March 5, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Hey? Everyone! Welcome to the March fifth, 2024. City boulder planning board meeting. calling it to order. let's see 1, 2, 3, 4 5. We're all here. Great but we have to do a roll call. I'm sorry, Laura. Here we'll have to teach ourselves. Remind ourselves how to use our mute buttons. Curt. Ml. here. George, who's who's making us feel horrible about all that blue water behind him. and Mark here, and Sarah's here all right. Thanks. All if you could, please, Vivian, walk us through. Well, actually, is there anyone here? Is there anyone in the on the computer who's raised their hand for public participation. We have one member from the public, and I just want to clarify that the open comment is not for the public hearing items that are coming. They're on the agenda later. So open comment is

[1:09] to talk about anything, not on the agenda, and we do still have 1 one hand raised. I think Thomas will share the slides and and I'll talk to them. Okay. great. So welcome. We have one member from the public with us so far. and thank you for joining us tonight. My name's Vivian, and my role in the meetings is to facilitate the public engagement part of the meetings. and I'll just read with you some of the rules of decorum for for engagement in these meetings. First of all the city is engaged with community members to Co. Create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and we want every one to know that the vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members

[2:04] as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. And you can go to our website. If you want to learn more about this vision and and how we arrived at the vision next slide, please. and I'll just share some specific examples of rules of decorum found in our boulder revised code and other guidelines that support our vision for public participation. and these will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation, intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves by their first and last name, to be called on to speak. Next slide, please.

[3:00] So to let us know that you would like to speak. You raise your hand and then we will call on you when it is the right time. and I will just stop there. And I think we can just go straight to open comment. If that's okay with you. Sarah, is that okay? I am very happy with that. Thank you. Okay. Great. So, Jen Burton, just a reminder. You have 3 min. To speak at OP. Open comment. You can introduce yourself as well. Please go ahead. Good evening. Planning board and staff. This is Jan Burton, a resident boulder. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes. I have reviewed your letter to counsel your initial letter for the Retreat, and I notice that you haven't mentioned continued work on the area. 3 planning reserve at Council's direction planning staff has been working on the initial urban services study for 2 years now, and I would imagine they have periodically updated you

[4:00] at 500 acres with approximately 200 acres owned by the city. The planning reserve will provide by far the most intensive and affordable housing possibility for the city of boulder. It is very important that the city manager and planning staff understand the importance and the sense of urgency to prepare for the Boulder Valley comp Plan process next year to move that property from Area 3 to Area 2. By omitting it from your letter, you are sending a not so subtle message that it may not be a priority. Now, I'd like to bring up the airport. Your current letter recommends that council initiate further study of scenarios 3 and 4, a recommendation made despite the conclusion drawn at the end of the community working group and final report by Kim Lee Horn, which I will now read for long term considerations. Community members recognize that there are great challenges to expanding the types of land uses at the airport property and or decommissioning the airport

[5:02] overall. Community feedback indicates the community community desires to keep the airport and improve conditions in the near term while creating avenues for better coordination and compliance with the community's desire for less noise and pollution from airport operations unquote. So does it really make sense for the planning board to make a recommendation against the community preference which was chosen at the culmination of $350,000 consulting effort and many months of work. And should you recommend that work commence on a process before council actually makes a final recommendation on the airport with the East Boulder subcommunity plan. Tbap, 2 CU. South, and other sites with thousands of housing units. We simply don't need to destroy our airport. I would suggest that you remove it from your letter. I'd also like to note that one of the 2 people working on this letter has been the primary initiator of a community effort to decommission the airport. So I do request that each of you take your role seriously in the development of this letter. Thank you so much for listening to my thoughts and for your service to our community.

[6:17] Thank you, Jan, for joining us tonight and sharing your views with the planning board. Any other members from the public wishing to speak during open comment. This would be the time to raise your hand, otherwise we'll be moving on. Okay, Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You have 3 min. Could I ask Vivian first? Can I speak to the South boulder flood plain? No. you can do that later in the meeting there's a hearing. Yes. Oh, thank you. Okay. Yeah. I'm opposed to the destruction of the airport. You know. Tell you right in. Aspen could not survive without an airport. You know. Wh. There's so much building going on here now, the Millennium, the all of the the Hill Hotel, the Cross, the Hill Hotel, the Hill Hill Hotel, the all of the development in Boulder. We need an airport. We need it also for cargo. When we have used up all of our egg line on housing.

[7:22] you know the ultimate housing word. You know what you know. What's there is a housing madness going on in this community? now, and now it's going straight for commercial to housing. All the commercial has to be housing. Well, guess what we've got. We've got so many jobs that we're this is just like gossip, you know. We're dropping food, and we're throwing bombs. It's ridiculous. See, you South is getting built up so big. All of all of the development in town. And yet.

[8:00] Hmm! I'm just overwhelmed. I don't even know what to say. It's so outstanding what's going on here, you know. We're giving up our our historic spaces. The Western resource advocates. This is this is infuriating. They were given somehow. I don't know if this went through planning board a permit for to go up from 30,000, from 19,000 feet to 30,000 square feet, because they're going from commercial to housing right? Well, guess what they're now whining that they've got a demo because they can't meet all the parking demands of the. And it's ironic, because that's the whole problem. Here is with more when we have no control over the population. And we're and we're not doing jobs, housing balance. Where are the comments about jobs, housing balance? Where seriously people? This is the problem that we have here. Whit. There's nobody at the wheel

[9:00] boulders just flying off on too much housing, then too much jobs, too much everything, and meanwhile our population, you know. Sorry. But my brother says, Go if you want. If you want a big city, go to Mexico City 22 million people. It's sinking because they have no more water. No, they've used up their aquifers. So you know this, this space is reasonably small, and and see yourself is a friggin disaster and well, I can speak later to the flood issues, but the other things with boulder that are going on now there are other de demolition potential demo demolitions like at 1015 juniper for a perfectly good place that that is near the flood plain, but doesn't need to be. Thank you, Lynn. Your 3 min are up, but thank you for joining us tonight over to you. Chair. Thank you.

[10:02] We have no minutes to approve. So we'll move to discussions of dispositions, planning board call ups and continuations. We have one call up. Item 1345, twenty-eighth street floodplain development permit. Fld (202) 400-0002. A floodplain development permit application for the phase. Temporary construction fence plane required for demolition and redevelopment of the standard at Boulder Project. The callup period expires on March thirteenth of this year. Does anyone? Edward is somewhere Edward Stafford is somewhere. If any. Does anyone have questions for Edward? Okay, ml, I see your hand up. Thank you. So I have one question. I understand that this temporary construction fence is there during that demolition and redevelopment. So for the whole. So my question is, how long is it gonna take for their deconstruction of the existing buildings that will be removed.

[11:04] I don't have an exact timeline. I know they're actively working on abatement measures now, and are anxious, as I understand, to have the demolition completed sooner rather than later. But I don't have their current timeline for construction. so do they have an actual deconstruction plan, where they will be reclaiming and recycling rather than tipping everything they do in compliance with the city's regulation on deconstruction and recycling of waste. okay, and that doesn't have a timeframe doesn't have a required timeframe. Anything other than a building permit. Building permit can be active for up to 3 years. As long as there's continuous work happening out there. I know that deconstruction, of course, for this project will not take anywhere near that amount of time. Alright, okay, thank you so much? That's my only question. Okay, does anyone want to call Kurt? Thank you. Yeah, Edward, I just had one question it. The the plan for the fence, it looks to me, shows the fence on the outside of the western, most north, south path.

[12:12] and it seems like that theoretically could be moved just a few feet over to allow access via that North South was any consideration given to moving that in a few feet to allow for for mobility via that path. So I believe that they're looking to ensure that they can keep general public separated from construction areas. We have been working with them on what will happen, and how they will continue to manage the Boulder Creek path. But there is not a requirement for the North South to be open. Going through the property during construction. It's also not necessarily part of the criteria for the flood plain permit itself. We continue to work with them on the other permitting as necessary out here, which always includes looking at how traffic control for all modes is done through construction.

[13:02] Okay? Yeah. I understand that this is separate from the the flood link. Ii would urge you to consider whether it might be possible to keep that north south path. So, thank you. II don't think it will be during the majority, given the amount of grading and other work that has to happen in there. But we'll certainly take that. Make sure that we take a close look, but I just don't want to set a expectation that we may not be able to meet. Understood. Thank you. Okay, any other questions. Does anyone want to call this up? Okay, not gonna get called up. Let us move on to public hearing items. Item number one agenda, a agenda title, public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on a request for annexation of an approximately 27 acre property, located at 5,600 table mesa drive, with an initial zoning designation of public P. And associated Wetland Mapping. That's LUR. 2, 0 2, 4, 0 0 0 one. And Kj is our intrepid staff person tonight, and we have set aside an hour for this total.

[14:14] Kj is going to make his presentation, and then we'll ask clarifying questions. Alright, thank you. Chair silver and actually, if I could, I know we've we've started this item. But I wanted to just quickly correct the record on ms. Burton's public comments just related to the area. It's replanting reserve that staff. even though that was identified as a priority project in 2022 staff just initiated that process. At the beginning of this year. And so we'll be bringing additional information to you on that or services study this year. Well, thank you. Let's see. Good evening. Planning board. Let me go ahead and get my presentation called up here for you. and I will share my screen.

[15:11] Okay, are you able to see the full presentation? Yes, we are seeing a thumbs up. Okay, great good evening. Planning board. My name is Christopher Johnson. I'm the comprehensive planning manager for planning and development services. So I am here this evening to present the information regarding this proposed annexation initial zoning for the property that's generally located at 5,600 table mesa drive for Case number 24 0 0. 0. The annexation is related to the construction of South Boulder Creek Flood project, and that's particularly spillway floodwall. noticing of the application, has been completed consistent with the boulder Revised Code. All the noticing requirements established in section 9 4, 2 have been met

[16:01] written notification was mailed to all the property owners within 600 feet of the proposed annexation area. and signs have been posted on the property for at least 10 days and to date. No public comment directly related to the proposed annexation has been received by Staff in response to that public notice. As I think you are aware, annexation is the process to incorporate land into the city boundaries. Land may be considered for annexation if it complies with State annexation, statutes, and the policies of Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan the Comp Plan provides a framework for annexation and urban service provision within the city, and particularly relevant to this particular case policy. One debt, or 1.1 7 subsection. H. States that publicly owned properties in area 3 are allowed to be annexed if they are intended to remain in area 3, and will require less than a full range of urban services, or they are being included in the city jurisdiction for health, safety, and welfare reasons.

[17:05] and if a property is annexed. Zoning is also then established according to the land. Use designation, a lengthy snap of the Bvcp. As you can see on the map here the proposed area for annexation is addressed is 5,600 table mesa drive it includes just over 4 acres of city owned property that's currently managed by our open space Mount Parks Department. You can see that in green on the on the Graphic, just south of the highway And then also included in the annexation is approximately 23 acres of the adjacent right of way. So a total of about 27.4 acres currently, the area is within the jurisdiction of Boulder County, and is zoned as rural, residential as far as existing conditions. You can see here in the photographs will take a little bit of a tour. Heading from west to east. This is the on ramp onto us. 36 coming from Foothills Parkway.

