December 17, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Recording in progress. trying to mute myself here, there. We. Okay. No. Is that is that you or me? It's not me. You're not on the meeting. Usually you go to audio settings. Disconnect audio. Yeah, thank you. That was it. Okay. Good evening. All welcome to the December 17, th 2024 city of Boulder planning board meeting. We have one public hearing item tonight, but before we get to our public hearing we have the public participation portion of our meeting which will be facilitated by Vivian, who is online, and will

[1:10] guide us through the rules and take it away. Vivian. Thank you. Chair. Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Castro Wooldridge, and, as Mark said, I'll walk you through the rules of public participation. We have 2 opportunities for public input tonight. The 1st will be for open comment, which will be right after I'm done going through these couple of slides, and then later for the public hearing. So I'll just start by saying that the city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have a lot more information about the vision and how it was developed with community on our website, next slide, please.

[2:05] and I'll read out some examples of rules of decorum that are not in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support the productive atmosphere's vision, and all of these will be upheld during the 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 against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting or prohibited, and we ask that all participants who wish to to speak to planning board identify themselves by 1st and last name. So I do notice that a few people online, we can only see your 1st name, or or one name rather. So if you would like to speak you can either send me your full name using the Q. And a function if you're not able to change it yourself, and we'll need that to be able to call on you for open comment and the public hearing next slide, please.

[3:01] so to let us know that you wish to speak. You can raise your virtual hand. If you're joining us online and in person, you can sign up and let Thomas know. And there's a process for that, too, and we'll start with our in person, members of the public, and then go to our online participants who can raise a virtual hand by pressing on it this way or getting to it? by hitting on the reactions and then finding the raised hand that way. So that's it. We can. If it's okay, chair. We can go ahead and open the open comment. Yes, we'll open open comment. This is for any subject other than the public hearing. Agenda. Item 5. So anything other than that. Great anybody in person. Yeah, we do have one person signed up in in person. Thank you, Vivian. We have David Olskamp, David, if you'd like to come to the podium now and make your comment.

[4:00] You have 3 min. David Olskamp, 1590. Hawthorne, I feel this is like toastmasters. I've been here so much. It's probably just a lot less fun for everyone. Just be really here to ask, what's the update? I got this in the mail today? I was a bit surprised. I guess there's a i googled the Lur number, and I guess there's a on the 19.th It's an agenda item for Development Review Committee, which I was a bit surprised. Given our prior discussions, it seemed like. Usually these things would be on hold while the matters are resolved. At least, that's what I understood, based on the city's attorney's office. So I'm just here for an update. Really, I haven't heard much. Thank you. I want to say that it is

[5:01] not on our agenda and is. Nor is it our purview to cover issues like this on an ad hoc basis. So again, I'm not trying to dissuade you from pursuing anything, but it is none of us have any new information. And nor is it actually an appropriate agenda item for the Board to address this. So. staff, anything, anything you want to add to that I don't think so. I think that the best thing that Mr. Alls Kemp can can do is reach out to staff, which he has those numbers, and there's also a forthcoming subdivision application on this. So it's a quasi-judicial matter. So I'd recommend none of you directly contact. Mr. Oles can't, but if he has any questions, I do recommend that he reach out to Staff directly. I guess. Has the memo been circulated for the 19th of

[6:00] this like in 2 days that that 19th or you're talking about? No, so I mean at the Prior Planning board there was talk of a memo that was going to be distributed to the board, and I believe the timeline. I think it was this week, they said when that meeting took place, so I guess it probably was distributed. But maybe not. I guess I could be wrong. Yeah, there was a confidential memo circulated, but we can't discuss the contents of it. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to. Yeah, I guess my question would be if there's any comment any of the Board members have on that. And just to understand what's in there a little bit, I know it's obviously a confidential memo, but my understanding is that the Board could make a motion to waive the client or attorney client privilege. Given the fact that I would assume most of the information in there has to do with public documents that are already out there. So I'm going to stick with what I've said already in that it is not on our agenda tonight, and unless

[7:01] a board member is aware of or wants to make any motions that I'm not prepared to make, we're going to conclude and carry on with our agenda. Laura, may I make a suggestion? Yes, so I think we should carry on with public comment and close it out. And then, if we want to say anything further about this, we do it at the end of public comment. I do have one comment, I think to make. Okay, I would. I would agree to that. Okay, thank you. Great. Okay? So should we move to our online participants. Is there anyone else here? Thomas signed up. We don't have anybody else signed up in person, so unless there's anybody that would like to sign up to speak. We can go ahead and move to online. Okay. okay, great. If you're online and would like to speak, speak, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. Lindsey, go, please go ahead. You have 3 min.

[8:02] I just updated my computer and it didn't show my hand was raised. So just letting you know, I never update the computer. So you're going to be working on Alpine balsam soon, and it is I mean, I know I'm always saying the same thing, and I'm going to say the same thing again. This is way, too much growth for our carrying capacity. We need to meet the jobs housing balance. And we're not. Presently. This is an inelastic market, and it's going to draw people like crazy. And it has, and it will. And you're just digging a hole bigger and bigger with every single subsidy for parking and lifting, parking requirements and increasing height. The perfect example is 777 Broadway, which are going to be probably 900 bedrooms rented by the bedroom. It's a huge boon to the to the owner.

[9:06] Because they're going to be running away with cash. And again. It's a cu thing. And this community, much as we all like Cu. These events, the football games, the Christmas, the intensity of use, the density, the congestion just riding on my bike today. It's just like cars are like inches from each other, just chasing each other. It's just a mayhem mad rat race. And it's that way all the time, and then it gets worse with a football game or whatever. It's just too many people. It doesn't matter if you have transportation, oriented development, because that just if you, if you aren't limiting growth in any way, then you shouldn't be approving these subsidies to the developers.

[10:03] It's just beyond the carrying capacity of the place as as a nice, you know, with the quality of life to keep the quality of life but eventually someone who rides their bike. 95, 98% of the time is going to just quit and drive the car because it's too dangerous. There's and going to the farmers market or going to something. You know the parole mall is just too jammed with too many physical bodies. So it's not a matter of, you know. getting people in transit corridors where they can go around town to different places, because wherever they go, there they'll be, and there's too many bodies taking up the space. So they're just trying to get out of town instead of enjoying the place as it is. So please try and restrain yourself on these subsidies done.

[11:06] Great. Thank you, Lynn Siegel, for sharing your comments. Anybody else. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand. Give you a few seconds, just to make sure. and if not, we'll move on with the agenda. Thank you for everybody for joining us tonight over to you. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Vivian. Okay, our agenda. Item 3 is approval. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Laura. I forgot. Excuse me. No problem. Please proceed. Yeah, thank you. So Mr. Olskamp has come to our last 3 or 4 meetings, I think, and you know we have been very cautious about following our rules and not discussing items that are not agendized and waiting for city attorney advice. We have received that confidential memo. I don't know if everybody's had a chance to read it. My suggestion would be, our next meeting isn't until January 7, th which is ample time, I think, for Board members to read that memo and decide. Are we going to take any kind of action or not, and give Mr. Olskamp an answer on that? So he doesn't, isn't left in limbo on the process here, and who who can provide any relief that he might be seeking.

[12:16] So my suggestion would be that we all read that memo, and in order to get it onto our agenda for January 7, th there would need to be a 10 day notice, right? So if we have any intentions around making any kind of motions related to that case, we should notify staff within or before 10 days, so it can get on that agenda. If that is something we want to do, and if not, we can give Mr. Olskamp that answer. That would be my suggestion. Does that raise any heartburn with staff or the city attorney. I'll speak with the attorney that wrote the memo, and just make sure that she has nothing, and let you know if there is anything that comes up. I don't have any immediate heartburn. I like your idea, and I like

[13:00] the idea of giving us having us notice an agenda item properly, giving us time to study up on it and resolving this issue one way or the other for our neighbor. Anyone else? Sure. I'm I like the sentiment, but I'm just concerned that I don't know of any possible mechanism that we have, you know, to that would allow us to actually address this, and so I don't want to give an undue expectation that we might be able to do something if we truly can't. So I don't know, Laurel. If you have any guidance on whether there's anything within code that we could do at this point. Yeah, at this point. So the previous application, the window for appeal has already passed.

[14:04] so I think that there is like opportunity in the future. But I don't know that there's anything that this Board can particularly do, but we can talk about it in advance and let Mr. Camp know if it is going to be on the memo or on the agenda in January slash public notice in? Yeah. So can we agree? Even if can we agree that resolution of this would take one way or the other? Maybe the resolution is, there is nothing to be done. but it would allow us to have a informed discussion and resolve it, so it seems like putting it on the agenda, for the next meeting would be a good thing. But you're saying you're you're not sure about that. Well, I just want to clarify that. I'm not saying that it necessarily needs to be an agenda item. I'm just saying, let's give ourselves some time to read the memo, and if any of us believes that something should be done. We can consult with the attorneys and then see if it goes on the agenda. Right?

[15:20] I'm not sure everybody's had a chance to read the memo yet. Correct what I'm but to put it on, the agenda needs to be a discussion at at in a public forum like this. It can't be us circulating around with that. Well, I mean, Staff can put it on the agenda up to 10 days before the meeting, right, so we could request to Staff to put for them to put it on the agenda. It doesn't have to be a board member, special meeting or a board member, requested agenda item. because that's a matter of scheduling right? Not a matter of substance. If you're asking for something, so it's a matter of scheduling. Not a matter of yeah. If you're debating what you're going to be doing then. Yes, that would be okay. Yeah. I was just wanting to avoid a lot of behind the scenes. Open meeting. Yeah, of course. So

[16:12] scheduling is not scheduling is not a matter of substance, because you'll be discussing substance in the meeting. Laurel laurel. What I heard you say, though, is, it's beyond the appeal period. So if there's nothing this Board can do in that capacity. I agree with Kurt, but I don't want to give a false expectation that there's anything that we can do. So I just wanna maybe can you give us some clarity on that. Yeah. So there's a little bit more information in the Memo. Okay. Okay, so we're going to resolve this and close this item out with the understanding that Staff will gather and given the sentiment of the board determine both scheduling and substantively whether or not

[17:02] this goes comes before us at a future meeting, and most likely it would be great if it was sooner rather than later. I'm just suggesting that we should have an answer on. Are we going to take it up or not for our January 7th meeting that answer come from staff? Or is that answer come from the board? I think it would either be agendized or not, and that we would know that before our January 7th meeting. That's what I'm suggesting. I think that Mr. Olskamp has been very persistent in trying to bring this to our attention and try to understand what this Board can and can't do, and I think we owe him an answer, as we would. Any person who believes the Board has made a mistake in error been given false information, or or whatever the allegations may be. You know I don't think that we should procedurally not tie a bow around that we should give an answer as whether we can do something or not.

