for, uh um motions on minutia that you know that you. You could have twenty motions, thirty motions, I just I bark like I got to interrupt you because I disagree because what we were talking about from my perspective when we went through that full process was minutia. So so you may have a different definition of Venus than I do. But I I I I respectfully disagree that that's exactly what was happening, which is why I was opposed to that process. Well, so

[103:04] I respectfully. We had three motions that were it. It was three motions. It was not twenty, it was not thirty. It was three, and those three motions subsequently, by by forcing a combined by combining of them. We spent at least another half an hour when we simply couldn't. Just just let me finish. We could have simply taken a vote on those three motions, and we would have been done earlier, and we would have had a greater precision. I'm looking at the minutes where um you and Sarah were gone of the East, bold or subcommittee plan, or the second round of of the votes uh staff, gave us four motions that we adopted. Five. Oh, they could have all been crammed together, and and the vote would have been the same. But because of the message of trying to convey the Council Specifically, Staff gave us four motions to vote on that. That was on these Boulder Subcommittee plan

[104:18] on uh the every every set of minutes I have from the last whole bunch of meetings, either the board or staff. Have we have had multiple It's been It's been in the majority that we've had multiple motions on an agenda. Item. So to simply say that we don't. This is the way we do it. We put it all together to avoid minutia. We actually separate things to precisely convey our message, and I thought, I think it's. I think it is a matter of

[105:00] power control and respect that we balance. If If a board member is abusing the option of making motions, and they're doing it for minutia, and they're doing it in excess. Let's deal with that. We can. That person shouldn't get a second on those motions, but it's also just as abusive to say, Here is a complex topic, and whether it's staff giving us separate motions, or a board number coming forth and saying, I want to convey this message. I suggest the board, you know you don't make a motion unless you're trying to convince the Board to vote in the majority or your motion. So all I'm saying is that within this continuum of everything crammed into one motion and minutia, and twenty or thirty motions. On the other hand, that there is a balance there, and unless unless someone is abusing

[106:03] at either end of the spectrum, then then accommodation and um, it would will likely result in in a better outcome and more comedy amongst the board rather than uh, you know, forcing uh someone to vote against something that they're actually ninety percent for. I got to interrupt you because you use the word force a few times, and if you rewind that meeting. What you will find is we actually Laura made all the motions she wanted. We actually went through a motion making process, and we voted through that process. So the process you're talking about is exactly what we did. A. And and you, you know you're right. You use the rules. So How is that forcing? So? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! Wait. How is that in your perspective? How is it forcing? If we use the rules that you were just talking about. Okay, let's change the word. I'll change the word.

[107:09] No one forced anything. You had a board number who had made a series of motions that the result would have been the same, but we would have resulted in greater precision, less angst, and we would have gotten done earlier had we just simply gone through and voted on those three motions instead. Instead, it wasn't forced. You use the correct procedure. I'm. I'm fine with the procedure. In that case I I was. I was upset that you were calling it a process. Coup. You use the process. You use the vote to say, No, you are. We are. We are changing this to combine all three motions into one. Hence

[108:04] Laura had to make a decision. She wasn't, for she could have voted yes or no, but instead it it it it was. It was an unnecessary and but I don't I i'm going to i'm going to take the floor first, because because we we followed a process, and and Laura made motions and they failed. Then other motions were made, and they were passed. There was no jump in any process. There was no disrespect in that process. We actually followed the exact process that you're talking about. Now, did people do people say some things that, you know, process, coup, or whatever or dis you disrespect me or you you could. You could analyze that stuff all day long. But the process that we actually followed was exactly what you're saying, and and and it was the correct process in that she made motions. They were voted down. There were other motions made, and they succeeded.