[18:06] Most of the area that is being proposed to be annexed is C dot right away. That includes the Us. 36 travel lanes, the multi-use path that runs adjacent to the highway, and then, of course, the Associated Median and shoulder areas. And then the city owned portion is south of the right of way, and is comprised primarily of natural lands that are part of the band lead south open space. So looking at the Comp plan planning areas, map the city owned property is within area 3 south of the highway. Portions of the C dot right of way are split between area 2 and Area 3. You can see there. That area to is primarily on the west side area 3 on the east side area 2 is the area where annexation into the city for urban development can be considered if it's consistent with relevant Bbcp policies

[19:01] and then area 3 refers to the area where the city and county intend to preserve rural land uses the Bbcp land use. Designations for the proposed annexation area include open space acquired for the city owned property and then for the right of way. It's a combination of park, urban, and other in public semi-public land. Use designations. the as you might expect, being in the vicinity of South Boulder Creek, and really the subject of this flood mitigation project. The site is impacted by number of flood plains the 100 year and 500 year flood plains also part of the command zone, hazard zone, and just a note that these boundaries will change the boundaries within the area, and also, of course, downstream will change and be remapped as a as a result of the flood mitigation project forthcoming as part of the annexation process. As I mentioned, the city must also assign zoning to the property. So the zone district that is proposed in the application is to apply public or P. Zoning to the city, owned property and to the right of way public zoning is defined as public areas in which public and semi-public facilities and uses are located, including without limitation, governmental and educational uses.

[20:24] and you can see that there is also public zoning applied to several other properties that are directly adjacent to this area. and then, finally, the annexation area has also been set for wetland habitat, and there were 5 wetland areas that were identified. All of these were identified as high quality wetlands, and therefore will include the standard 50 foot buffer as part of the mapping which would be adopted as part of the annexation. For this portion. More detailed maps of these areas and their full functional evaluations are included in your agenda packet as attachments after the memo.

[21:03] So the 3 key issues identified by staff for discussion this evening as part of this annexation proposal is, does the annexation request comply with applicable State statutes? Is the proposal consistent with the city's annexation, other Bbcp policies, and then is the initial zoning of public appropriate for the subject property. So, on the first item in terms of State law. The annexation petition is included in the application. You can see that it's consistent with the statutory and constitutional requirements the site does meet the required one sixth contiguity to the city, and then there is a community interest to annex the property, and the area is capable of being integrated into the city of Boulder In terms of city policies on the annexation the site may be considered for annexation, with a portion of it being located in area 2, and then the portion that is within area 3 falls under the conditions allowed by that policy, 1.1 7 subsection H, and just more specifically

[22:09] those area 3 properties may be considered for annexation if they meet these specific criteria, that they be publicly owned, that they remain in area 3. And there's a category called Area 3 annexe, which is applied to area 3 properties that fall within the city boundary. That they will not require the full range of services, and that they are being included within the city for health, safety, and welfare reasons. The application is consistent with other annexation policies described in the BBC. P. Including 1 point O. 8 and 1.10 the annexation will also facilitate construction of the South Boulder Creek Flood mitigation Project, which addresses. Several other BBC policies related to the ongoing life, safety and environmental aspects of managing flood plains. You can see listed there.

[23:00] Items 3 point (212) 223-2425, an overall status consistent with the relevant Bvcp policies. and then finally, in terms of zoning. If a property is annexed, then the city zoning would be established consistent with the goals and the land. Use map of the BBC. P. As described before the proposed zoning. It's public. We staff finds that the proposed zoning is consistent with the underlying wage. Use designations that are Osa open space acquired pka, which is park serving our other and public semi-public land use designation. It is also considered to be a logical extension of city zoning. Given the existence of the public zone districts in the immediately surrounding context as well. So, in conclusion, Staff does find that the proposed annotation is consistent with State statute consistent with the Bbcp and other city codes, and that the initial zoning of public is consistent with Comp. Plan and the link use designations therein.

[24:06] The proposed zoning is also a logical extension of the city and compatible with the surrounding context. So the staff recommends a planning board, adopt the following motion to recommend a city council approval of the proposed annexation of the area of land located at 5,600 table mesa drive, with an initial zoning designation of public P, and the proposed wetland mapping and functional evaluation. all pertaining to case number LUR. (202) 400-0000ne, and incorporating this staff memorandum. And this event. and happy to take questions. Sarah, you are on mute. hey, Jake? I'm sorry. Can you put up the the questions? The key questions sure. Give me just a moment.

[25:02] and while you're doing that Thomas, can you please? Is there any folks in from the public listening in? We only have one attendee from the public right now, and no raise hands. Okay, great alright. Thank you. Alright. So Kj is, gonna pull up the questions. And these are. when we get to our discussion, these will be the questions we'll focus on right now is the opportunity for clarifying questions to Kj, I will call on Curt first and then ml. okay, jj, thank you for that. I have a question about the zoning. Are, is there any real implication to zoning for as public as opposed to Zoning Park, for example, or some other something else that would be maybe similar. Yeah, I don't. You know, I don't think there's necessarily any significant, you know. Potential ramifications of that. I do think that the public zoning designation provides a lot of flexibility for the construction of, you know the required infrastructure. And you know, any kind of access that might be needed for ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility going forward.

[26:23] whereas, you know, some kind of a zoning dated specifically to parks or open space might might introduce some limitations to that. So so we felt comfortable. You know, being consistent with that public zone district as it's applied in other areas. Provide that would be the most appropriate. Oh, great, thank you. Sarah. Looks like you might be muted again. Sorry. Lynn. We know you have your hand up, and we will get to you when we get to public comments. I was just trying to gauge whether there were a lot of folks in the audience who wanted to speak.

[27:01] So then we will get to you. Emel, you're next. Thank you. thanks for the presentation, Christopher. So, my, I just have a a. I don't know a a question for clarification on the why is it called initial zoning? Is there ever any thought that it might become something other than this? The zoning that is presented in this motion. Yeah, I would. I would not anticipate or expect that to change in the future. I think just just the fact that it's changing from county to city jurisdiction. We have to establish what that that first or initial zoning would be. But no, I would not anticipate. That would change going forward. So it's just procedural language. Okay, thank you so much. Alright. Any other questions. Alright we will go now to public comments. So, Vivian, if you will reappear like magic.

[28:02] Tada, Tada. anything from my video doesn't wanna okay? Lynn. I am assuming you still want to speak. But if you can just go ahead and raise your hand. Okay. please go ahead. You have 3 min. Yeah. one of the BBC provisions that required the health, safety, and welfare of people would not be recognized by this annexation towards Sioux's takings. Illegal takings of this property. the city of Boulder had access to be able to buy this. There were backdoor meetings, 23 meetings that caused, the arrangement between flat iron gravel and and the reclamation not being completed.

[29:05] The city's pain. 63 million bucks an'll probably be over a hundred 1 million. I'm paying 4 million more by this not being a 500 year flood plain the flood 500 year. Floodplain was approved by C. Dot and by everyone. But see you wanted more land. We, the CEO does not own the city of Boulder. They do not. This is the city, and see you is, see you. we have no business giving them handouts when we have homeless problem. You know I'm at 54 degrees right now. and this is how I am. All the time we have our own needs to meet in this city the millennium taken over by CEO, the hotels there's gonna be a competition between the 2 hotels at see you. This is not. This is not okay with me as a resident of this place.

[30:10] the reclamation never happened as it was supposed to. And yet we're put. We're putting in. What are we putting in here? Let's see, this is 1010,000 15 cubic yard truckloads of fill to raise. See you South gravel pit, which was never remediated, never the reclamation, the fixing of it, never happened to build highways 36, or whatever it got used for. Why are we paying for that. Why are we paying now? There was an agreement. It was never kept up. There's no evidence, through a core request that the 500 year would not be approved and see you finagled their way. There were council members taken 2 by 2, so that there could be no public hearing

[31:06] for this issue. This is a takings. This is this is just not okay. We need to change the way the city operates, and watching out for our own interest and not being boxed around by a big bully like. See? You see you, it's a good thing I have 3 generations of my family that went to see you. but just not too much of a good thing. Variant 1 500 year. There was a huge engineering, expensive engineering study that was done. and it was a go. but it wasn't enough land for see you sorry. Lynn, we started the timer late. I let you speak a little bit more than than 3 min. Thank you for your comments. No other. Yeah, no other hands raised.

[32:02] Alright. Thank you. Kj, please put the questions back up. Sorry they're just. They're not in the packet. So okay, it's okay. All right. We'll start with key issue one, which is but state statutes as the annexation petition comply with applicable State annexation statutes. Does anyone want to speak to that? Laura is a thumbs up? Is there anyone who's a thumbs across that they'd like to say something. No. So we're all good with this. Yep, we're all good with this. Okay. key issue number 2, Bvcp policies is the proposal consistent with cities, annexation and other Boulder Valley Comp plan policies. That's gonna be a nice short meeting. Excellent. Okay. Key issue number 3. Zoning is the initial zoning of public P. Appropriate for the subject property. Does anyone want to comment or question on that?

[33:09] I'm seeing all thumbs up alright? Then I will read the suggested motion language, and then ask if someone would like to make a motion. So the suggested motion language is motion to recommend a city council. Approval of proposed annexation of the area of land located at 5,600 Table Mason Drive, with an initial zoning designation of Public P. And the proposed Wetland mapping and functional evaluation, all pertaining to case number LUR. 2, 0, 2, 4, 0 0 0 one. Incorporating the staff's memorandum of findings of as findings of fact. Does anyone want to make the motion themselves? I was just reading it so moved alright. I'll second that. Thank you all right. So Ml. Made the motion, and Mark seconded it. Is there any commentary on the motion?

[34:04] There is not okay. Laura? Yes or no? Yes. Kurt. Yes, George. Ml, yes, Mark. and Sarah's a. Yes, so it passes 6 0. Thank you. Kj. okay, now, we're gonna move on to agenda. Item B, public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on proposed ordinance, 8, 6 2 4, to adopt wetlands, mapping, and functional evaluations for a property generally located on the 308.15 acre parcel. and generally known as See you South at 4, 8, 8, 6, and 5, 2, 7, 8. Table mesa drive 7, 1, 8 Marshall Road. 0 highway, 36, 2 parcels and 4, 7, 4, 5 West Moorhead and I.