[18:00] Right. so that would come in the form to me, to my way of thinking that would come in the form of an agenda item, even if it was staff to address. We can't do anything or we won't, or whatever it might be, but to but to publicly notice it, put it on the agenda. and and have appropriate materials publicly noticed beforehand. I think that works for me if that works for the city attorney's office and stuff. Yeah, and we can definitely follow up after this. Yeah, thank you for your thoughts and comments on this, we'll follow up. Okay, yeah, Kurt. And I would encourage Mr. Oldskamp to email us with any information that you may have about the history and or your position, or questions, or perspective, or whatever. That's really the most effective way to get us information rather than and if we could do that to staff. Because this is a quasi-judicial matter. There is a forthcoming quasi-judicial matter that's going to be talked about in the memo on the subdivision process. So

[19:07] we just don't want you guys to have ex parte communications outside of the record of getting of getting materials individually. So if he sends it to the board or to staff, then we can include it. I should have clarified to the board, to the boulder boulder planning board. Yes, absolutely. Yes. Address. Okay, right? And that way you're not limited by time, or you know. you can send diagrams and all sorts of stuff. Thank you. Okay. And I'm I'm sorry. But again, we actually have our rules of procedure as an agenda item tonight, and I'm going to. I'm sorry, but I'm going to not allow you to speak now, and we're going to proceed. Now that we've resolved the way we're going to handle this and again urge you to follow Kurt's suggestion to email, all of us at the Boulder Planning board address.

[20:02] Okay, we're going to move on. And we have 4 sets of minutes to approve. The 1st one is the July 23, rd 2024 planning board minutes. and these would be as modified by Laura. so, Mark, I just wanted to point out as well that I have one comment from Kurt that still needs to be updated in the packet. But I do have that on this set. That was for the August 20.th Okay, that's for the August 20th ones. But those will be updated accordingly for the for the version that gets archived. Okay. it's just one brief comment which we could read out loud. If you want what that is on the when we bring up the August 20th minute. Okay? Sounds good, so we don't approve something we don't know about. Okay, thank you.

[21:03] Okay. Any comments? Or do I have a motion to approve? May I ask a question of my colleague, Laura. I have not had an opportunity to read the updated minutes that were shared today. Yes. Are you satisfied with the changes that you requested. So for this set of minutes it was just a correction to the date. So this set of minutes very minimal. Okay, do I need to ask with every set of the 4, or are you satisfied with your I'm satisfied that all of the changes that I suggested are incorporated. I will say that we have changed our procedures. It used to be that when we had changes to the minutes we emailed them so that we could all see them, and I think now there may be some concern about a serial meeting, and so, out of an abundance of caution, we're sending our changes to Thomas, and this is the 1st time this has happened where they were just uploaded. and they're not in strikeout. They're not in red line, and so it's very hard to see what's been changed or edited, and I would look to Thomas for some suggestions on how we can in the future see what the changes are at a glance rather than having to go. Compare versions.

[22:04] So for this set tonight I'm happy to explain what are the changes I made. If anybody would like. I think that's completely legit if you didn't have a chance to read through it or didn't compare versions. They're pretty minor. Usually there was one that was significant. And I would like to mention that. But that's not this set. Okay? I will make a motion to approve the July 23, rd 2024 min. Second. Okay, Without any other discussion. We'll take a vote. Claudia. Yes, Kurt. Yes, Laura. Yes. Ml. Yes. George. Yes. Okay, and I'm a yes, next is the set of minutes for August 6, th 2024. Now, in this one I'm just making sure that

[23:03] everyone knows who George and I were not present. So are there. Is there any discussion about these minutes from those who were in attendance. I'll just make a note of the changes that I made. One was just to note. This was about the creative campus in the North Boulder subcommunity plan. One was just a note that we discussed that if the current application were to fall through there could be additional future conversations regarding the best location for a creative campus. As you may recall, we were all concerned about limiting it to one property, and at that time in that discussion we said, Well, maybe this isn't a problem we need to solve if the current application goes through. So I just made a note that if that application falls through, then we could have future discussions about potential other locations. That was one change I made, and then the second was Ml. Made a motion that Kurt seconded to extend the area of the diagram of the creative campus boundary to include the mixed use area on the east side of Broadway, and that was approved, I think 4 to one

[24:08] so, and and that would just got there were 2 motions that were made to amend the main motion, and that one didn't get captured. So I just got that added. Excellent. Thank you for capturing that. So does anyone have any additional questions about the changes? So the changes that Thomas sent late today or earlier today. do you feel that they they captured what you just clarify? Yes, word for word. Thank you. Thomas. Okay. Then those that were present. Do you have a do? I have a motion from someone who was present? I move approval of the August 6, 2024 planning board minutes. Second, okay,

[25:01] we're going to go around. George. Oh, I'm abstaining. Oh, yeah, you're. I just said you were absent, you and I both. Okay. Ml. Yes. Laura Kurt. Yes, Claudia, yes, okay. And Mason's absence. So okay, those are approved. Next are the minutes for the August 20, th 2024 meeting, and, Laura, you had changes there, and Kurt as well. Correct. Yes, and this one. I just added a little bit more detail to the comments that I made about this specific issue of the Amps strategy and Tdm planning. So just putting a little bit more flavor on my comments. But nothing super substantive, Kurt, did you? Yeah. And on that same topic about Amps and Tdm, the my comment in the minutes is quoted as saying

[26:10] he meaning, Kurt questioned whether creating impact fees to fund citywide multimodal transportation improvements rather than localized mandates could lead to. and the sentence ends there, probably because I was rambling on. And so I went back and listened to the the meeting, and based on my comments at the time I am recommending, or I have recommended to Thomas that this be amended to. He suggested that creating impact fees to fund citywide multimodal transportation improvements rather than localized mandates could lead to more efficient use of money and staff time. and we've been assured that that will be reflected in the and it says yes, as stored if approved.

[27:01] Okay, all right. I have no comments, anyone else, any other comments? If not, I'm seeking a motion. I move approval of the August 20, th 2024 planning board minutes second. Hey, Claudia? Yes, Kirk. Yes, Laura. Yes, George. Yes. Ml, I think Ml was absent. I was absent at that meeting, abstaining. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to stop asking about absentee from for approval from absentee people. Okay? And I am a yes. So the August 20th minutes, as amended by Thomas, are okay. Finally, we have the minutes from our October 8th meeting. And

[28:03] George was absent. So I'm going to try and not call on George. Do. Does anyone have comments or changes they want to point out? I'll just for folks who didn't get a chance to compare versions. I made 2 changes. One is, there was a call up item that we did not call up, but we expressed some specific concerns about their Tdm plan, and advised the applicant to take a look at those things anyway. So I put some notes about that, and then also just some more flavor on my comments about the Site Review there? Or I think it was a was it a site review? Or it was a concept plan review that we did that day. Anyone else. Okay, you moved. I move. Approval of the October 8, th 2024 planning board meeting minutes. Okay, great. Thank you.

[29:01] Ml, I'm going to call on you first.st Yes. Laura. Yes. Claudia, yes, and Kurt. Yes, and I'm a yes. okay, that takes care of the minutes. and again, I just I'm going to make one comment, and that is, these minutes are important, and I appreciate when we take the time to edit our comments or other comments or clarify the the sentiment of the board or your own sentiment, and there have been a number of occasions where, I think recently planning board minutes have come not under scrutiny in a bad way, but just people have looked at our minutes in regard to recent projects of community notes. So all 4 good minutes that capture our direction.

[30:04] Okay, we are on to our public hearing. Item, this is agenda, item 5, and I'll read this out as soon as I make it big enough to see it. This is a public hearing and consideration of a site review to develop the site at 5,675 Arapahoe Avenue in the Ig Zone district. 2 new life sciences, buildings totaling approximately 206, 978,000 square feet in size includes a request for a 19% parking reduction to allow for 420 spaces where 518 are required. Reviewed under case number Lur. 2023, 0, 0 3, 6.

[31:07] So the way this is going to go is staff will give us a presentation in regard to this project, we will ask clarifying questions of staff about it. The applicant will have up to 15 min to make a presentation. We will ask clarifying questions of the applicant. If there are any, we will then have a public hearing where the public may comment on it, and then we will close the public hearing, and the Board will debate. So with that, we're going to let Chandler take it away. All right. Thanks, Mark. Good evening. Planning board members, as Mark just said, I will be presenting Chandler. I'm sorry I'm going to interrupt you one second, and I keep meaning to do this. Does any board member need to divulge any ex parte communication, or have any real or perceived conflict of interest in this project.

[32:11] And silence is no, and we'll carry on unless someone raises their hand, virtual or real. Okay, thank you. Chandler, carry on. Okay, I will be presenting the Site Review for 56, 75, Arapahoe Avenue. I just realized that I did not include the agenda title in my slide, so I'm glad that you just read it. But we will get to the project proposal soon enough. So, in terms of public notification, all the requirements in the code have been met. Public notice was provided to property owners within 600 feet of the property. and signs were posted by the applicant. We did receive comments from one neighbor expressing concern regarding potential traffic impacts on Arapahoe Avenue in terms of location. The project site. It's an approximately 9.8 acre site was formerly the Granville Phillips site.

[33:05] a research and development facility with one main building of about 20,000 square feet that has since been demolished, and the site is currently vacant. As you can see, it sits just north of Arapahoe, and just east of 55th Street. just across the street from the Boulder golf course. The comp planned land use designation for the site is light industrial. This is defined as uses which were concentrated primarily in industrial parks located within the gun barrel area along the Longmont diagonal and North Arapahoe between 33rd and 63rd Street uses are intended to consist primarily of research and development, light, manufacturing, and assembly, media and storage, and other intensive employment uses with residential and other complementary uses, may be encouraged in certain locations. The site is also located within the East Boulder sub community Plan. It also has a land use of light industrial.

[34:00] It is not located within an area of change designated in the plan, though it is identified as an area of future study. The zoning for the site is Ig or industrial general, which is defined as areas where a wide range of industrial of light industrial uses, including research and manufacturing operations and service industrial uses are located. Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. This zoning district has a Max floor area, ratio, or far of point 5 for this site it has a maximum building height of 45 feet. That's so, typically the maximum height is 40 feet. But if you are not adjacent to residential or other lower intensity zone district, you can go to 45 feet by right. So it's a conditional height. So for this site it's 45 feet. Parking is required for non-residential uses at a ratio of one per 400 square feet. and research and development uses, which are what the applicant is proposing are allowed by right

[35:03] just to get into that a little bit more. So. Research and development is defined in the code as a facility that engages in product or process, design, development, prototyping or testing for an industry. There are a bunch of industries that are included in the definition. including pharmaceuticals, medical or dental computer, hardware, software, electronics, etc. Facilities may also include laboratory office warehousing and light manufacturing functions as part of the research and development use. So it's a pretty broad definition is why I put that up there. So in terms of the surrounding context, much of the surrounding development on the north side of Arapahoe is characteristic of industrial general. Land uses includes a variety of warehouse manufacturing and auto service. Oriented uses land uses immediately surrounding the subject. Property include scientech Inc. Research and manufacturing to the West Burning Tree Office warehouses to the east. The Union Pacific Railroad is immediately to the north and across Arapaho is the flatirons municipal golf course.

[36:08] as I mentioned before, and as you can see here, the existing site is currently vacant. A significant site. Feature is an existing approximately one half acre Man-made Pond. The Pond and Dry Creek number 2 Ditch, are designated wetlands as set forth in the city's wetland regulations. The pond is considered the origin of Dry Creek Ditch number 2 that flows from the pond off the property toward the northwest. The property is also impacted by the high hazard and conveyance flood zones. Regarding transit. The site is served by access to Rtd. Along both Arapahoe and 55th street. The site is located. There are 2 jump stops immediately adjacent to the site, and then the 206 and the 208. Both have stops at 55th and Arapahoe as well.