[109:04] End of story. I don't understand how that's any different than what you're saying, just because people don't like the outcome doesn't mean the the the process is would have been any different under what you're suggesting. Well, well, I have a question. Yeah, and that and i'm hoping. Um, i'm thinking I remember this correctly. But please correct me, either Georgia or Mark, or anyone else, if i'm remembering wrong. What I recall is that the way it was originally presented to us or the other. The motion that we started with was a single motion with everything together. Then it was split into three, Then a bunch of us got, you know. I'll just say our knickers and a twist about that. We're real happy, and we said, No, no, no, we don't want to do it that way, and then so I mean, did didn't it start out more tight? And then it got Lisa. I think you're missed remembering there was a motion that Staff presented, and then there were two friendly amendments offered. One of those friendly amendments was clearly going to pass unanimously,

[110:08] and one of them was not, and so my suggestion, which I thought that John agreed with, and Hella agreed with, and I guess Hello, wasn't there. Elliot agreed with, and Brad agreed with was that we would take three separate votes on the three issues, and that's what I was expecting going in. But clearly that wasn't unanimously expected. There seemed like there was some surprise that they were not all three combined into one motion. That is, when you know, I said, I don't accept the friendly amendments because I want us to vote on these things separately. I was not trying to prevent people from voting on those things. I just wanted there to be a separate record that that one piece was not unanimous. So I think what Mark is trying to do here with the email that he sent that is, on our screen is to formally acknowledge that Robert's rules are how we function, and that there is no requirement that motions must be combined. And George is right that if people feel so strongly I can absolutely envision a scenario where I feel like

[111:07] mit ctl. And this piece my support for piece A is dependent upon it, being combined with piece B and Pc. Like That's absolutely a legitimate argument to make. I think the Board can have that discussion one hundred and fifty. But I think what Mark is trying to say here is that we do not indeed have a precedent; that motions must be combined. I agree with George. I don't think that we should be having thirty different votes on minutia, but I also agree with Mark that if there is a board member who feels strongly enough that they would like to have a piece separated out, so that the vote is recorded separately. That that is something that we should generally give each other deference on unless somebody is abusing it. That's my position. That's how I have always functioned. Um, you know, as a collaborative facilitator. The most important thing to me is that we are accurately conveying how we actually feel about something. And of course the Board may sometimes choose to do some horse trading and some negotiating and saying,

[112:02] I will go for this, but only if it is packaged with that. That's a legitimate discussion for us to have, because sometimes things are inseparable In this particular case it It was not clear to me that other Board members felt like their support, for the main motion was dependent upon having it packaged with the um uh the the additional two policies being added to the memo that accompanied our resolution. Um, and maybe I misunderstood that. And if so, I apologize for misunderstanding how people were feeling about that packaging. It seemed to me like it was a process question, and that there was a a feeling that the Board had some kind of tradition or precedent where everything needed to be packaged together, and I think that's what we're trying to clarify tonight is. Do we indeed have this expectation that there will be Everything will always be packaged together, or if a board member feels strongly enough about having things some piece of it that they feel strongly enough about to want to split it out like I clearly have voted for things

[113:04] in the past where I felt lukewarm about it, or it wasn't super important to me, or I was willing to go along with other Board Members Prime Example: The Bbsd. The Um Boulder Rally School District Modular Factory, and the Height Question. I wasn't super enthusiastic about making that a recommendation to City council, but I went along with it because I didn't feel strongly enough to vote against it or make a big stink about it, so i'm not. I'm not going to do this every time, I promise you. I don't want us to have thirty votes on issues, either. I'm not going to do this for minutia. I'm clearly willing to go along to get along sometimes, but not always. And so I would like to have that difference from you folks when I feel strongly about something, and I will give it to you when you feel strongly about something. So I think that's what Mark is trying to clarify here. How strongly I am, and what I how how strongly I feel about what i'm about to say. But