[35:02] Where are you. Edward? Edward? Alright, I believe I'm here. Thank you. And hopefully you can hear me. I've lost some of my screen. There we go alright. getting used to too many different programs tonight. Alright? Well, thank you. I have a short presentation here. This is slightly unique. That board has not typically seen us do well when mapping and functional evaluation is a separate process. We'll talk about it for a moment here. So we will talk tonight slightly about the background on location, the key issue of discussion. The 2 parts of the key issue, the brand new determination and the process for it, and the function evaluation for it, and then staff recommendation. Public notice on this project was provided. Mailed notices were provided within 300 feet of the property as is required. The Well and Development Regulations and the Boulder Revised code

[36:03] signs were also posted on the property. We've had a couple of public contacts regarding the project primarily with questions about the Flood Control project and looking for more details, or where they could find the information on the mapping that was done. We responded to those questions little bit of background. This is about the property that has been called. See you South, you're at the list of addresses in the introduction. This property was originally annexed to the city in 2,021 is part of a process that most of you, or, I believe, involved in at the time. you know, certainly heard about since typically wetland boundary determination and functional assessments are done at the time of annexation for the goal to revise Code and section 9, 3, 9. This particular project, though there was an agreement as a part of the annexation agreement to defer that process. It's all. Not all. The information was available at that time, and, in fact, on the screen. You see the snip out of language that came straight out of the annexation agreement that allowed a deferral of this

[37:02] beyond the effective date of the annexation. I mean. It is now time to complete that in order for the projects to continue to move forward, this mapping and functional assessment are required to implement the stream. Wetland and Water Body Protection regulations that are found in the Boulder revised Code and sorry for a little bit of frogginess. I am actually getting over a case of Covid from last week. So you'll excuse me there. Hope you're feeling better this week at least. Not there, but better just a reminder. The property we're talking about is that which is outlined in red here the property that you just may in a recommendation on annexation is the property that was outlined in black above. So this is the property of C. South itself. The key issue that tell you face tonight in this discussion is whether or not the planning board finds that this ordinance implements the requirements for the mapping and functional evaluation. They're found in 9, 3, 9 k. And 9, 3, 9, I. The Boulder revised Code.

[38:03] It's step through both of those justarily here. Starting with the Wetland boundary determination, the Boulder Revised Code provides the guidance on how to do the boundary mapping. The determin termination as per the code is in accordance with the 1987 core of Engineers, Wetlands delineation, manual and subsequent annex that has been provided for the the area corvus environmental consulting was hired by the city and completed site investigations and multiple years on this property, starting in 2019 2021, and the most recent in 2023, to determine the wetland boundary or the boundaries of the wetland areas that are present out here through that work. And that report is a part of your packet. They've determined there are 19 specific wetland areas. They are defined as 19 different ones? Is there different characteristics that make them unique each and of themselves? Those 19 areas comprise just over 54 acres of the land that through this process would be denoted as part of our stream well and water body protection area as wetland boundaries.

[39:10] The second part of this is the functional evaluation which is also requiring the builder revised code and helps provide direction on the quality of and the protection characteristics that have been applied of the code to the wetland areas 9, 3 9 l. Gives the direction on the functional evaluation, and it requires that it follow the criteria and process determine in a 2,004 report called the City of Boulder, Comprehensive Wetland Remapping Project, which was done in the map. Wetlands at the entirety of the jurisdiction in 2,004. It's a qualitative assessment with scores assigned for specific number of functions. As they relate to the wetland. a high functioning wetland is determined, if the score total scores are 26, or higher, or if there is at least one function of the rating high or very high for a high functioning wetland area. It's required to have a total of 50 foot of buffer, 25 foot of an inner 25 foot of an outer buffer. The buffer zones are part of our regulations for the stream well and water, body protection, and depending on which buffer you are in kind of limitations. The type of work that may be undertaken in the mitigation that may have to occur for any impacts within those buffers.

[40:20] low functioning wetlands, or those that have a score of 25 or less, and require only a 25 foot buffer rather than a 50 foot buffer. All 19 wetland areas were evaluated. Put this up here not so that you can try and decipher everyone on those scores was in your packet, of course, for more information, but you can see they scored all of the different categories. In accordance with the report and the requirements of builder advice code through that of the 19 wetland areas, 17 determined to be high functioning, and 2 would determine to be low functioning the 2 low functioning ones. One of them is a small area point O, 3 acres located on the northern side, near South Loop Drive, that is primarily a roadside swell, disconnected from other water sources and disconnected from

[41:09] criteria that would have rated it. A higher quality. Well, in Number 14 is the other one that was low functioning, found from the further southern area, and as a topographical depression of about point 7 3 acres out of the total acreage of 5 guys that you may recall almost 50 or just over 54 acres designated overall development. This particular one is found also to be an isolated and not have a high quality. Characteristic staff has reviewed the environmental reports and the environmental analysis done by Covis, and has found that the band determination and the functional evaluations do meet the applicable criteria found in the Boulder Revised Code and 9, 3 9 sections K. And L. And we recommend the Planning board recommended the City Council. The adoption of the ordinance and the motion recommendation is here

[42:00] city Council. Should they adopt. It would then put into place the regulatory wetland area. I will note that the these areas or this approval is not actually specific to projects, be at the Top Boulder Creek Project, or any other development project that would be undertaken on this property. This will set the area that will be regulated, and those projects will then need to follow the boulder revise code requirements for development occurring within a protected area, and we'll need to go through proper permitting processes at that time. To to show compliance, and for determination of compliance to be made with that. That is the end of my very quick presentation for you tonight. Alright, Edward, thank you very, very much. Do we have clarifying questions for Edward? Mark. And then, Kurt thanks. Edward, thank you for that presentation of the 19 areas identified

[43:03] And were. how many of those? And or is this information that we have? Or do we care about how many of those were created by the gravel mining at what we call Sea U South. or existed prior to that. So when we create, I guess. What I'm asking is when we create a wetland through a process like mining gravel mining extraction. Once we've created that Wetland. is it treated the same as a wetland that was there geographically in its natural state. Historically. you know, that's an excellent question, and the general summary is, yes, it is treated the same. So the termination of wetlands now are based upon what the conditions are on the ground as of today, and did not necessarily look back at a historical pre mining or pre use area

[44:09] and so we did not make a determination between what may have been created through that versus what was previously there there likely would have been some differences where you can see some part of this potentially being considered is when you look at the functional evaluation and the characteristics. Sometimes those that are created through a more man-made process may not have things such as a a good connection to a hydrological or a water source that creates a higher quality. Well, web. of course, through this we have found that 17 of the 19 meet those types of criteria that do provide for higher functioning wetland. Our boundary determination regulations don't allow us, or don't allow an applicant to discard an area because it was created through work previously. It also does not require. If a new one is created post mapping, then it necessarily has been mapped at that point

[45:00] after its creation. So this becomes the current snapshot in time of the area and would be in place and lesson until a new boundary determination and function evaluation. We're either requested by an applicant, or we're undertaken as a larger work program in the city. Okay? And just a follow-on question. So as see you. we we've received as a community and as part of the annexation. We've received very basic and preliminary plans from see you for where they would actually place buildings and and develop the property. What would become city open space, etc. does do those very preliminary plans if overlaid on to the wetlands mapping? show

[46:01] areas of high probable conflict or problems with permitting in the wetlands? Or have have we already laid out with Cuz cooperation areas for development that are outside of of the 19 wetlands that you have shown on the map and put in the table. So we, you know, do not have more specific plans, and what was in the original annexation and 21. This particular process, in terms of the mapping does not take into account what the development desires are of either see you for their property, or honestly for the South Boulder Creek project either, and we'll have to go through evaluation for both of those projects. So it is, of course, possible. But this will have an impact to one or both of those. Now, that being said, the South Boulder Creek flood project has been looking at, and has known that well, when delineation would occur, and it'll have been working through

[47:01] that information, I believe. See you as similar in the very conceptual work that they've done, and that they agreed to as part of the annexation agreement when they agreed that they would meet the city's requirement for the protection of the stream. Well, in water body areas. Does that answer your question? Yes, it does. Thank you very much. Alright, Kurt. Hi, thank you, Edward. My first question is, you said that the consultant study this? I think, 3 different years, 2,01920 something in 2023. How so? Some of these seem like they are ephemeral, I guess, is the right word, like some of the seats, may be seeping one year and not seeping the next. How does that information get combined so that information can partially come into play in the functional evaluation if it's to spirit. Enough, it likely has had an impact to the quality of the vegetation, the habitat, some of those areas that are in there. That is also partially why they prefer to have a multi year approach to your security determination well, not required. It can be done at one time. That can help to identify if there are certain additional pieces, access to water is only but a component of the actual delineation. And so, having access that may not be continuous.

[48:26] but is often enough to create the habitat and vegetation type area still then qualifies to be mapped and protected under the regulations that we have. I'm sorry II missed the last thing you said. Something about access to water is not required. Access to continuous flow of water is not necessarily required for determination that there is well in there some level of water. It would be very difficult to have a wetland area that did not have regular enough access to water, but it doesn't necessarily require that it have a 365 day a year flowing access. Yeah.

[49:03] Okay, great. Thank you. Are there any other clarifying questions? Alright, we can now go to public comment. Vivian. Yep. if anyone has wants to make a public comment, please raise your electronic hand. Vivian, I'll call on you. Yeah. we just have Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Lynn. You have 3 min. So is your timer working properly this time, because I want my full 3 min, please. Yes, you're already 4 5 s in Yup, but I lost 13 s last time. and I need to know what I have. I don't approve of this wetland issue because it it moves towards approving. See you and sees development. The reclamation should have been done originally

[50:06] there was, let's see what it was. 16 million flat earns. Gravel paid 5 million, and the reason the city didn't buy it. probably for 9 or 10 million. was because the reclamation was not complete. and there was an agreement that the reclamation had to be done. and it was so. The whole thing is illegal, so I can't support any part of this moving forward. This is an unethical, illegal development. and so many illegal things have happened. and inappropriate and completely unethical. It can't be approved at any level. Of course, I love wetlands there and then there's 2 of the areas that are low level. That's fine. But II wouldn't.

[51:05] I couldn't ethically approve or support anything that moves towards a much bigger unethical problem, which is that the city of Boulder never was able to buy the place because of these meetings behind the scenes, and this this amount of money that that that the city needed to wait until the reclamation was done. and see. You knew they could weasel something with the 5 million as a tax credit for flat iron scravel. and that they could get as they have with their 100 year flood plain. We're building up their flood plain to 500 year. and our own is a hundred year. Does that make sense? Is that watching out for the public health and safety and welfare of Boulder, as was described in the last hearing of the Boulder Valley compliance. No, it was not.

[52:02] And how could you ethically be approving anything to do with this further development of Cuth South? It it's not right to do that. you need to go with variant 1 500 year. But, more importantly, S. The city of Boulder should be able to buy that land back for what was originally agreed upon with the reclamation in place. Done. Alright we'll now go to board discussion. The key question we've been asked is this planning board find that the proposed ordinance implements, the mapping and functional evaluation requirements of section 9, 3, 9, K. And section 9, 3, 9 l. Brc. 1981, for Wetlands, located on the subject property. Does anyone have a comment?

[53:04] No, George, hey, George, if you're there, we need to see you. Just Fyi. Thank you. Thanks. Sorry. So no comments. All right, then I will read the motion language. Planning board recommends that City Council adopt ordinance 8, 6, 2, 4, adopting wetlands, mapping, and functional evaluations for a property generally located on a 308308.15 acre parcel, and generally known as Cu South. At 4, 8, 6, and 5, 2, 7, 8 table mesa. Drive, 7, 1, 8, Marshall road, 0 highway. 36, 2 parcels and 4, 7, 4, 5 West Moorhead, and setting forth related details. Anyone make that motion so moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Thank you. Okay. So Kurt was the second Laura. Yes, Mark. Sorry, yes.