[37:02] Just in terms of the project background which you guys are probably familiar with. But just go over it again. So in February of 2023, we held a public hearing for the concept plan. The applicant then took that feedback and submitted for Site Review in July of 2023. During that time it was not called up. The concept plan was not called up by council, but they did refer it to dab and tab so on October 9th it went to the Transportation Advisory Board or Tab, and on October 11, th 2023, it went to the Design Advisory Board, or Dab Then, in September of 2024, it was approved by Staff, and called up by the planning board. And so we are currently here for a public hearing. So now we'll jump into the proposed project. As you mentioned the proposals for 2 new life sciences buildings which are classified as research and development uses. I'm totaling approximately 206,978 square feet in floor area.

[38:04] That's just about the Max far, just under point 5. They're proposing a building height of 42 feet for building A and 40 feet for building B in terms of parking, they are requesting a 19% reduction to allow for 420 spaces where 518 are otherwise required by the code. The site plan shows a surface parking lot with 147 spaces behind, building A and the remaining 273 spaces are in a single level, underground parking structure below building B, 41% of the total site area is proposed as usable open space where 15% is the minimum requirement for Ig. and so here, I've just overlaid the site plan on top of the wetland and flood map. Just so you guys can see, and this is not 100% to scale. I had to do some weird modifications to make them fit just exactly. There were different size maps. So, but this generally just shows, you know, the site is, or the the proposed project is set back about 250 feet from Arapaho Avenue, and this is due to the fact that there is a high functioning wetland on that portion of the site.

[39:12] the portion of the site where they're proposing to build the lots has also already been raised out of the floodplain. So, as you can see, the pink is the high hazard flood zone. So prior to this application coming in, the previous owner had already kind of graded the site for potential development and raised it up out of the flood zone. So the project, as shown, is outside of both the flood zone and the wetland area. But that is why it is located so far back from Arapaho Avenue. Vehicular access to the site is provided via a single drive aisle on the southeastern corner. which includes a parallel paved pathway 8 feet in width for use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Access to the below grade parking garage is provided at the rear or north side of building B,

[40:00] there's meandering soft surface trail which connects to the paved entry path and extends around the site, providing 3 different pedestrian access points to the buildings and open space plaza, as well as a pedestrian entry to the new 12 foot multi-use path that the applicant is going to construct on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue. These are just some example elevations. I'm not going to show all the elevations, but I'm just showing these to demonstrate the vernacular of the building design uses a modern vernacular and consists of a pallet of metal paneling, glazing, and woodlock soffit. The buildings provide a high degree of transparency, while incorporating simple human scale, detailing to create visual interest on all floors. There are wraparound balconies at the primary corners of each building, and building entrances are clearly defined by architectural features and changes in material and mass variety in building height is achieved through reduced building heights, at entry recesses and angled roof forms at the building corners. This is a rendering of the proposed project looking West.

[41:06] and these are just additional renderings provided by the applicant. I'm sure they'll have quite a bit more in their presentation, but the top left is looking at the open space plaza from the west. Looking east. The right one is the primary corner of building A, so the southern corner of that building, and then the bottom left is looking at the buildings from internal or interior of the site at the parking lot. So just quickly going over some of the tab and dab feedback they received. On October 9, th as I mentioned the proposal, went to Tab Tab, discussed the proposed project. They encouraged the applicant to seek a parking reduction. At the time that they went to Tab to Tab they were not asking for a parking reduction. They asked them to consider prioritizing micro mobility, to cover more of the bike parking or make more of it long term, potentially add pedestrian walkways and crossings.

[42:04] They didn't really have an agreed upon opinion about consistency with transportation, master Plan goals. They did include a comment which I will read to you now, at their request that parking policy is outdated, and made a request that the executive summary State, the Tab was surprised that state of the Art Building Development is not requesting a parking reduction, and that city policy is not yet providing encouragement to do so. So there's quite a bit of yeah discussion around the inadequacy of our code to achieve the desired parking reductions. They then, 2 days later, went to Dab Dab, discussed the project at length as well, and recommended several key refinements. So regarding circulation, the Board encouraged them to look for ways to reduce the use of pavement and the circulation pattern. So I have some images to show kind of before and after after I go through this. Just so. So that's clear regarding parking. There wasn't really consensus, but several board members felt that it should be put in another place to reduce visibility, but still make it accessible.

[43:06] There were questions raised about flipping the plan in different ways. There was some concern about the pavilion and area C, which are no longer there, and how that interacts with the service road, and then consensus recommendation to find the outer edge of the site and grab the architectural tectonics of the buildings and connect it with the sidewalk. So basically an architectural sign. So following dab and tab. The applicant has made several very significant changes to the plans. They flipped buildings A and B to shift the service, parking away from the south side of Arapahoe. they reduced the proposed parking from 560 spaces to 420 spaces, which equates to a 19% reduction. they significantly reduced the circulation area and paving of the site. And so there was a full site circulation loop that's been eliminated. There's now a singular access point to both buildings. They provide an updated Tdm plan

[44:02] and then are planning to include an architectural feature or monument, although permitting for that will have to occur after site review approval. So just to show kind of the pre tab and dab versus post so this is the original proposal. The original Site Review submittal following concept review that went to dab and Tab. So, as you can see there building A was in the front, and the parking lot was adjacent to that also. At the front of the site there was double circulation loop and then a large kind of 3rd building, building, C, which was proposed to be kind of an amenity space within the open space area. So post dab and tab, as you can see, they basically flipped the site moved, building A to the front to hide the parking, put the open space plaza in between Buildings A and B. So now more sheltered by the front of building A, and then removed the the 3rd structure, the amenity area, and just turned it all into a mix of landscaping and decorative paving areas and and various landscape features.

[45:10] So for key issues, these are outlined in the memo as well. Really, the primary key issue is whether the proposed project is consistent with the Site Review criteria, including findings related to consistency with Bvcp policies, and I should also add the criteria related to parking reductions. And then 2 would be other key issues raised by the board. I will just briefly go over a summary of my analysis here. So for key issue number one staff findings, we found that the proposed research and development use is consistent with the anticipated uses and the definition of the light industrial land use also that the project meets several Bvcp goals and policies pertaining to light industrial areas, some relating to the built environment, environmentally sensitive urban design enhanced design for all projects, etc, also a policy related to wetland and riparian protection. The the project would protect all the existing wetlands on the site.

[46:10] energy, efficient building design, revitalizing commercial and industrial areas, regional job center employment opportunities, transportation impacts, mitigated and completing missing links which we found is met by the completion of the Arapahoe multi-use path there which is currently just a a gap on that portion of the site. In addition, the project incorporates site design techniques and infrastructure that support and encourage alternatives to single occupant vehicles and improve connectivity in the area. Ample open space is provided for tenants and visitors with a varied design that will meet a range of needs, and allow for both active and passive usage. The landscaping includes a variety of plants, colors, and contrasts. Building and sighting. Design is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and the project successfully creates visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience to the extent possible. Given the required setback

[47:03] with simple human scaled and high quality architecture. So in terms of the parking reduction criteria on the site review criteria just just require that requests for parking reductions meet the parking reduction criteria that are in Section 996 of the code. So the 3 that really apply here are whether the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned and operated. no, not owned and operated, owned by occupants of, and visitors to dwelling units in the project will be adequately accommodated. the availability of off Street and nearby on-street parking. And then the effectiveness of essentially a Tdm plan or multimodal transportation program that is proposed at reducing the parking needs of the project. So in that regard the project is providing 420 off street spaces. It includes. And this is concern that Laura raised, which I think the applicant will address during their presentation just the exact number of bike parking spaces, but

[48:02] on the plans it says that 106 long term and 36 short term bike parking spaces will be provided, which is 142, where 138 are required. The Tdm plan includes providing Eco passes for employees for a minimum of 3 years, and this will likely be effective because the site is located within a quarter mile of 3 Rtd. Transit routes the jump 206 and 208. There are 2 jump bus stops adjacent to the site, 4 bus stops serving 206 and 208 at 55th and Arapahoe. The project is also providing a new multi-use path on the north side of Arapaho, which I've mentioned, which will complete the connection across that side of Arapahoe between 55th and the Boulder Creek path. and then a variety of bike and pedestrian connections to the buildings from the Maltese path to make actually getting to the buildings from the path easy. So Staff finds that the parking reduction is supportable, based on those factors.

[49:01] I have suggested motion language here which I will not read now. and now I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you. Chandler. Appreciate the presentation. Now it's time for questions from the board to staff of a clarifying, inquisitive nature. And I'm going to change my screen around so I can see who would like to go 1st with their questions. Oh, George, okay, I'm there we go. Thank you, George. Sure. Thank you. Thanks, Chandler. Question for you regarding the definition of research and development. What? What in your mind makes this light industrial research and development, and not just an office building. You know. So the applicant has just indicated that it will be used for research and development, and that it is a life sciences, facility.

[50:03] the definition of research and development is really broad. I mean, there's a lot that could theoretically fit in the research and development definition where there wouldn't necessarily be specialized facilities that we could identify on plans. I can let the applicant maybe dive more into what makes it sorry, I guess, as opposed. Yeah, I mean, from my from my standpoint, I'm curious what staff. What's that? Has done around diligence that this is not just going to be an office building, because everything I see in the proposal, the ceiling heights being 12 foot 4 4 inches rather than high Bay. The amount of parking that that they're putting on the site. Because offices just to be clear. Office is not permitted here. Right. It just requires a use. Review.

[51:02] And it's not permitted by right. No, it's not permitted by right. But research. But research and development is permitted by right. That's correct. So. So what from Staff's position. makes this research and development and not office, because the physical plant looks very much like a 3 story office building or pair. A 3 story office. Yeah, I mean, really, it's it's just the applicants assertion that this is a research and development facility, because the definition allows for the flexibility. It allows for office functions as part of research and development. It includes computer hardware and software as industries that they can be doing research and development on. There's nothing that requires any sort of difference in in terms of the building between an office building and a research and development facility. It's just what they do inside. Well, I I thought I thought it. It's been explained to me prior by staff. That office must be the minority function within the building.

[52:02] Is that not the case? I don't think that it says that in the definition it just says that they can have office functions in the same way. But it's not the primary. It's not the primary function. I mean. there's there's no place in the code, to my knowledge, that requires a percentage of one function versus another. I mean if they came in for. Permit, and we decided that it seemed like an office like we can put them through. Use review at a later date. If we decide that this is an office and not a research and development facility. Well, I guess that's my question from Staff's perspective. Forget about what the applicant has told you. I mean, what's the diligence that we do as a city that we're just not accepting this as an office building without understanding how the physical plan is laid out for for R&D. Yeah, there, there's not a standard protocol for how we check that at this point. And honestly, it would be a fairly smooth user view. I would imagine.

[53:02] So apologies Charles Farrell, planning and development services. We have to review business licenses, George, for you know any business that would go in there. So that would be the time at which we're, you know, over time, making sure that the uses that are going in the building are consistent with the R&D use. We have weekly conversations about business license applications. In industrial buildings. So I think we have a pretty good methodology when it you know, comes to verifying the type of use that's gonna go into a building over time. I swear we've had this conversation before, and I thought maybe, but I could be incorrect. The office is not. The primary use cannot be the primary use in an approved R&D, like industrial area. Right? I think the way we look at it is there's gonna be ancillary professional office functions that go along with, you know, any type of operation. There's gonna be an administrative component that goes along with, you know, an R&D use you know, or a a life science use. So it's 1 of those things like I said, that we tend to probe more at the business license review phase, and I'll be honest with you. We kind of know it when we see it.