[114:03] I I think I do have a strong preference for not having board members. Con be breaking things off. I do want every board member to be heard. I want that to be reflected in minutes. I want counsel to here when somebody has a strong feeling, even if that's like a no vote against the whole thing, because there's a piece in there that I hate, and I cannot vote for this thing. But when you know, and i'm sorry i'm forgetting your exact phrasing and it. But I thought it was really good. Where you said i'd like to. I I think what you said so correct me if i'm if i'm paraphrasing you incorrectly, um was you know deference that if someone feels really strongly wants to split something out that we will um agree as a board Prom. Out, of course, that we will do that. I i'm not sure. That's something I agree with, even when I even if i'm the person who's getting mad about it. Um, I would rather typically, and we don't always do it. Sometimes we we change things and and do things. I would rather when it when it's clear that we basically got a majority. It's gonna pass. Go ahead and take the vote, and like,

[115:02] if somebody wants to go against it fine, make sure the notes, you know. Get into the thing and and and move quicker that way, because I appreciate Margaret, you were saying like, Gosh! We got bogged down in this, and it turned in this whole long thing that didn't need to be. And I agree with you that if we've gone along with that plan that would also put on faster. But when I think back to like, what was the reason why I personally didn't, I think it's because I was like, Please, can we just take a boat on originally what staff put forward. Not split this into three things, because one person has a certain thing they want to get into and just take a boat, you know, and and if and if it ends up being a split vote because of that, then fine Um, yeah, And i'm not saying that that my thinking is necessarily right or good, or as facilitative and cooperative as as you know, you might recommend that I be Laura um. But but I think that is where I was coming from. Um! Is that I I wanted to just kinda move and not split into three things just just for clarification. In this particular case it wasn't splitting up something that Staff had recommended. It was not including extra things that Board members were recommending into the main motion, but voting on those extra things separately, just just for clarification.

[116:13] Yeah. And and I I won't repeat myself. But um, but it, Laura, that's exactly was my concern was when we were voting on that particular motion the motion you were making. I disagreed with voting on what Staff has recommended as the first part of that motion, because I wanted the modifications voted on, and I did not want to vote for for that wholesale without voting for the modifications that I thought were important. So when you, when you, when you put that up front, the first vote that you're making in that case, the way it was written was, You were approving the whole thing, and then separately there was a motion modifying that. But I never wanted to approve that whole thing.

[117:04] And so, when we talk about sort of deference to board members understand that position as well that there is a balance there. Um! And there's always going to be a minority and majority, and you will, you know, all all of us will be on different sides of that as we go, and that's I. I I don't disagree actually with what Mark put down that anyone can make should, and be able to make a motion. But there's also a level of understanding that That was a really simple vote, and my concerns beyond that vote are this: this type of precedent could be used, and and again, to to Mark's point th. The question is, who's the arbiter of what's reasonable and what's not? Because I didn't think the third part of adding a note and voting on that to of. I I think the third component of it was just like referencing a note. It wasn't, even like a material topic,

[118:04] was Was that important to to break that out. And who? Who who says to to Mark's point? What's reasonable and what's not? Um, Obviously we have to hold each other account to that. But in that case you you have to understand. I thought it was unreasonable to vote on what Staff had recommended wholesale upfront, because I didn't want to do that. Um. So that's why I made an alternate motion, and the process that's outlined in in Mark's email is exactly the process that we followed. And if we were to do this again someone could still do that process. Um! And it would be up to everybody to decide whether or not to vote up or down those motions. I don't think anything really changes. Um,

[119:01] I think my biggest point is that um, and i'm glad we all agree. We're going to use Robert's rules. I can. We all agree on that, because that that kind of simplifies things, and and people win or lose votes or make a motion, and don't get a second. I've had that happen. I think, a couple of times. So uh you know I that's a that's always an experience. Um. But I I want to point out that uh in the minutes of our um of the of the meeting where we did the the cip, the capital improvements program. We had the the motion that staff gave us, which we uh I moved. Lisa seconded. We voted seven o on that. Then Laura made a motion that was not part of the package. That was a regard to the municipal Airport master Plan, and a process regarding the master plan. And uh, that motion was uh