[54:00] but yes. George. Alright. yes, and Sarah is a yes, so it passes unanimously. Thank you, Edward, go have a nice evening. Hello! Alright! We'll now move on to matters. Which is the letter to City Council. Appreciate Laura and Kurt. pulling together the comments that we made last week. My guess is there's still gonna be some comments. So why don't you walk us through where we are. Kurt, would you like to take the lead? Sure, either way. I can start off. So first of all, Laura had the great idea of separating the to the the 2 items that really are just promoting projects that are already undergoing and putting those at the beginning under a separate section. So that's the Parking, Tdm and Ntp program. And then also Ml's idea about the embody carbon investigations. So those we tried to pull out separately, initially and briefly.

[55:26] and then. But but we did add in that inviting carbon, one from about. And then we talked about potential new items including housing affordability for the Dvcp as part of the Vdcp Update, and I don't think. did we make any significant change to this? I think we just trimmed it down and made the language tighter.

[56:00] and then the airport. B, promoting the housing study or study for scenarios 3 and 4 of the airport again. We cleaned up the language a little bit on this. and I think tightened it up. We. The next one is the housing choice survey. And let's see, we tried to respond to some, some input on that. And So do, do, do, do. yeah, we just we. We change the language hopefully in response to the input last time. And then we added the idea about the diagonal plaza area plan that came from George and put in some language there, that hopefully will be the the the George and others will find appealing.

[57:04] Laura, do you have anything to add there. I don't think so. I mean, I think I would just say about the housing choice survey. We tried to add in that idea about you can see the last line. I don't know if you want to put the language up so that people can all see it together or we can all. Look at it. I can tell you that I'm gonna want that last sentence out. And and I'm gonna want the the the commentary, the Talmudic commentary about these, these clause in the first sentence. tasks from pricing realities. That's not how a housing choice survey is done. This is not an econometrics Survey. It's a housing choice survey. so I will request that you remove detached from pricing realities and remove the last sentence because it's just about a housing choice survey. And this isn't about housing prices. We can do a housing price survey in some other way, or have can do it.

[58:03] But that's not what this is about. Apologies, Sarah. I thought that that was something we discussed at the last meeting. I you you suggested it, and I didn't feel like fighting about it, and I knew when it came back this week I would say, I didn't want it in there. Okay, we can take it out. Sarah, did you have a a thought for how we're going to decide whether items remain in or remain out or get taken out? Are we going to vote on each item? Well, since I read the con, I read the directions from City Council last week, and they want to hear what we want, and if there are disag, if there are points of view that disagree, we can add that in as well. So I don't think we need to vote on something I've honestly don't recall we've ever voted on a letter to city council. Ml.

[59:02] thank you, Sarah. Would it make sense to kind of look at each of these. I guess suggestions one by one. And just see, are there any changes? Are they good the way they are thumbs up, thumbs down just each each of them, one by one. That way. We don't get tangled up and jumping from one subject for one item to another. I think that's a good suggestion. And George has his hand up. And I like that suggestion as well. Yeah, it's great. And and I'm just catching up, obviously, because I wasn't at the last meeting. Just a quick question. Is there any reason why these are numbered or ordered a certain way. Be just helpful to understand as we walk through particular order other than we thought it would be efficient to put the current items at the top.

[60:00] but the other one's no particular word. Yeah. Yeah. Well, if we're gonna do group edits, perhaps either Amanda or Thomas could put the letter up, and could be our scribe to do the edits. Does that? Does that work for you, Sarah? Sure Amanda's not here today, so we'd have to be Thomas Thomas. Then. second, I can pull up the second draft of the letter. Okay, thank you. So you said, I think, Sarah, you said that you don't recall ever voting on this before or voting on the items in a planning board letter before we did discuss previously. That if we got 4 votes on a particular item we would keep it in, otherwise we would discard it. So are you thinking? That's what Laura recommended, and my all I'm saying is.

[61:03] I cannot recall ever voting on a on a letter before they're meant to be. you know, and the hope is that they're consensus documents there. So if you guys want to vote, if that's what you guys want to do on each item. that's your choice. II would not recommend that I don't think that's particularly helpful, especially when there's 6 of us, and you could end up with 3 3. And then, if we're using the rules that we use. The item is rejected I would be fine with if somebody wants it in, we leave it in, and if somebody has a comment. As Sara pointed out in the City Council letter, they said you could have, like majority minority opinions or a different opinion. but recorded that works for me if that's what people prefer. I don't have a strong opinion on how we do it. I am looking forward to working through this and trying to get to a letter that we can send and support.

[62:06] We run through the letter real quick. Come up with the areas that where we have consensus. Hopefully. It's the majority of it. and then discuss the areas where we may or may not have consensus and decide what to do. Then good idea! That sounds fine to me. and I'm just realizing that I sent something to Amanda that I should have sent to Thomas in case it's needed. I'm going to do that real quick. I got that document. Amanda forwarded to me. Okay, thank you. Okay to folks. Is it? Okay? If I run this through this and I can step out if somebody wants to run a different item, like, if the airport item, somebody else wants to run that that's fine. Okay. So for parking transportation demand management and neighborhood parking permit program. Did anybody have any edits or concerns about the language here? Everybody thumbs up. You're okay to keep this in.

[63:01] So wait. Sorry I would. Only I would use the word reform in these interrelated areas could bring us closer rather than can bring us closer. II just think. like everything else, the devils in the details of these things. So II don't want to promise something that we can't necessarily deliver that would. That would be my only edit on that. Any objections to changing that word can to could. No. okay, Thomas, if you could make that change. You did thank you. Any other comment or discussion on Number one only only other comment on it would be and it it goes with the whole document. I would switch out the the numbers to bullet points only because I don't think we're trying to put any. Doesn't sound like we're trying to put a priority order on this. Anybody object to doing bullet points instead of numbers? All right. Thank you for that suggestion, George. Okay, changing the number one and number 2 to bullet points.

[64:01] And while Thomas is working on that, let's talk about him. I'm just gonna make a note of that and do the formatting later. I don't want to mess up the whole document right now, or approving the final document next week or on the nineteenth. I'm sorry. Yep, thank you, Sarah. Good reminder. Okay, those will become bullet points embodied carbon investigations. Again, we. We wrote this to try to capture this idea that we support that staff is looking at this and that it can be experimentation that leads to clarification. Any discussion changes. ML, thank you. yeah, I I'm not sure that experimentation is is a good word I would use. Maybe we support research leading to codification in this area experimentation.

[65:00] Mel, what would you think of data, cope research and data collection? Sure, II think, yeah, that's that's been, yeah, I like, that's totally fine. So that would be one comment. the other. The first sentence we're encouraged to hear the staff is exploring ways to incorporate embodied carbon quantification and reduction. I would consider changing quantification and reduction to to incorporate, embody carbon accountability into city energy code and building code. Anybody object to that change? Yeah. I II think accountability is slightly loaded in this context, in terms of

[66:01] accountability implies to some degree wrongdoing. and I and I understand that we are doing wrong when we have high embodied carbon. But our goal is reduction. Our goal is not punishment. Our goal is not accountability like you did this. and and II think, quantifying it and then reducing it. That's our goal. And accountability, I think, is loaded in this case. And I would II would recommend against that. Yeah, I guess I was looking at broadening and with the with the end goal being, let's account for the carbon and what there might be other strategies than quantifying and reducing. So I was looking at expanding. the

[67:04] the the actions that we're looking at. I'm I'm totally fine with with not II guess II wanted it to be bigger, not smaller. And that's totally fine. If Mark has an objection to using a award that is broader. right word be accounting rather than accountability. Yeah, I was gonna say, if we changed quantification to accounting embodied carbon accounting and reduction. Would would that help meet the need? I think counting and quantifying are really synonymous? No, they said, accounting. counting, accounting. and and quantifying.

[68:03] I don't really understand the distinction between those terms. Well, Ml, it sounds like you're okay with quantification and reduction, and I'm sure that if city goes beyond that you'll be happy with that as well. Yeah, II that that was just my and then the last thing I would suggest is on the last one say we support. I don't remember what was the word we research and data collection leading to codification in this area. I wonder if we might put after codification, so that it's not limited to only codification leading to codification and broader understanding or broader referencing in this area would be the only thing that I would suggest. And that is so that the the research and data collecting can land in

[69:03] in other kinds of processes rather than just codification. So again, I was looking to expand rather than limit it. Does anybody object to adding, leading to codification and broader understanding in this area? I don't object. I don't see any objection. Any other thoughts edits on this one. Okay, we have. We have the top 2 done. Now, we're into recommendations for potential new work plan times. Oh, I did want to ask we had a commenter raise the importance of the planning reserve, and felt that by leaving that out we were deprioritizing it. I'm not sure that that was my intention. I think that we didn't make it a work plan, item, because we felt it was well covered, but I think we could. We could put that in this section here to say that we support Staff's efforts to you know. Laura and Kurt the zoning for affordable housing. 2 is a work plan. Item. So it should actually be.

[70:09] It's something that that's what Staff told us last week. It's an actual. It's already on the work plan. That's why it is 2. So I think we would want to just make it a third bullet in the existing. So the suggestion is to take this housing affordability as a focus area of the 2,025 BBC p update and just move it up into the previous section, which is about our support for current work plan items. And I would be fine with that. Mark has a thumbs up. Kurt's nodding. Yes, Ml, is nodding. Yes, okay. So we're going to take that one and move it up into the previous section while we're on this one. Let's stick with this one. Are there any edits or changes that you want to the language here? We took some of the previous language out for Sarah's suggestion. Sarah, how do you feel about it now? And George? I think George had suggestions on this apologies, and George too.

[71:15] No, I I have a little bit of problem with sort of some of the editorializing that's going on in this letter. But I'm not gonna I. It's not. I'm not gonna follow my sword for it. I'm okay. Okay. And then, before we leave this section I'll go back to the comment I was making that we had a public comment, or raised the issue of the planning reserve being missing from our letter, and that by being missing from our letter that could be interpreted, as we don't think it's a priority. I think we all do think it's a priority, but I think we didn't put it into the letter, because we felt we didn't have anything to add. But if we want to put it in this section as something that we support, we could add that for next time. How many folks? I don't think we need to add it. It's already on the work, I mean. I think the the transportation stuff matters to Mark and to Kurt and the affordable housing stuff matters to all of us.

[72:07] The planning reserve process is already underway. I don't think we need to reiterate that much. So I appreciate Jan's comments. Does anybody want to add it? Okay, I don't see anybody saying that they feel strongly prefer to get through the letter as written, and then see, you know, if it makes any sense. So so just reserve that a little bit towards the end. Okay, one up top. we can double back towards the end. Thanks for that suggestion, George. Do we want to talk about the airport one, or do we want to skip it for now and come back last time we did it last. Let's just go through. We're going through it. The letter from top to bottom. Okay. So this, again is about further study of airport scenarios 3 and 4 airport scenario, 3 being an airport retention and growth scenario that was preferred

[73:01] by the airport supporters and scenario 4 being decommissioning. I can respond to the public comment about this, if people want. But I see there are questions. So let's go to Sarah first, and then Mark. So my suggestion here is that we edit this down significantly. And because you I you know so much about it that you are, I think, trying to convey all all the details, and I don't think the Council needs us to convey those details. I would suggest. That you have you use in order that council make an informed decision on future land use. If decommissioning is viable, we recommend a work plan, item, to estimate full potential build out and impacts of scenarios 3 and 4 period. then followed by at Council's discretion, they might may want to add this item to the work plan, but hold initiation until after the staff. Report on feasibility of airport decommissioning is in veil is available in of 2024, and then get rid of everything else. It makes the point.