[54:18] So we we do tend to ask a lot of questions when when we get applications in for new businesses moving into spaces. Okay. That was that was my question. Great. Thank you, George. Ml. Thank you, Mark. Let me see, I have 2 questions just following up on what George was asking Charles, or I guess maybe Chandler can answer this. And I was just curious the anticipated employee cars. So originally they had asked for more

[55:04] parking than was required substantially more, I think, and now they're because of tap, maybe because of tap. I'm I'm curious as to as to is there a difference in parking required for an R&D versus an office. No, it's just non-residential uses. All have the same ratio of required parking. Okay? And did you get any input as to the anticipated employee cars? And how come there was such a substantial change? Was that really tab that encouraged. That was really tab. Yeah, yeah, they did not want to reduce parking at the time. I think the applicant felt that that it was not something they wish to pursue, but Tab was pretty convincing. We also encourage them to seek a reduction. Okay. So use in in your thinking

[56:02] with what was proposed. The use didn't look like it was changing. That would require less cars or less people with cars that didn't come up. The square footage didn't change of the buildings. Okay? So my, I do have a couple of other questions. so a Bvcp site review criteria talks about preservation of, or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including healthy, long-lived trees. So there are a dozen trees that are being proposed to be removed. How do we know the status of those trees, and why they're being removed? Given that we're required to preserve or mitigate adverse impact to them. Well, we're not required to do that. We're supposed to make a finding, but it no one finding, has to be met right. They're all supposed to be taken as a whole on balance to meet the site. Review criteria. So this is the.

[57:06] Under site Criteria, Bvcp. G. Sorry are you referring to a boulder Valley comp plan policy, or to a site review criterion. I believe this is a Bbcp inside the Site Review criteria. Yeah, So I'm not sure what trees you're talking about, I mean, but they are preserved like in this case. We found that that criterion was met because they're preserving almost 2 acres of natural area between the wetland and the surrounding like buffer. Of that, all of that goes untouched. So I'm not exactly sure which. 12 trees you're referring to. They show them on their landscape plan, with little X's on them. Okay. And they're all along the fringes, right? They're all along the fringes. and I'm just curious as to if these are healthy. Long lived trees. I do believe that that Bdcp number G in the Site Review. Criteria is.

[58:11] is it? Is it criteria? Am I not correct in that. No, you're correct. There is a site review criterion that talks about mitigating adverse impacts to natural areas, including protection of healthy, long-lived trees. Right. I don't think it's part of the Bbcp section. I think it's just part of the Early Site Review. Here we go. Here's my criteria analysis. There it is. So it is. Yeah, yeah. 9, 2, 14 h, 1 g environmental preservation. Did you have any in in information from the applicant? Are these healthy trees? And why are they being removed.

[59:05] I can let the applicant answer that. I mean, I'm yeah. I'm assuming they're being removed to build the building, are they? On the graded area. I can look at the landscape plan as well. They're not. They're on the fringes. They're on the fringes. And I was just curious as to how we track them meeting the criteria of. Let's not get rid of healthy, long lived trees. Just because let's have a process of accountability. If they're if they're not viable, they're not viable. And can we make sure that they, an arborist, has declared them not viable? Or is this just a choice that is being made without without verification of their viability. So I'm hearing. Ask, ask the applicant. Yeah, I mean, I think maybe the applicants can speak to it. I mean all I can say now that I understand your concern a little bit more is that you know our landscaping staff and forestry staff does look at these projects and does review them. So typically when an applicant is proposing to remove trees. Someone in our department who is responsible for the trees has an eye on it, and either decides, you know, whether to follow up on it or not. So

[60:17] and I'm just not familiar with with the exact comments they may have made regarding this, or what information they may have asked for. Can I just add one thing really quickly. Yeah. Hey, ml, this is Laura with the city attorney's office. So one thing I just wanted to add, when we talked to the applicant about this, the code says, the product provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impact. So it's preservation or mitigation. Right. Not the trees? Yeah. So just. Well. Bye. Death is an adverse impact. So I'm just curious. I mean, there's 12 of them. They're not insignificant. And if and if they're healthy, long lived trees. I'm just curious as to what process we have to make sure that they're not taken out just because they're inconvenient.

[61:03] Sure. Ml, this is Charles planning and development services in looking at the legend to a lot of the trees that are being removed are considered nuisance species. So they're Russian olives, Siberian elms. So those are trees that our landscape and forestry staff would be removed anyway, regardless of their condition just because they're considered a nuisance species. But I think that constitutes a majority of the types of trees that are being removed so got it. That wouldn't be inconsistent with guidance that our landscape and forestry staff give applicants, and you know there's ash trees that are being removed out there as well, which, as we all know. You know, are subject to the ash borer Beetle. So I think that accounts for a majority of the trees. But I think to Laurel's Point. They're going to be planting back a lot more than they're removing. So you know, the hope is that kind of mitigates for the for the ones that have been removed.

[62:01] Alright. I appreciate your additional input Charles. I think I I did read that. I was just curious as to how that was verified, and I hear you say you got landscape people that have eyes on it. You do. Thanks so much. I have one more question. Can I go ahead and ask that mark? Yes. So, chandler Another criteria we have is reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. And I'm curious, does that include heat island impact. So I think the the criterion you're referring to there, yeah, is really is really quite specific that it that the project has to be designed to achieve a net site. Eui, that's 10% lower than the required energy conservation code. So I think the energy conservation code takes into account urban Heat Island, for sure. But that's a condition of approval. So that's something that they basically have to verify a building permit.

[63:07] Okay, okay. Was just curious. I'll ask the applicant the questions in particular, but so the short answer is, is yes, it becomes accountable in the process. Yeah, I mean, the short answer is that's taken into account in the energy conservation code. Got it. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you so much. I appreciate your answers. Okay, thank you. Ml, Laura, I've noticed you touching your microphone button. So do you have questions. I just want to do a real quick colloquy on one of Ml's questions about the trees, and just point out on Page I just Googled, real, or, you know, searched real quick. Page 87 of the statement of the packet in the applicant's statement about this letter G, environmental preservation number 3. They do make an assertion that they are trying to preserve and protect as many of the large trees as possible, removing only invasive species, hazardous trees, and declining health and trees compromised by site, improvement requirements, and then, ml, I appreciate you following up on. How do Staff verify that? But the applicant has made that statement that those are the only trees they're removing

[64:18] Laura. Do you have additional questions, Claudia? Thank you, Mark, and thank you, Chandler, for getting into the weeds with us. I have a number of questions about transportation at this site and around this site. So maybe I'll just jump into those. And the 1st is, how does this site interface with the planned bus rapid transit improvements on East Arapahoe. So at this point, like, do we know where bus rapid transit stops are likely to be, and what the projected timeline is for completing those kinds of improvements. I do not know that. But I can follow up and get back to you with that.

[65:04] Okay, yeah, sorry. Just something that is, I think, important context for this project. I was also looking at the East Boulder sub community plan connections plan. And I saw that there is a proposed off street, pedestrian and bike facility that is kind of planned to run from the north to the south, about a block to the west of this site. I think that's where there's an existing ditch potentially. And I'm wondering if any existing plans show connections between this site and that. Either the parcel immediately to the West, or that planned connection further to the West, and if not to your knowledge, has the applicant explored making this kind of connection. There's not an adopted connection to my knowledge between this and that site. You know, I think the applicant.

[66:01] This is a very constrained site, right between the the flood plain and the wetlands. So they basically can't raise the grade like anywhere on the site. So it's been a huge challenge, just with engineering in terms of drainage, etc. So I don't think that they've probably explored that too deeply, just because they've had such a hard time even getting like site access to their buildings. So if it's not required, I don't think they were looking to do it. Okay, I'm just I'm noticing there's that kind of internal soft surface path circling the site that comes tantalizingly close to that Western property line. But there's not been any discussion of of making a connection well, so initially, there was. there was discussion about a potential vehicular connection to the Western property line, and essentially the Western. The the owner of the adjacent property was not willing to provide it.

[67:00] so I would assume they would maybe feel the same way about potential bike connection. Okay, thank you. I will follow up with the applicant about that couple more here. So I saw that Tab recommended more covered short term bike parking, and also including some provisions for micro mobility at this site are either of those recommendations reflected in this version of the plan. I'm not sure if they increase the amount of long-term bike parking. I know they're just above the requirement compared to what they originally submitted. I mean, I'm I don't think they've increased it very much because they're just above the requirement. Okay? And is the is the short term parking is that covered in any way? Or is that I believe the short term bike parking is just in front of the main entrance to building B kind of right off the parking lot. Okay, I don't think it's covered all right. And as far as micro mobility. There's no specific features. Okay?

[68:05] And then one last one, do we have as a city any kind of standard space requirements for bike parking on the diagrams. What we're seeing is this long term bike storage area in the in the underground parking area is, I think, projected to be about a thousand square feet. It looks like 5 or 6 parking space equivalents. How many bikes do we expect to be parked in that kind of space? So I think, based on. After Laura asked the question about how many long-term bike parking spaces there were. I went and counted on the plans. So I think there's 53 double racks. So I think there's 106 long term. Okay, do we have any city standards for like what the space requirement is not just the okay. Yeah. Yeah. Being met in this case for 120 bikes, or whatever the the agreed on number is there? Yes, okay, thank you.

[69:02] Kurt. thank you. I also have questions about primarily about transportation. So thank you to Claudia for kicking that off. I had a follow up about what was originally shown as a connection to the parcel to the West that you discussed. So that was abandoned, you said, because the adjoining parcel property owner did not want to provide for that. That's correct. But often we often, when when we're trying to make connections like that, we build on the site that is currently under construction or under review, and then we continue it on at some future time, when the adjoining site comes under development. Was was there any mechanism for doing that in this case, to provide, to help to break up these this super block and just to provide a little more granularity to the transportation system. Yeah, I mean, it wasn't a required connection. It was really. They were opting to have a secondary vehicular access to the site.

[70:15] I think we would have liked it to have happened, but in that instance we we couldn't really force it. And it's not a planned connection. So I don't think it's something we're going to require them to build half of. Okay. Thank you. Next question is about the multi-use path on the north side of of Arapahoe. I saw that they are reconstructing it as a 12 foot multi-use path, but I couldn't tell from the plan. Will that be attached or detached? I believe it's detached. I thought detached would be required, but I couldn't see that from the plan, and then I didn't see any sort of landscaping then in the planting strip that would be created.

[71:03] So I'm just wondering. yeah, I'm just double about that, because I thought usually we would require a detached either sidewalk or multi-use path, and then plantings along the street. Yeah, that's correct. I'm I'm just not sure if we got an actual right of way section, or if that's just something that we would deal with during construction. Yeah, I believe it is detached. But I am having a hard time finding a plan that shows that. Okay, maybe this can be a question for the applicant. Okay? But in any case, it sounds like it's a requirement, even though it's not shown on the plans, it would be something that would be enforced in tech docs or something. Yes, okay. Last question is about the parking management. Certainly in residential projects. We have often required parking, be

[72:11] priced, separate, thump, shared, unbundled, managed, and priced. Right. I know we've talked about doing that for commercial developments. To my knowledge, we have never actually successfully done that. Do you know, or does anyone know of examples where we have been able to do that? To require some principles on parking as part of a Tdm plan for commercial development. I guess I'm I don't know of any examples, and I guess I'm not sure how that would work when employees aren't really paying rent. Do you just mean charging for just charging, for parking for employees? Yeah, I'm not. I'm not aware of any examples of that, and I know it hasn't been codified.