[120:08] moved by Laura, seconded by me, and voted seven. Oh, uh! And then finally a motion by George, seconded by Ml. Uh. To recommend the city manager, the City council Uh need to prioritize the approved cip to address unforeseen resource, constraints, and and and safety. And And so that was the third All it was all to do with the cip and those we we had three Seminole votes, but those and those could have been combined into one monster long paragraph, but to what advantage there there is, there is no advantage in doing that. And so by being reasonable. And again, I I can't define reasonable in every circumstance, but by being reasonable and accommodating and fostering

[121:02] uh comedy amongst board members, I think we can both be more efficient, spend less time, and be more precise in our message to the community and and the Council, and I think the cip, our our our motions on the cip, which were six out of seven board members um uh made motions or seconded motions, and they were all unanimous, yet we broke them up into three pieces. I I think it's? It's just like, hey? Why are we actually? Why would we fight about this when there are certainly other battles, or worthy of our angst? Then, then, then, respecting a board members wish, and just uh having a having a uh, a separate vote on a on a more precise motion, mark you are arguing what's reasonable and what's not. I thought what Laura was doing was unreasonable. Okay, And so you're saying what she was doing was reasonable and what I was doing was not. I think that's the That's the crux of the issue, right? And so and so

[122:14] I I suggest we stick to what we have, which is, make whatever motion you want. If it gets voted up, it gets voted up. If it gets voted down, it gets voted down. Don't, because your emotions didn't pass. Don't get upset about it right? And um! I think it is good practice for us to make sure that we're not wasting. Everyone's time and and again, three things is a lot different than thirty. If we would have done this to my point about see you South is, or other large topics. We will exhaust ourselves. Um, but feel free right? Because that's the right of Robert's rules and no one's arguing process here. What I'm suggesting is that beyond this we actually do something that matters, and and summarize and give a person an opportunity for their voice to be heard after the vote is cast,

[123:08] to say, I voted for this, and this is why, and I I I didn't like this, but I had, but I voted for it because it was in good measure, and and be able to capture that for people to really understand what people are voting for. And if people want to break things up, I I I don't think our process that's outlined in Robert's rules suggests anything differently. I just think it's personally your suggestion of what's reasonable and what not I disagree with, because I thought I was being reasonable, and I thought Laura thought she was being reasonable, and she probably thought I was being unreasonable, and so no one can make that determination. So where we landed was actually the right place to go, which was, we put a bunch of motions forth. We debated it, and we and we move forward as a board. So what are we talking about? I I think if you go back and watch

[124:02] the video we're talking about a board that was exhibiting um a uh a at a level of heatedness that was unnecessary and a, and and there were proclamations made. We don't do this. This is not our procedure. And so if you go back and watch the video, I I it it it. Anyway, I I've had uh multiple people watch that segment. And and I I found it to be ugly. Yeah, I think if you what we want to work on things sort of individually as board members, and how we get along better, and we go out to dinner, and we get to know each other, and we understand what our objectives are. I think that's the way to accomplish that. What we actually did in that. Besides, Besides, how we got there was actually the correct the process that you're outlining here.

[125:00] So again, my point is, what are we doing here? If we're? If we follow the exact process of what you're talking about, What are we talking about? So I I want to weigh in and say, I think the thing that confused me most about that meeting. And, George, I may have misunderstood you, but I felt that you were saying that the motion that I made was improper, and that that is not the Board's process, and that you convinced the rest of the board that somehow the way that it was being framed was improper, and should be voted down, and it should all be combined. And so if we can agree, and and I and I appreciated George that you said that you didn't want to change the process on the fly, and that you were open to talking about our process and making sure we're all on the same page about the process going forward, but that you didn't feel like it should be done in the middle of a vote, and I absolutely appreciate that. So i'm glad we're talking about it tonight, and if we can agree with the things that Mark has put here. That Roberts rules is how we do it, and that about any Board member can make any motion they want. That uh topics must be um uh topics do not have to be all combined into one motion,