[74:04] You're you're conveying your idea. You're setting a timeframe for the idea. and I think all the rest is essentially commentary. Okay? So if I understand your suggestion, I'm going to repeat it. Thomas, could you scroll down to the next paragraph? Okay, so you're suggesting, Sarah, that we start with this this paragraph here and at the number 4, yeah, move that to the top, Thomas. Think you can. Yeah move it to the top in front of the future. Okay, and then eliminate the future all the way to at. So then eliminate this next sentence to to the Yes, stop there

[75:02] and then, after of 2024, just get rid of everything else. I think you're making your point pretty strongly. Don't delete any of that stuff yet, because I know there's gonna be discussion. But I think that first paragraph then conveys what you're trying to convey. I think that does. I think you're right that it does convey the gist. I might want to retain some of the remaining language. But thank you for that suggestion. Sarah. Mark had your hand up, and then ML, yeah, I'm I'm gonna pass her right now. Thank you. Okay, we'll come back to you if you want. Ml. yes, Laura, thank you. So the question I have in that first paragraph, in order that Council may make an informed decision on teacher issue on future land use if decommissioning is viable. So you're asking for a deeper dive into scenarios 3 and 4. Scenarios. Scenario 3

[76:04] does not decommission the airport correct. And you're making that sentence says, if decommission need is viable, then let's look closer. These, but decommissioning that it. That's still an airport in scenario 3. Yes, and I can explain that Kurt had the same question. So this work plan, item, here is, it's basically an intermediate look at these 2 scenarios. They exist now in a very rudimentary kind of thumbnail sketch form. and doing the full analysis would be either to do like an area plan for the airport which we're not asking for or to do an airport master plan. If you're gonna go with an airport that's like the full shebang study. If Council has made a decision to go one direction or another either go into an airport, master plan, study. If you're gonna keep the airport or go into an area planning process if you're gonna decommission it. What this work plan item is is saying, well, if Council needs help needs more information to make that decision. This is an intermediate work plan item, to do more analysis, but not go all the way to fully do an airport master plan, update, or to do a area planning. If decommissioning is not viable, and we're going to keep the airport. Anyway, we would just go into an airport master plan update. We don't need to do this intermediate step to help Council have information to make a decision.

[77:26] So that's why this work plan item would go away. If decommissioning is not viable, we would just go into an airport. Master plan update. Does that make sense? Ml. not not really. I mean, I think. At the end, you're saying council discretion. They may want to add this after the feasibility and the decommissioning It seems that you're putting an and or up there, and and making it less clear as to

[78:00] as to what it is we're suggesting here. Yeah, I'm sorry. I know that it's confusing. The the whole idea behind. This is that Part of the reason why we don't have more information about these scenarios is because it was not a work plan item. especially for PN. Ds staff, who are very busy last year, and so this is saying, put a marker in your work. Plan, make room for staff to do this if Council is gonna want it. But they may want to hold off on asking Staff to do this until after they get the staff work product they have already asked for, which is a which is information about its decommissioning viable. I'm sorry that it's so confusing. But no, I understand. I understand the point. What? I guess. Scenarios 3 and 4 would be explored. if decommissioning is viable, why wouldn't that sentence just be

[79:01] after they're gonna have that decision about decommissioning the airport right in. If decommissioning is seen as viable, then that's what you're suggesting that you start with that. If we're already saying. you may want to wait until you know if decommissioning is viable or not. So that sentence at the bottom, that saying, Oh. study this if it's viable. But then, if it's viable or you might wanna wait until after it's viable or not. So there's something awkward. I think what I'm hearing you say is that we're really the way to have this paragraph should read something along the lines of when the so when city staff submits its report on the feasibility of airport decommissioning.

[80:02] and if the report says decommissioning is viable, we recommend City Council. Add a work plan item to estimate potential full build out and impacts of. Yeah, that makes that makes more sense to me in that we're not backtracking ourselves. Yeah, I just don't know if City council can add a work plan item in July or August or September. When the report comes in. They have to fix the work plan now and make space in the work plan. That's what the retreat is for in April. I don't think they can go back and add to the work plan. but maybe I'm wrong about that. I don't know if just a question. If you guys want to speak to that. Brad, if you're there, can you speak to that? Alright if you get the mute button going here.

[81:00] Yeah, just about the viability. The question of whether, if a workpl can a work plan item be added as information becomes available in the middle of of a of a council cycle. So new information will be added in in July. Yeah, it's not locked in. So now, council only provides a very, very high level input on work plan. We, we have literally hundreds of other work platforms. So part of my job is to just move and juggle those around and or advice council trade offs if there are major new initiatives. But then. you know, absolutely is he has an can be, and is a a somewhat regular part of the year's just to elaborate a little bit on what I heard you talking about, too, about the distinctions of

[82:00] of what this envisioned work plan item would be. It. II think I am tracking on this idea that if the Council says. Hey, we're not gonna decommission just go ahead and do the master plan for the airport. That's that's one avenue, or. hey? We are going to decommission, go forth and do a sub area or sub community planning cause. That would be our daily wick. That's one path. I'm hearing this recommendation of a potential first step. which is. if you are inclined, counsel to decommission. we recommend you, do a built out in impacts assessment based on number of hangers, housing units ex etc., so that that that was my understanding of the draft.

[83:00] Yes, I think I think the idea is that if they are at the point where they think decommissioning is viable, but they have not yet decided to decommission or to keep the airport, they could use some more information about what is the full build out and the impacts of these 2 scenarios before they make that decision. because currently they don't have a lot of information upon which to base that decision. They don't really know what the full build out and impacts would be of either of these scenarios. So it's not a full blown master plan. It's not a full blown area plan. It's just an estimate. It's just some analysis of the potential build out and impacts. Okay? So I see some hands up Kurt hasn't spoken yet, and then we'll go back to Mark and then back to Sarah. Thanks. Yeah. I would like to say that I support what I what I understand the gist of Ml's and Sarah's comments to be that this really should be contingent on the outcome of the decommissioning study. If the decommissioning study determines the decommissioning is viable, then we should go ahead and do this study. But if decommissioning is not viable, then we don't want to spend the time working on this. That's my perspective.

[84:08] and that totally works for me, Mark. II concur with Kurt, and, in fact, the sentence could begin. Should the current decommissioning study allow the option of decommissioning, then planning board recommends the study. A Thomas is trying to type it out as you talk. So so I would just say they're not doing a decommissioning study. So I think that language is slightly inaccurate but I might want to tweak it, but I understand the gist of what you're saying. But so begin with a qualification. Should the the decommissioning evaluation initial evaluation. Whatever show that decommissioning is possible. then planning board

[85:06] recommends an expedited study of scenarios 3 and 4. So that Council has data on which to make their decision about further airport usage. I think that. Yeah, I think we all agree that I mean what I'm hearing propose sounds completely reasonable, and that we can reword it in that way, and I think we can curt, and I can work with Thomas on this, and come back with language for next time. If this is something that folks agree makes sense. I would suggest we just knock out the language. Now, I mean, we're we're we're close to it. And let's just let's just get it to a point that people are comfortable.

[86:01] So maybe what we start with is eliminating all the other paragraphs. And then we we focus on this one paragraph that works for me. So yes, so you would delete the oh, it's doing that fast, scrolly thing. maybe go ahead and delete the graphics. First cause. I think that's what's screwing it up. Thomas, do you wanna go go ahead and delete those 2 graphics. and then you can go ahead and delete the paragraph above. I won't fall on my sword about that. I think there's some useful detail in there, but I think Staff get it. Yeah, all of that. Okay. So we're gonna start with. Take that sentence that says, Oh, go ahead and finish. Okay, take that last sentence and move it to the top.

[87:05] I would change it to say. should the current staff research. Oh, no, sorry! Starting at the first, the first sentence. Very first sentence in the paragraph. Should the current staff research into feasibility of decommissioning the boulder municipal airport show that decommissioning is viable. then you can delete allow the option of decommissioning? Just go right right to week. Go right to Where did it go? We recommend

[88:03] from then planning board to we recommend. Where's the we recommend under right past the viable right there. So from that point back to then planning board can get rid of that, too. Yeah. thank you, Sarah. So you can delete that. We recommend a work plan item to estimate potential full buildout and impacts of scenarios. 3 and 4, okay? And then you can delete the last sentence. Yeah. So cause it. You've already set the time. Yep, delete that. And then I would just add scenario 3 and 4 from the 20. No, no, no, you can just go back to the 4 delete the period from the 2023 airport community conversation. That's where the scenarios come from.

[89:03] Okay, group editing accomplished anything else we want. do do you? The only the one of the things I would say would. Well, I guess the question is, I like the idea of the 2024 tie, if that's the right timing. just because whoever's reading this may not, may not grasp on to that. This is might be a midyear issue. I think that's a great point. So I think we can put that in. Okay? So it currently says, should the current statutory staff research into feasibility of decommissioning a boulder municipal airport do, you can put start there after airport boulder municipal airport. Do DUE. Or anticipated better word anticipated

[90:02] to be complete in Q. 3 of 2024. Is that what you mean, George? I think that's a good addition. Thank you. Do you want to put that in parentheses? Just so that it reads easier, the anticipated, to be complete in of 2024. It's already kind of a old fashioned and hard to read. Sentence, should it show? Okay, everybody. Good. With that language. Yeah, it's quite beautiful. It really does speak, it really does clarify what I was primarily concerned about. Thank you, Sarah, for getting that. Your mother could teach me a thing or 3. Okay. Housing choice survey. The most recent housing choice survey. Okay? So what I would cut out is

[91:05] Thomas from at the first sentence the word from detached to the period. so remove the detached from pricing realities. Eliminate that. Well, I don't think we need it asked about housing choice. If we don't have the rest of that sentence. because if you look at the 2 24, if you read the 2014 Housing choice survey, it's not about housing prices. The only question they ask, or the only questions they ask that are relative to price is. what is it that you given that you? What given that you already own a place somewhere else. What would you need to move into Boulder? And it's not about price it's about. you know. What do you want. You want a single family home. You want a condo. You want a town home. Do you want a pediatre? Do you want a one bedroom like that's that kind of question understood. I'm just saying that I don't. If we're gonna delete that which I see that Kurt and Mark might have some thoughts about that. But if we're gonna delete that part of the sentence I don't think we need. And it asked about how? Yeah.

[92:12] And then the other thing, I think should be taken out is the other sentence that has to do with economics, which is the survey should test for interest in both market rate wait, wait test for interest in both market rate and permanently affordable deed, restricted units of various types and sizes. Okay, that's fine. Just le lose the the clause there included realistic information about pricing and deed restriction covenants. Okay, Thomas, if you could just set that aside for now, because I think that Kurt and Mark might have. And Ml. I'll have their hands up, and let's we can. We can go back and delete it. But let's just hear what they have to say first. So let's go, Ml. And Mark, and then Kurt last to put my hand up. I don't want to open. Okay, then we'll do reverse. We'll go, Kurt, and then Mark. And then Ml, Kurt.