[73:00] Thank you. So I'll just add on to that just a little, I think, because that sort of requirement is not to be found in the code. Not that it shouldn't be, but it's not in the code currently that the best examples would be Google doing parking cash outs. So rather than mandating paid parking. They still offer free parking, but they offer incentives to cash out parking, and I'm not sure of anyone other than Google. But Google is doing that. And again, I don't know how they were doing that before the pandemic, and not sure what their situation is now I don't have any questions. I have many questions for the applicant, but I'm not going to pester staff with them now. Does anyone else have any additional questions for staff before we move on. Okay, it is now time for the applicant presentation, and

[74:08] we'll go up to 15 min. But if you don't use all 15, that's great, and I'm sure will allow you lots of opportunity for additional information. with lots of questions. All right. Thank you. My name is Joe Anastasi, applicant principal at Oz. Architecture for this project, joining me as well. Here in person, is our client, Kyle Flippen, with Schnitzer west part of the applicant team, as well as my associate, Jonathan Yates, joining us on the call, as well as our civil and landscape team, who are available for any technical engineering questions as well in support of this project. Thank you so much for the time. Thank you for the opportunity in this Forum to talk about this very exciting project, this very challenging project in a lot of ways, you know. Again, here at Oz we were actually just celebrated our 60th year anniversary founded in Boulder. It's an area that we've been committed to and seeing the growth has been very rewarding. We've been active specifically in the East boulder area for the last 10 to 15 years. Again. So seeing that growth.

[75:15] helping to provide really creative and interesting development and solutions in this sort of industrial type park. Seeing that grow for creative office into technical office research and development, fostering in some really innovative life science tech companies. All of those, I think some of the key themes, and what we're trying to really deliver and where we're committed to is quality of materials. So each project is very different, very specific to its individual context, responding to its neighbors and reinterpreting some of the initial industrial uses in creative and new and exciting ways for this young life, science tech tenant, another theme, high quality materials. So whether we're introducing mass timber, interesting forms, reinterpretation of materials, different mixed use to support some of those life science uses again, really committed to that type of delivery. And really the next one. Here is this Terra boulder, 5,675 Arapaho project the next evolution within that, again, a really exciting project for us here in this area adjacent

[76:23] to a lot of this other ones that we're committed to, and we've been dedicated to seeing through and over the last 10 to 15 years some really key, you know, descriptions for this project, really, and one of our goals ultimately is to kind of deliver that best in class, really delivering what the market is demanding with this type of use. So eye-catching detailed a new offering. We're really focused on this campus environment. We have a tremendous constraints, yet tremendous opportunities in keeping a lot of the nature landscaped area and open space in a rich campus environment. We want something high end and really of the place so responsive of this place. We have a lot of interesting drivers which helped kind of define what this building is.

[77:10] We've got an animation here kind of showing this project in more detail. Again, 0 point 5 far we've got our wetland buffer as we've talked about this this natural environment and really challenging from a lot of ways, both from identified and defined wetlands floodplain which really constrained us in so many ways. And really, you know, we had to be very creative in the solutions. obviously not having any sort of impact infrastructure. So when we talk about providing other paths and other things and more infrastructure in those areas, it's not possible in modifying the floodplain. Looking at the building. We wanted to break down the scale, shift the forms, reduce the scale and mass, and provide flexibility for multi-use tenants, not knowing the tenant need wanted to create space within these forms and really celebrate the possibility for amenity.

[78:01] Highlighting some of the anchors of the form with a sense of entrance, I think was really key as a help with wayfinding as you come into the site. We also wanted to really highlight the front range views. So the form opens up to the west, we're opening up to the views. And then also, the form really responds to its solar context. So a more vertical articulation on our East and west sides. We've analyzed it from a solar standpoint and reduced some of our loading with shading and passive measures. You can see the building sort of in here, really balancing nicely into its context respecting the existing wetland and the natural environment. the development and the planting of a lot of trees. Actually, it's it's 1 of our main goals. And you'll see with some of the data and how many trees we are planting. And again, really leaning into that natural environment. capturing rain, rainwater, and providing something that's sort of of the place and contextually responsive. You can see a natural berm buffer and respect towards the wetland celebrating that natural environment, preserving it.

[79:06] enhancing the site. And that's really one of our keys, though with our development and with touching this site, we want to leave it better than where we found it. So a really excited project, really again, challenging in so many ways, but exciting opportunity for us here as a rendering, looking towards the West without parking enhanced planting on all sides and articulated form of scale proportion and high quality materials. And really, that's our project goal to improve and revitalize the area of redeveloping this vacant site and connecting the neighborhood to contextually responsive architecture, a forward, thinking, sustainable site, strategy and an active campus environment really key for us to really have a successful project. You know. Chandler went into a lot of the details of our site designations sort of in the East Border community plan in this sort of light industrial area

[80:02] kind of touched on these. But we want something that's of place. So respecting the unique history, its context, something that's very energy, efficient, sustainable. That's a that's a really a key driver and a key goal with any of these projects that we propose, and we've been dedicated towards seeing them through and seeing them be successful in the future, and then proposing, you know, something that draws upon some of the adjacent context and reinterpret it, I think, in unique and creative ways, and really ensuring that it has future viability. And it's going to be successful. Looking at our site review criteria in which we're judged. Again. Ig industrial as as Chandler mentioned research and development as an allowable use, 45 foot height, allowable from a stories from our historic low, the buildings 45 to 44 to 45. We're constrained with our floodplain. And where we're setting our base plane, which constrains our building in some ways without having to ask for additional height or maxing out our height of our projects without putting that in front of planning board for additional requests for enhanced height. Our parking we did provide the code required minimum parking originally

[81:13] through this process with transportation. We did reduce that. So we went from one to 400 to one to 500 on that parking reduction. So we did provide that along with alternate means that 19% parking reduction which we said and bike parking 142 provide. We talked about some questions came up about that. And I'll mention that all of the exterior short term are covered. They're under the main entrances, convenient as required, convenient to the main entrances and easily accessible for the bike user and undercovering, and then an enhanced garage space. We've also provided convenient entry points around the building, not knowing the tenants. If it's demise differently. We wanted convenient access for multiple users and for them to access that in different ways for a bike user. So there are around some of the central cores, possibilities for more interior accommodations beyond the 142 provided which meets the requirements of our site. Review criteria.

[82:08] and again, really tremendous opportunity to provide a lot of open space, enhanced shrubs, trees, planting, and everything else from a carbon standpoint, sort of mentioned that. But it's really critical for us to maintain the open space, celebrate it, and blend in with its natural environment. So kind of looking at the open space landscape again, you can kind of. See the intention here on that amenity where we're really interested in that indoor outdoor activity. We have a tremendous opportunity to provide this trail and whole connected amenity and pedestrian trail around the entire site blended in with rainwater capture. So again, we don't have any stormwater infrastructure on site, so any water that touches the building we are capturing. We are treating into integrated rain gardens, into our water quality areas and then allowing them to be nice natural buffers for the amenity zone.

[83:01] reducing our actually planted turf. And in lieu providing a lot of native landscaping pollinators. We really want this to be a really nice environment for bees for wildlife. It's evident in the planting selection, the amounts of plants and the type of selections that we do have so kind of looking again at our site. Review criteria. We're meeting all of these and exceeding our site review criteria for any of these criterias active amenity, a variety of landscape surfaces. So we talked about Heat Island. Actually, a majority of our site is landscaped, and if it's not landscaped, we either have concrete. We have pavers. We have other types of variety of surfaces which meets and exceeds our site. Review criteria. To ensure that we're being cognizant of our Heat Island effect versus other sites which are abundance of asphalt and other things which are not ideal. We're opposite. Of that. We have enhanced reduced our turf. Max. 25. We're 3% provided open space, 15%. We've got 41% provided and open space for our footage, tremendous amount of open space and integrated pedestrian and connections.

[84:12] So looking at these, I sort of touched on these a bit, you know, with our enhanced planting counter and type and buffers, and so forth. Our water quality areas, amenity, our textures, our surfaces and our trail system really key. It's really the fundamental basis of our project, I think, being successful, not only the building, but how it connects with the outdoor and landscape environment surrounding it in every way of our landscape criteria. We're exceeding our site. Review criteria as well. 118 trees required 179 provided. And again, as we've mentioned earlier in the Q. And a session, only trees that are dead having issues. Ash Russian olives, not compliant are the ones being removed. We're only removing the ones that would have to be. And in lieu planting a lot more trees, and treating them with respect and and developing those

[85:07] shrubs. We have 589 required over 1,500, provided, as I mentioned, for our investment and our dedication to ensuring a nice landscaped, planted environment. full screening and reduction of turfgrass and other water. Intensive type uses. You can see again another aerial sort of looking at that really blending in with the landscape on all sides where possible, and only having a minimalist touch of the buildable environment. So there's not many opportunities, as you kind of saw in the aerial of what we're able to do, more minimalist solution of only having and touching and developing areas that we can, and then ensuring the preservation of all other natural natural areas. Kind of looking at circulation, we did remove existing vehicular curb, cut to improve safety and clarity. We couldn't have infrastructure in that zone. In the wetland and floodplain buffer.

[86:02] We shifted the parking area opposite opposite the primary streetscape. We are providing 8 foot connected connection to the multi-use trail along Arapaho, connecting that into our site to allow for more micro mobility connections, bike uses and safety. and again only possible where we can. At our south entrance, between our floodplain, between where we can't modify or touch the grade by more than 6 inches in either way. Between the wetlands there's only a small, narrow section that's actually able to be connected and developed from Arapaho. And that's what we've done. A very strategic, very thoughtful approach to connect as possible without disturbing any areas of which which we're not allowed. We have the trail connection, as I mentioned, covered bike spaces, electrical bike charging spaces in the garage as well reduced surface parking area eco passes and education for new tenants and employees for transit opportunities would be provided at the time that we do have a tenant.

[87:02] So we do have carpool priority spaces conveniently located near the entrance. We did reduce our on grade, parking spaces as well. So only 1 3rd of the spaces are on grade, which is more of a 1 to 1,400 ratio. Everything else is concealed in the garage and tucked in. So a very minimalist type, parking use actually on grade that's visible. Ev charging spaces are also conveniently located. So again. You can see our trail in the foreground, our connected path for access and connection connecting to Arapahoe. As we mentioned, we have a ride sharing Grand drop off area as you entrance with a nice paver. Sense of entrance, monumental again to encourage other ride, sharing and carpooling opportunities. You know we have our carpooling priority spaces, easy connections for amenities into that area, into the amenity zone. And again, in a sense of arrival buffered with grand landscaping and planting.

[88:01] Looking at our section through the site again. Very thoughtful approach to making sure that we sort of blend from our natural environment into I'm giving you your one and a half minute warning. Perfect man that really flew by. Didn't it flies by circulation? We sort of mentioned this for vehicular paths, a minimalist selection reducing all of our counts as far as area for circulation, for vehicular. We have a connected bath, as path, as I mentioned, for a bicycle, and then really enhanced pedestrian connections. High quality materials are another key aspect of this. We also talked about life science. We've worked with a lot of tech tenants in the Life Science realm. What it means to us is is, you know, loading and vehicular movements for truck deliveries, dedicated loading zones, service elevators. And this is all what we're providing, increase loading criteria which we have above standard office, structural deck vibration, criteria and stiffening which we provided composite deck roof, air, future lab equipment on the roof, not just a metal deck.