[126:08] that they can be split out if somebody wants to propose that. And if other people think that that's not what they want to vote for if they think those things are inseparable, for example, or if their support for A depends on B. As you. You said that yours did, George, and that last meeting that that's fine. Then then you can vote it down for that reason, and make that argument, and persuade the rest of the Board to vote it down. If you feel those things are inseparable. Um. So if we can agree that motions do not have to be combined, but they can be combined, or they can be split out. Any Board member can make any motion, and that we operate by Roberts rules. And I love what you said George, about If things, if somebody does feel like the vote does not reflect something that they think should be reflected in the minutes that they have the opportunity to put that into the minutes. Um, I think that that's a um that all makes me happy. So if that's where we land tonight, i'm very happy.

[127:00] I see Brad has his hand up uh might be able to contribute a bit. I appreciate all of the conversation, and my comments here are meant to really speak to any of the opinions that have been expressed, but rather just to share. Um, I I think you all recognize that Roberts rules includes, uh, you know, presentations, etc. Etc. And then an emotion is put forward, and then there's always discussion right? A motion should always be followed by discussion, a a motion in a second. If there's a second, then that there would be discussion and then vote before any new motion could be made. That discussion point. I've seen uh groups and and myself um, you know often that's back and forth discussion about whatever the motion is

[128:24] in the right context to get something in the minutes of of why you're voting up or down, you know, for for particular motion, as opposed to feeling like you have to talk about it after the motion is made. Um, at which point it's moved, and and may not sway another person's opinion at that point. Um. So that that is a very common practice, and I just want to share that um, and and not to get off this line of discussion. But just since i'm speaking uh and all energetics, so that it's not forgotten. Um, You had asked staff to um have a uh

[129:02] formal presentation or time uh set, if I side to talk about process, I believe we're team that up with our consultant don't hold me to that. Uh, John, I think you and Sarah talked about that with Charles, and I just wanted to remind the group or inform them if you didn't know um that we are working towards that um specific presentation and um education topic discussion topic. However, you want to characterize that uh early in the in the New Year, so just wanted to clarify that. And, John, you might actually know more than I do like. Yeah, In fact, there were some. There were some dates proposed, but I don't think any decision has been made on that in a January. Yeah, George. Um, I I I What Laura said, which is I like, I said. I agree with Number One, and I agree with number Two that anyone can make any motion they want.

[130:04] Um where I don't necessarily think it's necessary to affirm. More than that is that I don't believe there's not a precedent that motions must be combined, because there are scenarios like. See you South, where we have voted on a tremendous number of things all together. That is a precedent of of that vote, and we all explained why we were voting, how we were voting, and the things that we agreed with and didn't agree with. So I don't. I don't believe there's not precedent for something like that, and I don't think it needs to be stated one way or the other, because what we are, what we would be firm in this is that anyone can make any motion they want, which is what it says in Robert's rules to begin with, and it's exactly the process we followed, and the outcome we had. Whether or not we had this in writing like this verse, something that we did afterwards would be the same exact outcome.

[131:03] Um, but but affirming, but but but being specific about one thing and not about another. When we get into the specificity of number two, um verse, just being able to, as board members make whatever motions we want, and have the freedom to do that. Um, I I think, leads us down another rabbit hole of minutia where um, you know, we might want to start laying out what's reasonable, what's not? And all these different things that I I think, is, you think I think it won't serve us well. So at least one Yeah, I agree with that. And I think and forgive me because I think there are other people who review this meeting more recently, and I haven't and thank you for the corrections you've already made um to my recollections of something that happened a while ago, and in an emotionally heated situation, and where we all got kinda turned around. But, um!