[93:02] Hi, thanks. Yeah. I do not support this item. If it is detached from the housing price. It's like asking somebody, well, do you want a rolex or a Cassio? And I think that the outcome is not very useful, and that to me is the fundamental problem with the housing choice survey that was conducted in 2,014. I think otherwise it's helpful. But if it's detached from from pricing realities, then it just doesn't give us very useful information. So I don't support this. If we don't include those aspects of it. Thank you, Kurt Mark. I concur with Kirk. Thank you, Mark. ML. So the question that I'm wondering, and this might not be the mechanism to get the information through. But it seems like all we're approving, or the vast majority of what we're approving is student housing.

[94:04] do we know that we need student housing. I mean how I get it. The developers want it because of the return on investment and all the economy of it. But is there a need to drive the number of that housing type that we are looking at coming forward. I'm II don't know the answer to that, and it may be simple, but so I can respond to that. So I think you're asking. II think there's a subtext question and a question. Question. So see, you only houses, freshmen, and a few others. So there's something like 25,000 students who have to go find housing, and many of them find housing in our housing stock. that is not specifically built for student housing. And so they are a ripe market, which is why

[95:07] students are, why, why, why developers are building so much student housing here. And it's also one of the this. This recent tell recently one of the investments that the large real estate investors were interested in cause. The return is so fabulous. The second, the subtext question is, what a housing choice survey. Just tell us what all these students want. While you would organize, you'd structure it the same way you structure. They structure it in 2010, or similarly to 2014, which is, you're focused on specific demographics, you know, families in commuters, people over some age, you know. You'd figure that out and so you would be able to if you wanted to. You could. What's the word? I'm looking for? sense out students.

[96:02] I think that was the subtext of your question. Well. yeah, I don't know. Fence them in or out. I'm not sure which one. But do we get students input into this? I mean, I think if there's a housing choice survey which I, you know, curt to your the there's not a you're we're not doing an econometrics study and people who want to live in Boulder will pay what they can to live here, and we all know it's expensive to live here and expensive to live here for a whole host of reasons, including most primarily the expense of the land. So that's not gonna change. I think you all trying to put a finger a thumb on the scale to prevent the city from having the information it needs

[97:02] to about what kind of housing people who want to live here or do live here, or commute in here need or want for them to live here, which would reduce in commuting which was the whole point of it originally. But if you, whoever designs a housing choice survey would take would focus on whatever it is that city council wants them to focus on that. They want to focus on in commuters they could focus on in commuters. They want to focus on students. They could focus on students like that. You focus on the demographics you're trying to, whose needs and interests you're trying to understand. Thank you, Sarah Mark, you had your hand up, but it went down. Yeah, I, I'm fine. Okay. II would like to comment so. I don't see asking a question that includes the realities of the world

[98:01] to be putting your thumb on the scale, and that if you don't ask the question with with economics and motivations of people in mind. then that not only is not putting your thumb on scale. It's like throwing the scale out into space to float around. So if if we mark, we do know, Mark, we do that all the time with transportation stuff and parking minimums. We never, we never, ever account for the economic realities of parking requirements ever right. We don't account for the subsidies to our auto focus industry, but that you know what our our auto focus system that we've built up over decades. So I actually have a suggestion that I think could end the argument potentially. I don't wanna cut anybody off. But let me just throw my suggestion out, and then I will go back to Mark and Sarah and George or you also have your hand up. I know you wanna get in here.

[99:09] My suggestion would be rewrite this item the way that the item author would like it to be written, which is Sarah. And then, if there are other planning board members that feel we would like to recommend, including realistic information about pricing and deed restriction covenants. We can make that a separate line and say 4 members recommended adding this element, or 3 members or 2 members, or whoever many supported that and that way it's written the way that the author wants to write it. And then there's a an additional piece of information from people who have a different idea. Sarah and Mark, are you okay? If I go to George he has his hand up. Sure. Okay, George. yeah, II have a slightly alternate suggestion, which is the less is more approach that we're trying to take in this thing. I II don't know that

[100:02] we're equipped to be designing a survey in this letter. so I think my goal in having this in here is to having a ser, a housing choice survey. II do think it will take a lot of consideration, because. similarly economic, which which I'm not. I'm not totally opposed to some kind of economic, you know the realities of the realities. but you can also expand the trade-offs to well, if I can buy a house in Longmont, for you know a 3 bedroom house and Longmont for $600,000, or I have to be buy a 1.2 million dollar house in Boulder that 3 bedroom house or I could live in a a 2 bedroom condo for $800,000, and we give them the choice in the housing. Choice survey of you. Get the 2 bedroom, condo that you can stretch to afford.

[101:06] or you get the 1.2 million dollar house that you can afford. What I'm concerned is left out in that is. you have the $600,000 house in Longmont where this person's gonna move. and then we're gonna have a survey that's off to. And II don't know how this will all play out. But I would suggest recommending a housing choice survey, which I think is something we can all agree upon. and then, if it gets added to the work plan. let planning board and city council and staff work towards a survey that's going to accomplish the goals of boulder which I don't know that we can solve, for in a paragraph. I am a okay with that curt thank you, George Kurt or Mark. Would you like to respond to George's suggestion? Since you were the folks who said you were not okay with this. If it didn't include the pricing information.

[102:04] sure, II very much appreciate George's input there. I still feel like if it doesn't. If it's not clear about the need for considering economic realities, then I feel like. as as Mark said, that's sort of if if if we're implying that those should not be part of the survey, then that to me feels like putting thumb on the scale and and asking for someone's opinion. separate from the economic realities. And so I don't think that we're not exactly designing a survey here. If we just say that the economic realities. The pricing realities should be incorporated into the survey that's not designed to survey. That's just. It's just specifying part of the survey as other parts of this team, however, to to go back a little bit. I would be okay with Laura's suggestion of

[103:04] putting what we have or what whatever Sarah and perhaps George, or whoever would like to add in here, and then adding an additional section, if desired, that gives sort of a minority or a separate opinion. alright works for me. Let's just lose the last sentence the survey should test for okay. So let's take out that sentence. The survey should test for and curt. Do you want to propose? A separate sentence to go in a separate paragraph? Thomas Thomas, do we have Thomas? Sure? Oh, so I would recommend Thomas Case credit first. Yeah. Thomas, if you're with us. If you could delete that last sentence, okay, move it down, move it down. Yeah, move it down to a separate paragraph.

[104:01] Yeah, and say, some members. I don't know how we want to frame this. But 2 members, or what. Maybe we want to take a vote on it. before before we get there. Can we consider something? II hate the idea of editorializing some members versus others. because just II don't think that asking for a housing choice survey implies that there shouldn't be economics in it. but as soon as we go down this rabbit hole of putting down. We gotta do this in the survey, and we gotta do that in the survey. Then. Then we might as well list. You know what it can. You know, what do people are are? How are we gonna are we gonna are, are we gonna attract enough commute we we're just gonna be designing something, because because because we're all gonna want our little bits and pieces in here. II don't really understand

[105:05] the the purpose of this. Well, I'm I'm gonna take off the facilitation. Sorry we've got an echo. I'm going to take off the facilitation hat for a second and just comment and say, I think we're only hearing one element that some members feel strongly should be included to make this something that they support. I don't think that we're trying to design every little piece. II don't think I don't. I don't think. Well, there is no element included in the main section. So that's the point, right? It's a housing choice survey that it can be designed. However, survey makers want to design this, and I don't think there's a direction that says eliminate economics from it, or eliminate student housing from it, or eliminate in commuters from it. But now we're adding one little detail which I don't know that it benefits without looking at a survey holistically, that that was my point. Sorry? Correct.

[106:00] Thank you, George Emil, you have your hand up. I do. I think George had a a sentence that isn't being captured here, which which says, update. If we were just to read that last sentence. We never recommend City Council direction manager to conduct blah blah, update housing choice in the next work type of plan to meet the goals of our city. I think that is really the end game. Right? We want. We want our goals. Man. what does that look like? And let the surveyors let the survey people. Figure out, how can we flesh that out? But I think that that is an important piece that that George added on there, that begins to speak to does not make this pie in the sky. Let's talk about what what we want. You know, what what is, what are our goals, the city. What are we trying to do here, anyway? I that's that's my input is, I think that that shouldn't be

[107:01] lost in the fundamental it might help give direction to. I think that's a great app. And I so if you could add that plan cycle to meet the goals of the city. I am a okay with that. Does anyone object to that? Seeing none? Got a couple of hands up, George, your hand is still up. Were you done? Or did you have another something to say, okay, Mark, you have your hand up. Yeah, III simply concur that the idea of I'm not advocating that we talk about bike storage and garage size and a housing survey. That's that's a detail. including economics. The economic realities of of affordability in bolder is not a detail. It's not minutia. It goes to the heart of what it is a housing survey the data will produce.

[108:06] And so III think that if we, if our survey in 2014 left out economics and produced a result that doesn't really inform us of the possibilities moving forward. then the survey is is useless. Again, if you say, what do you wish for? Well, I wish for a lot of things. but if you say, What do you wish for within the context of the world we live in today? That's not a detail that's just designing a survey that yields data that helps our elected leadership make decisions. So II again, I think it's it's it's it's smart to include economic realities in a survey about housing, in a world in which we live in today.

[109:06] George has his hand up, and then I'm gonna put my hand up and call on myself. But, George, you first I so just just from my own perspective, which may be different than Sarah's? I I'm not. I am not in any way suggesting that we necessarily eliminate the economics within the survey. What I'm suggesting is is not putting detail in here and just asking for a housing choice survey to be put on our work plan and then to design that survey. If that gets put on the work plan. Because to your point, mark, like, II totally agree. Okay, just to be clear. I totally agree that economics are part of living in boulder right? And it's super important to understand the economics of of being here. It's also important to understand the economics of the outer communities that that people are commuting into from, because, whether we like it or not, right people are people are making economic choices

[110:02] on living in here. This exactly to your point, right? They're making economic. They're also making economic choices to commute into the city. and so II think it would make sense to capture a lot of those things. But I don't know that we should be going in here and designing the survey, or right now is, that's my only point. And that's why I'm suggesting just simply housing survey to meet our goals a goal of which one which we all can all agree on is we want a middle class in Boulder. and we want them to be happy. What is it going to take. And how do you? How do you get some information around that economic housing choice? All those different things? So that that was the II might be repeating myself, so I'll I'll stop. II just II just would say one more thing, which is I. Personally, you know. a number of board members are making a lot of compromises throughout this

[111:01] to make it tolerable and consensus driven document for everyone. I am not suggesting at all that economics are not important on this. I'm just suggesting that. Let's take a look at the holistic document. Make sure that we're trying to achieve all our goals together so that we come across as a united front rather than something cause cause, then cause then you have to. because then you have to. Basically, then I have to go and explain the paragraph. I'm not opposed to economics. I'm just opposed to putting one thing like this in here. and I think that will look stupid. But II would feel the need to explain myself, because I'm not opposed to putting economics on the survey. So that that that's my other point is, you know, let's in the spirit of kind of trying to build something together. Let's not. Let's not hang each other on things that may not be worth it. Because we're we're gonna we're gonna if this gets picked, the survey has to be designed. And I think we'll have input at that point.