[89:07] We maximize our allowable height, double height, space within the structural base. The life science tenant just needs certain equipment requires additional height. Majority of it is actually not that height primarily. And so they do have the possibility to reduce areas, and some of those for equipment as needed electrical water service, size for life. Science use really efficient mechanical system and future lab, shaft accommodations and plan for future refrigerants. And again, we're maximizing our height. and I'll just finish with. We have a Pv system that's taking the entire roof area we are planning for lead, gold, and efficient in in all sort of ways, shading envelope building systems. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you very much. And so now we have an opportunity to ask the applicant questions. Anybody want to jump in and

[90:05] got a burning question. Laura? I'll just ask one quickly. So I appreciated the clarity around the number of bike parking spaces. Your Tdm. Plan on page 108 of the packet said it was 157 bicycle parking spaces, not 142, and I'm wondering where that number came from. Was it like you planned to provide more and then cut back? Or why is one, say 1, 57, and one says 1, 42, sure, I think it's just a typo on the Tdm. 142, was the plan to meet the required. I think, also, maybe what they were considering is the potential on the interior accommodations around some of the central cores which we provided that future accommodations around our cores. Again, without knowing the tenant situation. It's hard to say, you know, that all your interior ones are going to be right here, but 142 is the planned bicycle parking at this time? Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

[91:05] I'm going to call an Ml. George had his hand up first.st Oh, okay, all right, we'll go to George. All right. Thanks for the presentation. A few quick questions. One the buildings, a little slightly north of 200,000 square feet at full capacity when this is fully occupied, how many people do you anticipate would be employed here? I know you can't give a an app, a specific number. But what's your anticipated range. Yeah, we plan code wise for occupancy 100, about 150 square foot per occupant. Give or take from a code egressing standpoint potentially in that in that realm, depending on the type of use so. So quick, quick, quick, math on! I'm sorry the building is how many square feet 200.

[92:00] 206, 207. And 6,000, so would it be safe to assume 206,000, divided by a hundred 50. That's 1,373. Give or take. That's a full density office. I think that's really on the high end, with other lab and other types of uses, you'd have a much lower density plan within the space. Also, you know, amenity. If there's assembly spaces and other things as well, I think the Tdm. I think they addressed maybe some additional accounts that they factored in. But that's just kind of rough math, just from a occupancy standpoint. So what do you? So what do you think. 100,000. I don't know. Okay, plus or minus a thousand. Okay. Great The way often, and what these spaces are laying out. It could be upwards of 350 square foot occupant, as well on some tis for some other lab, and life, science.

[93:01] I I noticed on the slide that you presented where it had allowable uses. You had administrative office parenthesis office and R&D, so can you explain what this tenant mix? Looks like? Yeah. So oftentimes what we're seeing and what we've what we've seen just recently completed across the street at 5,505, 2,400, central, 2,300, central, and others, is somewhere in the realm of a 60 to 40, split with depending on the lab equipment between that. So there's so many variables and the types of equipment, the types of business users and things like that that go into that that type of split. But from a system standpoint they're generally planned in that from exhaust Cfms, everything else, 60, 40, 60% true lab equipment and other supporting uses for that lab workstations and other things.

[94:03] Got it? Where do you anticipate these tenants coming from? Are they coming from outside of Boulder, or are they relocating to this location from inside of older. And what do you? What do you expect that percentage to be. Yeah, it's it's hard to know. I mean, we would, you know. Yeah, you're working hard on the pre-leasing standpoint. So. George, this is Kyle flipping with Spencer West appreciate the question. We are still trying to identify that. I think it evolves and changes unfortunately weekly for us. But I would say, the Talent Pool that exists at the University of Colorado, other universities in the State. We're seeing a lot of. you know. I'd say it's probably right now, 50% of people that are existing in boulder have existing businesses that are growing here. And the other 50% are people that are trying to move here and tap into the Talent Pool. That's here. So I'd say it's 50 50.

[95:13] Got it. Okay? Great. you know, it's I have one more question, and it's around the the physical plan of the facility. I'm sure you guys are familiar, especially since it's a competing project with the Ridgeway Science and Tech project that was approved, which is also life sciences building. Roughly 112,000 square feet, and in that presentation that they gave to the Planning Board they specifically noted that their ceiling heights needed to be. substantially higher. Given the kinds of lab space and life sciences, tenants that they were going after. So their their ceiling heights, I believe, are 16

[96:00] feet, plus where you've got sort of minimums of 10 feet and floor floor to floor. I think you're 12 feet so or 12 feet 4. Can you explain to us why? Why? I I'm just curious on the target of tenant, because it because it was it was such a specific thing from their presentation that I remembered. Obviously you can't speak to their project. But I'm curious why, you haven't had made kind of the same decision given that you're going after a similar kind of businesses. Sure. Yeah. And you know, as I kind of noted, we did Max out our allowable height without coming to planning board for action for additional height. We did consider it. We had that conversation with our case manager to review that schedule was important for us as well, to maybe not go through the process and ask for additional, and we felt we still. Oh, yeah, there, there's this, by the way, is the same height as yours. So they're at. They're at close to 45 feet. It's that they've chosen only 2 stories rather than 3 stories to accommodate high bay lab space in the life sciences, industry.

[97:10] Yeah, we are. We do have our 0 point 5 far that we're maxing out. We have explored. And we do have the possibility to accommodate a higher base bases. I don't know the specific tenant that they're talking to. I will say for any life science tenant that we are talking to it really, actually is more of a strategic shift on the exact business units in the areas that need certain lab equipment within a certain bay to provide that spaces. So if it actually helps, if you're talking to a specific tenant, and they could tell you the criteria that they do have, then we could specifically accommodate that. As we talked to tenants, we did explore that potential actually to reduce some of the bays and provide 16. Some of the numbers that you're talking about in very certain areas of building, however, without having that tenant on board, you know, building a suit, then that's challenging to accommodate that. But at that time we would certainly have to go through that process to remove bays. It would change some of our ratios. There's a process to do that administratively as well. But at this time that still is a possibility in the future.

[98:12] But we are providing a nice adequate space for a typical user again, with that, with that potential. Got it. Okay, thanks. Ml, I'm going to go ahead and call, even though I'm I'm having trouble seeing your hand. I assume it's still up. I'm going to go ahead and call on you, and then we'll go to Kurt. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Yes, my hand is- is still up, will do a kind of a bit of a follow up, and then I have a different question than what George asked. So the follow up is I believe that this building, the square footage, hasn't substantially changed from the original. When we saw concept plan, I know that the it was flipped. And you know it's relationship to the site has changed. So my question is,

[99:09] Originally you had proposed an overage of cars of parking. And now you're proposing like 98 fewer cars. The tenant. The potential tenant changed, or what is the what is the driving factor? Aside from? Of course we we heard that Tab encouraged you. I'm just curious as to the actual use and the actual proposed understanding. Because you say you've done a lot of these kinds of building types. Was there a substantive change that now with confidence, thinking you've you've got enough cars with the reduction. Yeah. So our original proposal did have was meeting the Site Review criteria. The one to 400 is a minimum from the city of boulders, zoning requirements that we did meet. We then shifted that to one to 500 spaces with a 90% parking reduction. There wasn't a substantial change

[100:15] in the building, as Kyle mentioned, and he could talk in more detail. There are ongoing conversations with potential tech tenants, and for this project to meet their needs, and from the leasing side, I think, is still trending around that ratio. Desired. Hi, ml, Kyle, flipping here with Schnitzer. Yeah, I think we kind of identified. Okay, here's the parking minimum. And you know, we don't want to come in and try to have a bunch of asks to the city. And so we're meeting what the parking requirements were. And then, through, as Chandler mentioned with the process with Tad that they requested a parking reduction. We, I would say, reluctantly, did that just based on our market research of talking to the tenants that there is, I would say the public transportation infrastructure does not support eliminating all parking

[101:08] to get people to work every day. And so we're trying to triangulate between what is the city's goals? What are our tenants needing to occupy these offices and research and development facilities and lab buildings and trying to find common ground amongst all of those. And you know, I think ideally the feedback from tenants that we're talking to. They would like 3 per 1,000. So they would actually like more parking upwards around 650 stalls. And we just know that that is not going to be something that both the city has received. Well, and we don't really like building parking, anyway, it's difficult, and it's not a great use of space. So we had conversations with tenants, and said, Well, look, none of our, you know. Some of the projects that George had mentioned that have gotten approval. You know they have all reduced their parking as a request by Tad. And so we said, Okay, well, kind of if everybody's doing it. And you know we don't have any asks, we kind of feel comfortable reducing parking to this amount, so that all new projects being considered by these tenants, are all kind of adhering to the same sort of parking requirements. So that's.

[102:20] So it's coming across industry wide is what I'm hearing. So the tenants are kind of. let's let's evolve. Yeah. And I think you had asked another question. The use doesn't really determine the parking. Right? No, I I that that was answered. So my second question, and I think this is more of an architectural nature. But you talked in the presentation about the mitigation of heat gain you talked. There is a diagram that you put in about the the little diagram that shows a solar response diagram. And so my question is, I'm kind of curious. It's like the the west facades appear to be

[103:11] primarily glazed without a lot of protection. That's probably our most intense sun. So I'm curious as to again you speak about the solar response. Talk about the west facade, and the vast amount of exposed glass. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. So we actually, our west facade primarily is a punched opening, aesthetic with a low U value U value, low solar heat gain coefficient for those punched openings. So we actually did reduce the amount. You could kind of see the articulation there on a smaller punched opening, I think. close to it's probably under 30% actually window to wall ratio for those areas within that facade. And then primarily shaded elements as well. So we look at that, we have articulated fins along the glazing. So, getting more depth into the facade we did look at, we did analyze with our cove tool, looking at shading and solar as it sort of comes around the building. So it's a number of things. It's enhanced continuous insulation within our facade. More facade area relative to the glazing. So a smaller punched opening and not a curtain. Wall, we're not proposing, you know. There's a lot of buildings out there that do propose

[104:28] primarily glass facades. A lot of tenants do like that. We did actually drastically reduce our overall window to wall ratio around the building, particularly on the east and west sides, where we have that lower sun that's a little bit harder to control. The south sun, where it's higher in the sky, is a little bit easier, and we look at that from a shading standpoint and make sure that we're reducing those so. So second question on that same vein about the heat gain potential. Your solar diagrams. Show that the majority of the parking will be in sun.

[105:06] whether it's winter or summer. Did you ever consider doing some shading in there to reduce the heat island of the parking area. We did. Yeah, and we did. It's not an asphalt lot. It is a concrete deck with landscaped buffer. We have rainwater capture. We have waterproofing membrane drainage, material, shrub material. I think you guys saw the metrics as far as we're exceeding our interior lot landscaping as well in our parking area. We're shading that particularly on that south side for that parking area and then shading around and then providing a better material as well. Is that gonna be a white. It's gonna be gray. A light, a light color. Yeah, like, yeah, light color. And that's about. Is dark as well. Right? Okay. And that's balanced, too, with a lot of pavers, because you could kind of see at that drop off area, having a nice paver enhanced landscaping there, and and shrubs as well.