[132:03] My recollection, which may be true or not, Um, is that it almost felt like we were pre litigating the motion, and I think that's where I sort of got frustrated. I was like just just make the motion. Let's see if it passes or fails. I think we've got enough, so it's going to pass. I know that may not be what everybody wants, but like, let's go and like, and and instead it just I don't know um. And and again I think this gets to the correction you've already made made um about. You know where it started and what it turned into, where it was or wasn't um, and so that that's where, when I look at like A and B. I. I totally agree that there's no press in the motions. Must see the combined, or must be split apart, or sure I I I agree with that. But I I don't know that we need to say it, and sure so are more specific motions may allow for greater precision. Um. And and also there may be times when you know we just go ahead and take a vote on something. Um, recognizing that maybe I hate it. And i'm going to vote against it because i'm mad about maybe all of it or some of it, and that's okay, you know, like, let's let's just go ahead and move um,

[133:07] you know. And so maybe that just shows my uh preoccupation and bias toward um a faster process. Um, uh, but but that was kind of from my recollection, which I'm sure is not perfect, and I have not reviewed. Um, you know. Listen to the recording. Um, yeah. It It felt like there was this push, for, like I don't know um and and I and I think that's where I was reacting from without having closely reviewed where it was at. And and that's why, when I look at a Andb, i'm like, Yeah, I don't have any problem with those on their face. But i'm also not sure that whether we affirm or don't, affirm those that it's necessarily going to stop us from having. And hopefully I I think we're all speaking about this in a in a good way. Um, I hope we don't do that again. But I I don't know if it's gonna prevent it from happening again. And so um, you know. I I guess you know, to not belabor it tonight. I I don't. I don't need to talk about it a whole lot more. But um! I appreciate

[134:00] Mark bringing this forward. I appreciate the work um that Laura and and you know everyone's putting toward thinking through this and trying to figure it out. I I agree that you know when and as appropriate as seeing each other outside and continuing to work on it is important. Um, and I i'm just not sure that, formally affirming or adopting A and B is necessarily going to prevent the repeat. I hope we don't repeat it anyway, for other reasons. But i'm not sure. It addresses it just for clarification. Mark, Are you suggesting that we formally affirm or adopt these things, or you are just hoping to have a conversation about it. You're on mute mark just to have a conversation, so that, uh in in a lighter earlier uh setting that we we could avoid um. What I thought was a corrosive event in the future.

[135:02] Okay, Ml: Thank you, John. Um. I was not at that meeting. I did watch the video of it, and it was a very difficult meeting to watch. Um! My, The perspective that came to me from watching it was that. And I think this um suggestion came at that training that we did um at our retreat is, I I think, we need to give the chair the authority to the and to and to be able to say, Okay, um. One or two more comments.

[136:02] Let's take a vote to be able to curtail the round and round that that seemed to happen at that meeting. Like I said I was not there. I watched it. Um! But there was just in around and around and around, and I I think that that our chair should have the authority to say, Okay, we've gone around it around. If there's nothing new to put on the table. Let's let's have some votes. Let's articulate um. See where we all stand, and and let the votes drive conclusions or or not. But to me I think that that is the missing element is we need to get. We need to have our chair feel like he has. He or she has the authority

[137:02] to um to call the halt to a round and round situation that is exacerbating people's energies, and I I think, making this an ineffective board. So that would be my suggestion. Let's add on there. You know the chair. The chair has our um our agreement. We give him the authority he ever heard the authority to um to step in. So I love that you said that Ml. And um, and all daylight uh brief um offline comment that um Sarah and I had where um and and I there. There are many things I actually uh prefer and enjoy, with with apologies to harmon about John's leadership style. But one strength um of harmon's was

[138:05] um sometimes in ways that I pushed back against and didn't appreciate. Uh was was kind of rapidly moving us forward on on things and kind of uh running uh, uh in in my again. Sometimes I felt an overly tight ship. So there are things that I like better about about with the way you do things, John. But, um! But I had mentioned to Sarah kind of I was like, you know we could maybe use a little more of that uh the harvest style, even though made us both mad sometimes. Um. So um, yeah, with without in any way uh not enjoying and appreciating John. Still, I I think that's a good observation, Ml: that um that we we might all benefit from a firmer hand at times. Um and and John it at least for speaking for myself, and visually and kind of echoing at all, you know. Feel free to exercise that. Um, even if i'm the one who waxing on and on, I I think I think there are times when that's really beneficial. Okay? Well, thank you. This is,