[112:00] And I don't disagree with putting some economics in that. George, to your point. and I appreciate your thoughts here to your point of consensus, and people are stretching and people are compromising. I'll ask the question. who was opposed to including the 2 words, economic realities in this? In this statement I think you're missing George's point, which is you're trying. You're even in this little bit. You're trying to design it. Just let it be a housing choice survey that we're proposing, and if it gets approved as a work plan, item, let staff and city council work on that together. so I'll I'll call on myself and say, I see both points of view here. We did an economic or sorry we did a housing choice survey, I guess, in 2,014 that did not include economic information. So at that point in time people felt that it was appropriate to design a housing choice survey that left that element out.

[113:05] and that is the number one criticism I have heard about that survey, and I would not want us to do another survey that repeated that choice. But then results in the same criticism. So for me, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it should include economic realities. Although I understand we don't want to be designing every element of it. And I don't think that pointing out this one thing means that we don't care about the other elements. So I'm gonna call on George, and then Kurt. And then I think we should just. I'm sorry. Could you please call on Brad? He's he's appeared to speak to us. Sorry I didn't see that, Brad. Go right ahead. Ii just want to offer support printing questions that come up, but it will add that you know, I think in general we recognize that any work plan item is is an iterative one that consists of consulting with planning board and with council and with each other as staff professionals on

[114:07] kind of content and and methodology. I guess I am a little confused about the statement that the correct well, it's not current. The former plan. Housing study doesn't have any economics. It does. It does speak to wealth and housing, and and some of those things. So I think maybe more precisely. You're talking about price points and some of those things. And again, I just point that out without weighing in on the question of whether that should be articulated or not. Oh. the main takeaway I've gotten ever since hearing about and seeing this item as a potential weather item is just pointing out that there was a How housing survey. It's not really ripe anymore. And you're advising you know, the Council to consider doing an updated one.

[115:05] Okay. I guess my editorial comment is that seems like a pretty powerful statement in and of itself, but appreciate the the different perspectives at the same time. Okay, Curt has a hand up. Thanks, yeah. And thanks very much for that input brand. That is helpful. I just wanted to. I guess. Second, what Laura was saying. My feeling is, we're not trying to design the survey here, but by referencing this previous study. Which didn't they talk specifically about pricing? It didn't address the pricing question to me that feels like it is, in fact, designing survey a little bit in sense of 5 by referring to that, we're sort of implying that it should be a similar survey just updated, and I would to me the notable lack in that survey was

[116:06] any pricing realities. And so that is the part that I think is worth right, mostly worth most worth. rectifying. Okay, so I'm going to just basically going on the direction that we got from council, which is that we can include minority opinions. I would like to ask, curt is this statement, this sentence that is a separate paragraph starting with the survey, should test for interest. Is this the sentence that you would like to see if there is some minority support for. Yeah, I am good with that. Okay, how many folks would like to include this sentence as a statement saying X number of planning board members. However, many voted for it supports that the survey should test for interests, etc., etc.

[117:01] Okay. How many of us feel that way. I see I'm gonna abstain from answering that. Okay, so I see 3 of us do, which is. you know, a minority opinion. It takes 4 to be a majority opinion. So unless somebody's sorry, go ahead. Nope, okay, so I'm going to suggest that we write the sense to say 3 planning board members felt that the survey and I'm sorry. Now you can delete the redundant to the survey. That that's the addition there. Okay. think that is the process, and I just want to acknowledge that you know, George and Sarah, I appreciate an Ml. That you want to have harmony and not have a minority opinion. So so, so, so that's fine.

[118:01] Then I want a sentence that says one planning board member thinks that these 3 planning board members are not getting the picture that we're trying not to design the survey. And I'm not opposed to what they're suggesting. I just don't want it suggested here. because I think what we've written is enough. So if you want to add that sentence for me, please go ahead and do that. I'm gonna suggest, George, that you write that sentence for yourself, and send it to Thomas to include in the final version that we will approve on the nineteenth. Does that work for you. I'll write it now, because I don't see a whole lot. I don't see a whole lot of a point in trying to approve it on the nineteenth, if we're pretty much done except for just some bullet formatting. Okay? So, George, if you could write that up and send it to Thomas. let's go on to the last item. the diagonal Plaza area plan. And, George, we wrote this up based on your suggestion that you put in your email if you would like to review it when you are able to, and let us know if this works for you.

[119:05] And in the meantime, did anybody else have any proposed edits. Everybody good with this item. George. Yeah, George. let's let's let George finish his sentence, and then we'll ask him about it. I'll zip back here. Hold on a second. Let me look. yeah, I think that that's that's that's great. Okay. everybody. Good. With this item I'm seeing nodding heads.

[120:00] I just wanna thank George for bringing this up, because this was totally not on my radar. and, as I think about the diagonal plaza and the possibilities there, and yet some of the limitations imposed by the Dcs. On the plan. A diagonal plaza. II am really excited by this, so II think this is this is something I'm I'm enthusiastic about. That was not on my radar as an item in our letter. So anyway, I just wanna make that appreciation. MLML. You know I'm pondering the the diagonal plaza. One is fine. I'm pondering the previous one. and I am wondering if it makes sense

[121:07] to Consider the issue that we're dealing with, which is. you know. the perception of designing the survey as a recommendation to include this or that, or or however I'm wondering if there would be a way to speak to because the language itself talks right it it's it includes the idea that this is about affordable housing. I don't see the whole thing there, because, could you scroll up a little bit so that both paragraphs are there? We go. Thank you.

[122:04] you know, talks about affordable housing and affordable housing and 2 different programs. And I'm wondering if there is a way to acknowledge that the shortcomings that the prior survey perhaps. wasn't as useful as it might have been. And if we can. II don't know it's it. This idea of 3 planning board members want this and one planning board, you know. Look at it and laugh at us just like really. I I'm kind of hoping that. Is there a way that we can include the concern that the prior survey fell short in some manner. Because, did we get what the survey asked us, for you know, however, that that

[123:10] I would. I would like to attempt to try to bring some statement to that paragraph that The author was good with. That accounts to the fact that yeah, we know that the prior survey didn't give us everything we wanted. Can we do better. Sarah? Do you have a thought about that since you're the author. Well, I have never. I don't know what circles you move in, but I've never heard anyone say that they thought that the prior survey was inadequate. I think that the disconnect between the prior survey and the direction the city has gone has to do as much with market forces and politics as anything else, so I'm not really sure what it is. We would say the former project was inadequate about.

[124:04] I think that that's a that would require more than the 6 of us sitting around scratching our heads, trying to figure out what's the right language we'd have to actually do some actual analysis of it. so III mean, I understand what you're. I think I understand, Emma, what you what you're hoping to accomplish, which is sort of a a mid space, an intersy, an interstitial space between what we have now, and something that sort of captures the 2 ideas brings them together in a way. but I don't know that we have the knowledge to do that. II personally, I think your addition of to meet the goals of the city is that broad embrace of of of of that idea

[125:00] without us trying to get into the weeds of what folks do or don't think was good or bad. or adequate or inadequate about the previous survey. Yeah, II hear what you're saying. Yeah, I don't know what circle I run in, either, was the the implication was that somehow that that had been an oversight or omission, or it wasn't. It wasn't directive enough. I just. I would like to not end up with a 3 planning board members. Say, this one planning board member says that you know. The rest of us left the room and abstained. II think we can do better, you know. Right, let's let's and I and I don't have. Obviously I don't have the answer as to what language should be here. I agree with you, Sarah. It seemed to me that to meet the goals of our city begins to speak about. We got

[126:08] We want to be a particular kind of city, and let's conduct a study that might give us data that can help us get there. So I will. I don't know. I would just like to say that as a facilitator this is a technique that I have used many times when the group is not able to easily come to a consensus statement to say there are some differing opinions, and it doesn't necessarily imply that we are inadequate because we cannot reach consensus. I think that the City Council understands that planning board may have some diverse opinions, and I think that they would take it in stride. At least the leaders that I have worked with don't even blink at this stuff. And this is a technique that was actually suggested to us in City Council's direction for the letter. So I wouldn't necessarily take this as this. We have somehow failed because we have one of these statements in here. I'm gonna stop editorializing about facilitation process and call on George. And then, Kurt.

[127:05] Sorry my my hands still up. I'm still. I'm still writing heret. And then Mark. okay, thanks. Yeah. Thank you. And all for that. Input. And I think that if we could come up with something that we all felt good about, that talked of more about what was missing in the previous survey, and less about. as George would put it, trying to design a new survey. I would be fine. With that I will point out that the original language, said the most recent, how the most recent housing choice survey conducted in boulder dates from a decade ago, and it asked about housing choice detached from pricing realities. And so that to me gets that the fundamental lack in the previous survey, and so that if we felt like that was adequate, then we could put that in.

[128:04] I would be fine in that case, removing this sentence at the end, and it would still point out what what we're trying to rectify in the previous survey. So just a suggestion. Thank you, Kurt mark you had your hand up. Yes, I, Laura. I concur with you in that. city council is elected by votes. People vote, people elect city council members. Our our 9 city Council members in every meeting take votes. some some may win, some may lose, but the votes are counted. and it is not deficient or it's not. It's not deficient to note our votes. and I think that

[129:02] always seeking consensus many times diminishes the message. and that if, if, in fact us as a planning board, we as a planning board, feel strongly, and I acknowledge Sarah's strong feelings as I acknowledge my own about including or not, including economic realities. From this. Ii don't think it's a weakness or a bad thing to just know planning board members voted this way, and some thought this, some thought that that that's that's perfectly fine with me. Okay, I want to go back to George and ask George, did you want to add anything? George is still working on it. Okay, then I'll go back to Curtis. Okay.

[130:01] I put in. Should I put in the chat. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think that makes total sense. There you go. George wants to add, George, would you like to read it for us. Yes. one planning board member believes the comment from 3 planning board members is completely unnecessary, as the suggested work plan item does not preclude economics or any other items that should be designed into a survey for a housing choice. Should this become a work plan, item, a working group should convene to design a survey housing choice survey that attempts to understand the housing needs of our community and will help to inform the housing and planning goals. Goals of boulder. Okay. does anybody object to including George's addendum? I do not object. Mark is a thumbs up. Curt is shaking his head. No. Does that mean you do not object. Okay, I say, we add it. It is reflective of our personality as planning board. It is additional information for city council. Okay.

[131:08] Any other thoughts on this letter. I think that if if we're all good with it, we could go ahead and just approve it. Just call it approved. except that we need to change it to bullet points. Everybody. Okay, with approving yes, thumbs up. thumbs up. I think I see everybody's got a thumb up good job team, good job board. Alright. We'll change those bullet points, and we have an approved letter, and someone can when we change the bullet points, or if someone can just run through and double check, grammar, and etc. That would be great. I see Kurt shaking his head. Yes, Kurt, are you accepting the assignment. Thomas, can you email that to me, then? So that I can just do final check. And any. yeah. yeah, absolutely. I'll go ahead and email that over to you? That would be great. And then what is the process?

[132:02] Do we then do? How? How does how does this actually get sent? Maybe Brad has thoughts on this. Well, you all rejected my interpretive dance suggestion last so I'm lumbix on that question, II assume. Thomas, III suspect we send it to the clerk's office, and and they include it in the board packet at some future point. I'm not entirely sure but that sounds right to me. So if when does Kurt need to get you the final? We probably have some time, I would say, within a week. Is that a decent target? So can I. Just then send it out to the board. You will see it. and you will take it from there.