[106:08] Right? So we we really did think about that. And again, as our overall relative to most Ig zoning, we have a extremely large amount of open space and landscape area and reduced buildable asphalt and everything else relative to our site. Review criteria. So last question, what percent of that? 41% of open space is not in the wetland. Oh, gosh! That's a tough one, offhand. I think it's in the the Site Review packet. I forget. I don't have the number. can I, yeah, I think, we set the maximum amount that they can count of their open space. That's in a wetland at 50%. And I think they said 30%. Got it. Or 30% of the wetland is being counted as open space. But it's still a small fraction of the overall open space. Right? Okay, perfect. Those are my questions. Thank you so much.

[107:01] Yeah, thank you. Okay, before we go on, I I'm I'm just going to encourage us. Given the timing on this to focus our questions to the applicant on things that we can materially impact have applied to the site review criteria. And so I'm just urging us to focus our questions and proceed. So any anyone who's next? And I actually my questions already got asked and answered. So I'm good. Thank you. Claudia. I've got a bunch. But if you if you're ready, okay, I'm I'm gonna go, and maybe some of these. Can you define your definition of ev ready versus ev capable versus ev supply enabled.

[108:06] Yeah. So we've got a conduit and electrical power hook up for the capable, I think, for both of them, I think. full for the ones, provided it's full. Chargers, installed chargers, or whatever you ev ready would be. You have chargers at the site can add it, I can add. well, it's for provided. And then, yeah, the Ev installed or provided are with the chargers installed. The Ev ready. Okay, could you introduce yourself, please? Oh, sorry. Excuse me. I'm John Yates, architect, with Oz architecture on behalf of the applicant, and could you speak into the mic, please? Yes, thank you. So the Ev. Installed those include the chargers, all the capacity for it, the Ev ready. They include the conduit, the routing, the wiring for it for the future tenant to install chargers at their timing, and then the Ev capable are spaces that have been provided within the overall power system that it has the capacity to add at a later date.

[109:11] Okay, that's interesting. So I didn't see any Ev installed marked spaces. I saw ev ready spaces ev capable spaces and then evse spaces supply enabled. I might have to look back kind of at our application material, maybe a differentiation. I was. I was looking at the actually the diagram for the garage and the and the parking area. Those were the 3 designations I was able to get out of this. So and I was thinking, Ev ready was you had a charger there. That's not the case. That that may be the case in that designation. Sometimes we use a little bit different designation between plan sets, but it is in alignment with the boulder, the Boulder code and the overall Ibc and Iecc requirements.

[110:12] and that would be that 5% are ev installed, which is 21 spaces. If I'm reading this correctly. what? What page are you? I'm looking at page 97. There's a footnote on the table that says Ev requirements per kobec, and it includes 5% ev installed, which is 21 spaces. page 97 of the packet before Thomas added to it. Oh, that one. Okay, okay, yeah. Okay, 5%. Ev, provided 5% installed 21. It's a, it's a lot of spaces as as we define our construction set. It's it's a lot of garage bases, and we've also conveniently planned them next to each other for efficiency, and in the garage place as well as those on the surface parking area as well.

[111:06] Okay, I think that answers that question for me. And again, forgive me if this is in a table somewhere, and I just didn't see it. But how many of your long term, or all of your long term bike parking spaces fully secure a hundred 6, a hundred 6 of the 142 are secure, correct, long-term secured. Okay. How many of your long term bike spaces are vertical hanging bikes, and how many are horizontal bike resting on the ground? So of those we plan for the dual vertical rack for for those spaces, and then within that zone as well, a repair station in that area, so majority of them are, I think, all of those spaces for the long term are in that rack format within that zone of the parking garage.

[112:06] So in the dual vertical format, you've got one bike above another. Is that right. Or are you saying there's there. Caddy corner side by side, sort of slanted on that vertical rack, so the a single rack holds 2 offset from each other. They're offset under vertical attachment. but they're they're all. Then all of them are hanging in some vertical fashion for the long term. Yes, and then we have standard short term with the standard U surface attached. Covered. But yes, they're all hanging on the rack for the long term secured. Okay, How many of your long term bike spaces are electrified with a 120 volt. 3 prong outlet receptacle.

[113:01] Yeah, I believe we're we're providing power to the station. I believe we have no less than 10 outlets within that area for future use, for power requirements for potential bikes. So there's a percentage there that could be used for future Ev. charging bike station. Okay. Did you do any? Have you done any investigation work? Contact with? They've changed their name as of just recently. But boulder bike share or the city's bike share program boulder B cycle in terms of locating a station at your facility. If you're talking about a thousand people coming to work potentially or more, anyway, have you? Did you do any contact with Boulder B cycle about micro mobility stations at your facility.

[114:04] No, I don't believe so. Okay, how about on car shares? Same thing for Colorado car share or any other car share facilities, companies to work with them specifically, any car share companies to have? Doesn't both facilities for and designated spots for car shares. Yeah, we do have an enhanced drop off area for the car, sharing potential like Uber and Lyft. You're referring to being pick up, drop off uber and lyft and versus protected. Yeah, and protected with callers and a drop. Yeah, a dedicated zone within that drop off area convenient to the main entrance for those uses. Okay? I think that answers my questions, Claudia, do you have questions?

[115:01] Sure, thanks, Mark. I'm going to ask the same question that I asked Chandler earlier about potential bike and pedestrian connections to and or through the property to the West. He answered that that property owner was not amenable to such a connection is that how you would characterize the outcome of discussions. Yes, yeah. There was a long negotiation with the West neighbor to work with them in any sort of regional capacity, and they were generally unwilling to be supportive neighbor. even despite some, a lot of accommodations with easements and access for both of us for a second means of emergency access in lieu. We did work with the city staff, chandler and the team to ensure that we had the right fire, truck, turn movements and everything else accommodated on our site in lieu, because the neighbor was unwilling to work with us. And I'm specifically interested in a bicycle or pedestrian connection, because you do have that path on the western border of your property. Not so much the vehicle.

[116:10] Large vehicle connection. Yeah. So we did make our multi-use path as well at our east side, with the floodplain, with the wetland, with all the buffers on the east side, or sorry on the west side, that was impossible to sort of within the site. We literally can't be developing it in that sort of way and modifying the grade and putting infrastructure within the wetland buffer on the west side. And so our multi-use path and connection is at our east border. Okay? Yeah, I'm I'm still looking at that. Can we look at the connections, path connections plan potentially. Yes, thank you. And then there's at least there's a version in our packet that shows the

[117:00] internal pedestrian and bike network. Correct. Yeah. And so we have a crushed breeze minimalist as we're allowed to have the trail pedestrian connection elsewhere in the site without putting any sort of infrastructure, which is, yeah. Are there are there any barriers, though, from your perspective on your side of things. to making some sort of connection between that crushed pathway on the West Side, and any future development in the parcel on your west side. If you should have more amenable neighbors in the future. Yes, we would love. Yeah, we would. We would certainly love that. So there's not. There's not like a physical barrier there. a physical barrier. There is drastic topography changes which also make that okay. We also, it should be noted that we did also explore conversations with the east neighbor at the northeast side as well. But again, as as Chandler knows, and working with the engineering department extensively. the topographic connection and modification within the floodplain on both of our sides that was not achievable in any sort of meaningful way on both sides. But for pedestrian connection that certainly is, I think, possible. You probably need some stairs and some other things. Grade is tough on both sides as the site sort of built up, and then we have the floodplain on all sides, so about a rock and a hard place on a surrounding buffer around our entire site. Okay?

[118:28] And then, I think, just one kind of in the weeds question about access to your long term bicycle storage area. You mentioned in the plans that there is access through a stairwell near the main entrances of your buildings. and I did see that. And I'm just curious what the what the experience of moving a bicycle through that stairwell is, are there? Is it a standard stairwell kind of standard grade that we'd be used to standard landings, or there's some actual accommodations to make that more navigable by bikes and or by users of different abilities and sizes.

[119:05] Yep, yep. So there is. We did have a number of different potential opportunities to access that both within the central areas of the core. So you can kind of see on building a there is its own elevator and larger sort of grand open stair that would access that garage. We did have a amenity connection as well. Sort of within that zone you could kind of see blocked out if you could see my cursor there. That is a large that was planned as a larger stair. We do have this other core entrance through that access point. And then we do also provide access down this north side connection. There within the garage we have planned a separate bike lane as well within that garage with its own dedicated entrance off the vehicular coiling door, so providing flexibility again without knowing the tenant situation. But for multi-tenants to feel a sense of equitability and accessing that bike room, I think, was important.

[120:02] Okay, thank you, Kurt. I'm sorry I do have one detailed question, which is a follow up on what? I asked Chandler, which is about the multi-use path along the north side of of Arapahoe. It looks from your site plan, like you're showing that as attached. Do you know whether it's really attached or detached? But no, I don't. Okay? Oh, yeah, I did just get actually an email from Sharon. Who's the engineer working on the project? Who heard your question? Is she online as well. I am. Hello! Hi! Sharon! Great. Hi and Hi Kyle. yes, I can answer this question. So we actually followed the East Boulder transit plan for our East Arapahoe Transit Plan section, and there's a portion of sections that have the 8 foot buffer. There's a portion of sections that only have a 2 foot hardscape buffer, and then there's a portion that has no buffer. We're in the section that has a 2 foot hardscape buffer before the 12 foot multi use path. And the reason is because there is a protected wetland and floodplain directly adjacent to the existing sidewalk that prevents us from making any kind of grading changes to move this back to the north.

[121:25] Okay, thank you very much. Absolutely. Okay. Last call. And again, I'm not able to see everybody right now. But Ml, or George, if you have additional questions, now's the time. Otherwise I'm we're going to go to our public hearing. So, Thomas, are you ready? And is there anyone here in the room. First, st

[122:00] we have Vivian online with us as well. I don't believe we have Vivian. Hi, Vivian, you're still there. Okay for public participation. And then Vivian's going to help with our online. Okay? So usually, we do anyone here. First, st I don't think we have anyone here. Do we have anyone online? Vivian. I don't see any hands raised yet. Can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you. So that will be the call for anyone online. Yeah, give folks a few moments. Please go ahead and raise your virtual hand if you don't have your 1st and last name displayed, or if you're just not sure you can send it to me via the Q. And a function, and I can call on you that way. So far. We have one hand, so we'll go ahead and start with Lynn Siegel, and each person will have 3 min. Please go ahead, Lynn. Hi! Well, Lynn Siegel, this is a beautiful campus, it's, you know, visionary. It's quite remarkable.

[123:13] you know the wet lines we have in Seattle, where I'm from are, you know, real deep. So there's a lot more constrained circumstances that you're operating in, and our health sciences was all part of Uw campus. And I just I still can't understand Colorado after I've been here since 80, 5, 87. This things just spread. There's just a sprawl kind of effect. I mean ann schuses in Denver, and it just doesn't somehow make sense to have.

[124:05] I mean the medical schools in Denver. Everything's there. Why do we have these sprawling health sciences centers out in the middle of halfway to Kansas in Boulder there's going to be a lot of folks here. They're probably going to be making a couple 100,000 bucks a piece, and they're going to be loaded on to boulder population and the missing middle, which seems to get more and more high end every minute. If they're not going to be commuting from quite some distance. So it's kind of a confusing situation.