[139:01] I. I agree with you frankly. Uh, I was conscious, you know, in my my practice is generally been to consciously promote more discussion rather than diminish it. But I certainly understand that if there are times when it's not productive, and it's time to move ahead, and I will keep that in mind and try and act on it. No, no, I my hands shouldn't be up, and my mic should be off. Okay, Well, what I think this was a extremely useful. I don't think we need to take any sort of a formal decision or response on this, but I think it's very useful to keep it in mind when we have our process uh uh meeting. That staff is putting together for January February. Right? Yeah, and not to draw up that conversation. But I just want to as

[140:01] as a really, appropriately so outside of server in this particular conversation. Say that I do really appreciate um. The effort. All of you are showing the um, you know, emotional commitment, and and how closely you've listened to each other. I think you've really embraced and embodied. Uh the discussion that took place at the retreat. And uh, you know, from a staff perspective, we um we're happy to support the board in in its many needs, and and and I just want to express that appreciation and and observation of you this evening. Thanks. Thank you all right. Any other matters, Lisa. I just want to re echo one thing, and and that is the thing that haunts me most about anything like that, and that I really appreciate about Mark bringing this forward that I hope we're taking away from this

[141:00] is that I think, when it gets heated, an emotional. And I I know this is true for myself and perhaps for others as well. It's often because I feel like i'm not being heard like people like Aren't absorbing like what i'm saying and like. If I just said it the right way, or if I sit in enough times, or like something that, like, you know, it would get through, and then we would like all be like on the same page in the same place. So um, I I just want to say that, and I really appreciate what George you brought forward about um, you know, making sure that if someone does agree with something that we make this face for that to be reflected somewhere, because I think that's incredibly important. I think Council needs to see that I think we, as individuals, need to feel like we are seen and heard, and that even if people aren't agreeing with us, or even if a boat goes a different way. Um, you know that we're still recognizing It's not that that our points didn't get across, and perhaps we'll carry the day next time, and someone else will be in that spot. Um, you know. So I I just want to highlight that because that that's again the thing that haunts me most about when we get a longer heads isn't isn't even the conflict right? Necessarily it's it's, you know. Do, are we? Does someone feel like they're being shut down, and and I hope not, you know. And just someone feel like they're not being heard, and and I just I want to make sure that we um

[142:10] find ways to run efficient meetings and and move forward well and follow. Where was Robert's real support, and and and within that also make sure that people feel, seen, and heard, and like their views, are reflected in getting um, you know recorded and and moved on to decision-makers. So I am sorry to anyone who felt silenced, and I know I have felt that was something in the past. But then I show up in the minutes, and I'm: Okay. But um, it happens. Okay, Any other on the different issues. I I have one just to ask staff. I noticed that Shap is is initiating the their hybrid meetings uh in person and uh online, and i'm hoping that, uh we get the chance to move into that phase also pretty soon.

[143:02] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. You know i'm sorry. I didn't think, to mention that earlier we have been encouraged to move uh to hybrid, which means live for you all um as soon as possible, and and we absolutely want to a staff, and we know you do as as board members as well. One thing that's a little bit unique about planning board and landmarks for uh in in particular, is the need to have the clear dias from um the area of the audience. As you know, some of the um. Many of the other boards do not regularly generate larger crowds, and so that's not a consideration of theirs, but in light of that, and for consistency we're waiting until we can get into the Council chambers um to be able to pull the hybrid meetings and to do that requires some training and new equipment. Um in in the chamber.