[133:01] and we, as actual board members, don't need to do anything further with it. Hello! I don't. That might be a question for you, I think. Want to include that, probably in the next planning board packet. and we'll just be checking it. For you know, scrutinary errors, that kind of things. Yeah, it could be included in the next planning board packet or Thomas could send it out after you receive some from Kurd. Additional comment. Right? It's just for notice what it is. Okay. But my question was about how it gets conveyed to council that that was the first answer, which is, we'll collect it and give it to the clerk's office, and they'll they'll be forwarding it to counsel. I think, with the other groups. Yeah, great. Thank you. Brad, or Staff, you have matters, for I'm sorry. Ml, you have your hand up. I just have. Brad, is this intended to go to the retreat? Is that the point of it. It it's something for consideration at the retreat they wanted in in advance of the retreat, so that made me like right at the retreat time, which is April

[134:11] third and fourth. So we've got some. Thank you. Okay. we have concluded that matter. Thank you very much. Curt and Laura for your work on that. Alright, Brad, or Hella, or any other staff who are here any any matter? Items to discuss? I have one, but I'll see if Thomas and or Helen have any comments first. I know I well, my only comment is probably what Brad's gonna say address to. So I'll let you go first. Okay? Yeah. At the risk of of hyperbole. II, appreciating the important topics that you've had earlier on the agenda. The 3 items. II do wanna stick my

[135:04] put out and say that I think the most important item for your consideration this evening is recognition that this is Sarah's last meeting with us all. So that wasn't a queue to you, sir. By virtue of her term ending, but also not being able to attend the next couple of meetings. this, is it? And we certainly, from the staff perspective want to thank you very much for all your service. Hopefully, we do a good job thanking all of you for what we recognize as a volunteer position, one that takes a lot of brain power and and thinking and preparation on a regular basis, not to mention the discussions at at the meetings and and hearings and and

[136:00] interactions with the community. So thank you. On behalf of everybody. Sarah, we appreciate you and we appreciate your service. I wanna ask their remaining members if they would be open to a you know a celebration similar to the ones we've done in the past. If Sarah will have us. and well, I guess I should ask Sarah Person. That would be lovely assumptions here, even under dress. You need to attend zoom and I also would want to suggest. Maybe we would invite. Listen to them as well. Oh, for sure. Only if she brings Max. Okay, yes, the coworker we've seen once in a while we will, we will happily get that set up sometimes these things take a little while with logistics and schedules and all that. So

[137:02] you know I know no offense meant if it if it ends up being a couple of months there before that actually lands on the books, but no offense will be taken. But follow up on that. Appreciate the opportunity to celebrate your contribution. Well, did you have a question, or I don't know if I did, I wanted to, just on the record. Thanks, Sarah, for her leadership. We are. You know. We're we're an interesting group to round up and do bring us to timely conversations and and conclusions. So I really appreciate your leadership. You will be missed. And I look forward to having a little celebratory outing with you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Emily. Appreciate that, Laura. I just want to second everything that Ml. Said. And, Sarah, thank you for your Grace, your patience with this very ideologically diverse group hasn't always been easy, but you have weathered it well, and we really really appreciate you and your authentic voice, and you will be missed.

[138:14] Well, thank you. I'm not sure. Grace or patience are particularly strong characteristics of mine, but I appreciate your effort to spin, spin my work here. So thank you very much. Curt. I was gonna compliment you on your efficiency, which is slightly different. But you certainly run a very efficient meeting. And yeah, deal with us and our idiosyncrasies and different perspectives and stuff. Really? Well, I first really got to know you on the Use Table and Standards group where I was sitting in, and I really appreciated all that you did there, and all that you've done since then. So I'm glad that you'll be enjoying your retirement, or at least retirement from planning board very, very much, and appreciating Tuesday nights that are free.

[139:04] Yes, thank you very much. George. I'm just very thankful, and I think boulders indebted to your service for the past 5 years, and you've been an example for certainly myself and others. I know that. I know that your your heart is always in the right place. and that you've always put bolder first. And you're thinking as a planning board member. And II think I really appreciate that. And hopefully, the community does as well. Thank you. Let's search, Mark. Thanks, George. Everyone has has set us. I won't repeat those saying, but, Sarah, I wish you the best in all your future endeavors. So yes, thank you. I'm so old I'm not sure there will be any future endeavors, but I appreciate that. However.

[140:00] I get to go and ask. I wanted to. I wanted to thank you, too, for your service. I've really enjoyed working with you. 5 years is a long time. So we got to spend a lot of time together, and I wanted to acknowledge the work that you've done is your colleagues have and bread have. It's so much work, so many night meetings, so much preparation. It's very complicated subject matter, and oftentimes it's very, very controversial, and feel a little bit thankless. I think so. II just and and I mean all of your commitments. All the time that you've put in. I think you've done a terrific job as a board member, and then as a chair. we'll see you every once in a while afterwards. Thank you. You won't see me for a year, cause I'm not allowed to reappear before planning board for at least a year. I'm not sure you'll ever see me again, except maybe at a party. But I wish you all great good luck in the coming year with whoever your 3 new board members are, and thank you for the service you all are providing to the city and

[141:13] don't take this personally, but I'm very happy to be getting my Tuesday nights back. You deserve it. Thank you very much. Alright. If there's nothing else in matters which I don't think there is, then do we calendar, check and debrief? Kurt, you have your hand up. Yeah, on the calendar check. I just realized that I will be unavailable on the nineteenth. Is that our next meeting? It is okay, and you're gonna be gone. And so I think we'll be down before if everyone else is there. So I just want people to be aware of that. Yeah, what? So you guys, Brad, and stuff Brad and people? if you have anything, if it's an opportunity to have something that doesn't require that would be helpful.

[142:08] Do. Do we know of any other conflicts? I guess that would be a check I would want to do with anybody. Can everyone else make it on the nineteenth. Every one. Be very careful crossing the street from now till the nineteenth. Exactly. Okay. Somebody might be faster than me to get the calendar up. But yeah, let's give you a preview of what's planned here. I have that pulled up, Brad. If you'd like me to share the calendar. I suspected somebody'd be faster. The Site Review and a concept plan.

[143:05] And maybe soon after that that Kurt's gonna be unavailable. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just gonna say, II just check my calendar. I will be available for that meeting. And and might I suggest that if that we do this now or procedurally. Does it make sense to go ahead and select a chair for that meeting? Since we're present in this meeting, and we don't have to do. Okay. As long as we're good on that, I'm good with that great. And isn't there some provision where, if only 4 Bo Board members are present. They could ask for a re hearing if they don't get 4 or something like that.

[144:02] The applicants that if they prefer to not be heard that evening that they have that option. But generally people would be my expectation in this case. Yeah, there, there is a provision of 4 votes is is sufficient for that site review. But if there is I think if there's a 3 to one or 2 to 2 vote. there is a right for rehearing under the procedure rules. Thank you. Hey? Tom was just. I'm sorry. Just Thomas. If you could advise the 2 planners in Charles about the situation. Okay, Mark. So just to clarify the applicants, don't have an option of not undergoing the hearing with 4 board members present.

[145:04] but if the vote goes against them in a 3, 1, 2, 2 vote! Then they would. They could have a rehearing. but they don't get the option of not having a hearing on that day. Is that correct? Well, I think I think Staff could inform the applicant about the situation, and they could request that the meeting be continued. that the item be continued to be different to a different day. Yeah, yeah, that's been my understanding is that historically, we did advise them. Even the night of knowing this will let them know beforehand. But the night of even, and then they can ask that you all continue it. If it's an advertised item. Theoretically you could say no at that point. Hello on that on that topic. Just just so. We have clarity. Let's say there is a 3, one or 2 2 vote when they ask for a re hearing, does there have to be a certain number of planning board members beyond 4? And what do you know what that number is? Just? It's just more out of my curiosity than anything else.

[146:22] Yeah, I don't think there has to be a different number there. But let me take a quick look at it. and while you're doing that I'll just to clarify the scenario, George, I think if there's a 2, 2 vote or 3 1. It doesn't get hurt again. It fails at that point. Brad Brad, it's a little hard to hear you. Can you just speak. I was just saying that if there is that 3, one or 2, 2 just to clarify it fails at that point. There's not a second hearing at that point. It would only be if they ask for it before the votes. Oh, okay, okay. though, I actually, I have to correct what I set previous name.

[147:04] so it says, a tie, vote, or vote of 3 to 2 or 3 to one in favor of approval, shall entitle the applicant to another hearing. if set hearing is requested within 7 days. and if they get denied on a 3, one, or 3 to vote, that's it. It's done. If if only one person votes for the for an approval, then. Yes, that suggested annial them, and they can't get every hearing. It's gonna be acceptable or vote of. Well, I guess 3, 2, 2 wouldn't be a the situation, cause we only have 4, 3, 2, one in favor. So if it's 3 to one in favor. They can get a rehearing, or they don't get a rehearing. Then they do get a rehearing. If it's if it's one to 3 and 3 oppose, then they cannot get a rehearing, and it's considered tonight.

[148:03] But the but a rehearing would have to be something more than 4, since a rehearing in front of the same 4, which is a possibility. would, wouldn't. wouldn't serve them in any way, would it? It doesn't address that that situation, cause I think there's always a chance that you in the end have 4. Again, it might be a different group of 4. Well, we're gonna be back to having 7 board members at the subsequent meeting. Right cause. This March nineteenth meeting is our last meeting in March, and then we will have a full complement of Board members in April. So it's unlikely that it would happen again exactly the same way. Yeah, and I'm sorry. I guess I said the wrong thing. I thought we had always been saying that when there's only 4 it takes all 4 for something to pass. I guess the nuance there. If it's 3

[149:05] one. they can request a follow-up here. Yeah, okay. But I but I do want to clarify that the the other scenarios talking about is, if they are advised in advance of the meeting like tomorrow, or even the day of. And they get asked, you know, would you want to continue it? Typically that would be honored. Move to a different date. Yes. just to clarify. And II think I understand what you're saying. But just because it it was confusing. So so if you notify them. and it fails, then they are permitted to have a re hearing, or is it only if you don't notify them and it fails. I don't think it matters. It doesn't matter.

[150:00] It doesn't matter. Okay, thank you that I just clarifies what? Yeah, perfect. But it's only if it fails, because there were only there were only 4 board members present. It's not. It's not. If you have more than 4, then there's no rehearing that I mean, it could be the situation that there's 5 board members there, or even 6. But if you don't get a positive motion essentially, than it feels right, you could have a 3 to 3 vote. Then that's a tie vote, and it it could. That could be a request for hearing, or a 5 to 2 vote. If if 5 board members are there, and if 3 vote board members vote for it, then you can seek a rehearing. Oh. I guess we all need to brush up on that. Hella, can you send us that code section so that we understand it? Thank you. I just wanted to note that according to the calendar that I'm looking at. April sixteenth only has one item on it. It's a concept plan I don't know how big it's going to be, but that might be, if that really is all that's on there. That might be a potential place to move these items that were decision to be made.

[151:22] any other comments. questions. all right. It is, according to my computer, 8, 30, and we are officially adjourned. Good night. All. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you. Everybody. Everyone. Thank you.