[144:10] Okay, Well, so keep trying. Keep keep working on and brag. I just want to clarify. So um did I correctly understand that when uh the meetings move back to a hybrid model that the expectation will be that planning Board members are physically present at every planning board meeting. That certainly is the intention. I can't say that we, as a city have developed a policy around that one hundred and fifty, and frankly, that might be something for uh the Board to consideration, Brenda, I don't know as we kind of move forward if we can keep that question in mind as well. Yes, I was just making a note to myself to bring that up the next time I have a check in with Sarah, that Um! That request is coming from planning board that we have some sort of consistent policy around um expected board attendance, either in person or um, whether you can be hybrid as well.

[145:05] Yeah. And and I would say um, and and perhaps This is something to have a conversation about at a future session again, not trying to make this meeting longer, though at least it's not as late as it usually is. Um! But for myself, as the parent of a young child, you know it showing up one night a month, maybe even two nights a month. Um might be absorbable, you know, when we move to three, or if I've got a sick kid, or you know I I can see a lot of situations where I would be out, you know, and and potentially, we might not make forum, or I might not be able to carry out my duties. Um, or like. I know Sarah has to travel quite a bit for work. I don't. I don't know if other folks do um, so it'd be nice to have a consistent policy, and my preference would be that there's an expectation that you know the majority of meetings, or fifty percent of meetings, or something that that we're there present, and I think there's great value in being physically present. And also, if we always have to be, I think we may have um lower attendance, and or you know, when we look to add more people to to to um playing board the other, it's gonna shut it down for a lot of folks uh, including potentially, some folks we already have on the board. Um, so just want to name that,

[146:14] and i'll just share, if I may, that what Council is currently doing is that if they have a reason that they need to attend the meeting from home, they have been allowed to do that. Um. So Council Member friend was um not feeling well a few weeks ago, and she attended on zoom um. In addition, they do all of their study sessions. Um virtually still, and that's the plan going forward. So it's really only for their business meetings where they're making decisions that they um strive to be in person. Yeah, I think if if we feel like that can be done in a way that's full of everyone that would be. That would be nice. Because again, yeah, I hate to like, call out and be like Well, I have a mild cold like, so i'm just not going to show up, or if I could call in and not infect everyone that'd be nice,

[147:01] Mark I I just. I just wanted to clarify um. I was looking at council schedule and stuff. Uh, we have a meeting scheduled for Tuesday, the twentieth uh, and that seems to be almost in the break period for other boards, and I I just I didn't know about other People's travel schedule, I i'm planning on being available for it. Um, I I I haven't looked at the calendar to see what the uh genet topic is, but that would certainly seem to be one that if it's some big site, review, or a critical thing uh that, you know it would be susceptible to um for attendance uh given as proximity and people's travel. So I just wanted to confirm that that it's two concepts, reviews, mark. Just so, you know. So thanks. Okay. Anyway, that was it. I'm sorry I don't Sarah. I don't know what you were looking at, But when I look at the um planning and Development Services calendar for December, you're talking about December twentieth right, mark.

[148:09] That is, a Maybe I was being a December sixth. My apologies uh no worries so December the twentieth is when the site review criteria comes back to us, and that that one feels like a big one that we wouldn't want people to be absent for. Yes, Oh, my, uh, we can make sure to do our attendance polling very early so devin. Maybe if you can make a note that we maybe do that, say next week, so that we've got a good handle on that. Got it, Thank you and uh, I sent some dates in the chat that I will not be available in January for a meeting with Marrow, and planning to make all of our planning board meetings. But if we're adding something in early January I am out for a considerable stretch in between planning board meetings. Okay,

[149:02] good good information to have, so we'll uh. So you'll do that, poll, and we'll consider if we actually have that meeting on the twentieth depending on who's able to participate. So okay, any other matters we all talked out. Us talked out does seem premature to end it. But uh, unless anyone has anything else, I propose we adjourn. Okay again for everything. Let us adjourn. Thank you. Good night. Have a great night.