[125:04] I mean, I'm you know. I'm an ultrasound tech. I'm all for the health sciences, you know. Space. But it's a bit confusing. Why, this campus isn't at Anschutz, and why things are so spread out. I mean, there's going to be commuting, and there's loading of a lot of middle income people, and we've already got really high prices here. I appreciated some of the thoughts of the folks on the board as to

[126:00] was my time up. Yes, thank you. Thank you so much for being here, and for sharing your your comments. Anybody else wish to speak for the public hearing. Give folks a few more seconds. Alright! It seems like we don't have anybody else who wishes to speak back over to you. Chair. Okay, thank you very much. We're going to close the public participation of this agenda item and I'm going to poll us. Do we want to take a break for 5 min now, or wait until we are done deliberating on and complete this agenda item I could use break. So I'm going to propose A, it is 8 0. 7. So we'll take. We'll come back at.

[127:05] We'll be back in session at 8 15. Okay, thank you. Sure.

[134:41] Okay, we are back in the room. It is 8 15. We're going to resume agenda. Item, 5 of the planning board meeting. And now we are going to board, deliberation, discussion, and

[135:02] motion making, etc. So Does anyone want to lead us off with thoughts, comments, or even discussion of any anything they'd like to do in terms of modifications or conditions. and we can start off with general comments, too. And Ashley Chandler. Of course we have the your key questions that we might put up as well. And if I may chair just as a reminder when you're thinking about motions and and things to this, just make sure that it is according to the Site Review criteria, right? Right? Any motions. Yeah. So if we're going to approve this, if we're going to make any changes, it's to make it so. That is approvable under the Site Review criteria. Yes. absolutely. I agree with our legal counsel here that again, in fact, all of our discussions should be around

[136:05] how this fulfills or does not fulfill the site. Review criteria. Okay, so we have motion language up. Okay, ready for comment, Laura, go ahead. I'll just lead off with general commentary, and thank the applicant for their presentation. Thanks, Staff, for their hard work on this project. I was here for the Concept Review, and I really appreciate the work that the applicant has done to respond to the comments that they received from Tab, from Dab and from this board, including flipping the site design to hide the parking. I remember Ml. Had a comment about permeability, because the parking garage was under an environmental feature. And now the parking garage is under the building. I'm not going to go through everything, but I do want to note that we really appreciate that the applicant has taken our comments seriously. I'll say that I do find the project to be generally consistent with the Site Review criteria, but I am, of course, open to hearing the arguments and thoughts of my colleagues about how this could be become more in line with our site. Review criteria.

[137:11] Great. Thank you, Laura. Would you like to start with a motion? You know I let's let's have a little discussion, and then and then we can again. I appreciate the opportunity to begin with a motion. But let's let's have a little general discussion, and then we'll quickly move into a motion and then potential amendments to the main motion. Go ahead. Thank you. Well, I agree with Laura that the project as a whole is largely consistent with the Site Review criteria. I do feel that it is missing the mark a bit with regards to the Tdm. Plan

[138:01] and consistency with 9, 9, 6 f. 2D. Which is the the parking reduction criteria. And so I will have a proposed condition about requiring either a parking pricing program or parking cash out. I also based on a comment from Ml, I am concerned about the consistency with 9 2, 14 h. 4 GI think it is the environmental it's 1 g. h, 1 GH, 1 g. Right? Right? h, 1 g. The environmental criteria that Ml. Referenced, and so I will have a proposed, and I'm particularly concerned with regards to the amount of

[139:03] unshaded surface parking that is shown there's very large area of surface parking. There is one band of trees through the that runs east, west through the middle of the parking area that would provide some shading and also some buffer to to rainfall. But I will propose, and I don't know whether the the board will agree, but I would propose to add 2 additional bands of tree planting in there to provide additional shading and rain buffers. Okay, ml, and George, I'm gonna go down the line here and then I'll come back to you guys around. Okay. thanks. I agree largely with Laura and Kurt about their

[140:04] discussion about compatibility with the Bvcp. And Site Review criteria. I think this plan is largely consistent with the Bvcp. In terms of land use, infill and employment policies. I definitely appreciate the current site design that works with the existing wetland geography to both preserve that space. And also, I think, improve the site design. I will be looking in this discussion for opportunities to improve connections to other properties in this area. We've done some work on that in the East Boulder subcommunity plan. and we do have some site design criteria around access, transportation and mobility that discuss how we should be creating a somewhat more fine grained bike and pedestrian network when possible. So I may be making some proposals around that great George, I'm going to call on you.

[141:02] Sure. Thanks. Start with general comments in general. Just I think, as I said, when this came up for concept review, right? This is a this is a beautiful campus. It's clear that the architects have put a lot of thought to it. I don't believe it satisfies 2.2 1 relative to what is the intent to be in R&D light industrial in the Ig zone? I think this is a case of a beautiful office campus that's being pitched to the city as an R. And D complex to fit in like industrial you know, we, as a planning board. We sit and wring our hands about affordability in this town, and then we're snowed

[142:01] by potentially accepting a project that's gonna employ another 1,000 to 1,400 people and reverse anything that we might do on the affordability and the housing policy side with just one sweep of one little project like this, and I truly believe that the way this will be marketed and occupied. Is not in the spirit of 2.2 1. Ultimately, it's not to say that developers, disingenuous through how they're positioning it. I just think that's what's gonna end up happening. And when we come back to affordability as a board and as a city, we're gonna have to look ourselves in the mirror and look at some hard truths of what we're doing with a project like this. Because we're we're reversing a lot of what we could potentially do with housing policy, even with approving a product like this. That just truly

[143:02] appears to be from a physical planning perspective. Really, just a class, a office that will attract tech companies with several $100,000 jobs that will displace a lot of our residents and have an effect on our affordability. So for that reason I won't be supporting the project, although I do really like the project and design. Not take anything away from it. So those are my comments. Yes. May I just ask George a question? The 2.2 1 is that one of our site review criteria? I'm trying to find it? Or is that chapter 2. Is it 9? Policy. Pvcp policy. Okay, thank you. Okay. Ml, are you ready? Can make a general comment. Thank you. Thank you. Mark.

[144:01] You know II I appreciate what George is saying. I'm concerned that the concern I'm concerned that the concern is not one of the actual site Review criteria that we need to be holding the project accountable to. I don't know, George, if there would be a way for you to filter that down into one of the Site Review criteria Ml, I. I don't believe it belongs in its own. It's it's not an Ig project. This is an office building that's being framed. Project this is, I don't believe it belongs here. Period. So it's a zoning landing. It's fundamental. It's a fundamental. George, not to interrupt your discussion. But Brad's walked up. And yeah, I think we're we're hiding a bit here. So I'm going to ask Brad to. Yeah. Hi, Brad Mueller, director of Planning and Development services.

[145:14] I want to remind the Board that we have to accept the tenants of an application as it's presented to us, and not act on the speculation of how it may be abused in the future against its use. I think you've heard testimony tonight that we do have a mechanism through the business licensing program to make sure that the business is consistent with zoning. And and I just want to offer my the board, that we. that we that we take applications in on the premise that the facts that are presented which we check against are, in fact, what's being done? But I but I do want to caution. You know that line of speculation as you consider your deliberation tonight.

[146:02] Great, thank you, Brad. Thank you, Brad. I so my my overall comment, I I was just trying to clarify what George had brought up, but generally. I believe that between Chandler and the applicant all of my concerns were addressed. They were primarily environmental and regarding the impact of not just the natural environment, but the building itself. I would be curious to see what Kurt has to propose in so far as shading of that parking, because that was a question I had. I know that it's on a deck, and so I don't think, I think that trees are probably not the most feasible way to go, but perhaps some kind of a canopy would make some sense, because that expanse of parking is going to be in the sun, winter or summer, according to the solar diagram. So I think that there will be

[147:07] I'll be interested to see what Kurt proposes. But I agree with Laura that we saw this in concept plan, and it has come a long way. I was also at the dab, the liaison on Dab when it came to dab and I agree that the applicant has has done a lot of work to address the concerns that we had, and that various other boards have had. So I appreciate that work. And I actually find that the project is going to be in compliance with this key issue and the site criteria that we are accountable to. So thank you to the client and to the staff for the presentation and the work that has come since you presented at concept.

[148:03] Great. Thank you. Ml. I'm going to make my comments now, and you know I think this is an example, and this is not to take anything away from the architects or the design team. But I think this is an example of where the city processes have actually improved, a product substantially going through dab, going through tab and planning board and and Staff's input I think, have yielded. I was here for the Concept review, and and in fact it was. It was not a great. I think it was a different team that was from the applicant that was present. But it wasn't a particularly great concept review and coming back here today. Your application, with one substantial exception for me, is really is really a great application. So I'm I'm in support of it. I think it fulfills both the Site Review criteria for the most part, and Bvcp goals

[149:12] so kudos to the city process, and the applicant for embracing those suggestions. Conversely. I'm going to say, and this will result in some possible conditions. I'm going to say that during concept review we talked about Tdm planning, and we talked about the the need for a forward-looking Tdm plan that would accommodate the future, that we want. not the conditions that we're living with today. And I find that basically on on the Tdm plan is inadequate. And I've been

[150:07] trying to tell applicants pretty much every time they come forward with a Tdm plan that refer. And I'm I'm surprised that your Tdm plan. even with a different than usual provider still refers to are draft Tdm. Toolkit. As an adopted plan. It is not, and and just don't refer to it again. It was a it's a 15 year old draft toolkit that again. It keeps getting presented in Tdm. Plans as some sort of orthodoxy, and it's not so one that's that's as old as outdated, and it was never adopted. Secondly, that this was called up

[151:05] for me. I I was the planning board member, along with additional support that called this project up. and I did it based primarily, and I stated it at the time on project size, employment numbers. But the Tdm planning that goes into this and I find the accommodation for the number. If you have a thousand people there, the hope is that more than a hundred, a hundred 40 are riding their bikes to work. That so that. and and I support your parking reduction, and I'm glad you listened to Tab at their request, for that you pursue a parking reduction. But I think that the converse accommodation

[152:03] of alternative modes that has been presented here tonight. in spite of all the other good things about the project is really inadequate. So I'll be looking at ways that we can help you make improvements to that for for approval. So, okay, any any other add-on comments, okay. then I'm going to propose that we begin with the motion language as supplied by Staff and Chandler can put that up, and then we begin with this, and then once we have this moved and seconded, if if that's if that's the what the Board desires that, then we

[153:02] draft and discuss and debate any amendments that would condition this approval. Yes, Laura, I'm happy to make the motion great, and and I will also note that I was part of the East Boulder subcommunity plan process, and I have no qualms about this being consistent with the East Boulder subcommunity plan, and this not being in an area of change, and that the use is consistent. So I move to approve. Site review application, lur. 2023, 0 0 3, 6. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. I will second great. So we have a motion, it's been moved and seconded. We can debate this, or if anyone has proposed conditions or amendments, now's the time

[154:05] I do have a condition to propose, let's go. So I propose that we condition this approval so that the plans would be revised to show a connection of the internal bike and pedestrian path to the Western property line in anticipation of a future connection to the nearby North, North, South bike, and pedestrian corridor that's shown in the East Boulder sub community plan. Was that a motion? Yes, then I will second it. I have 2 requests. Can we see the text of the motion language? Can we send it to Amanda and get it. Yes, in the absence of Thomas, how would I get that to Amanda? Amanda? If you have, do you have heard? Can she just put it in the chat on the zoom? Okay, yes, I am also not on the zoom, but I will work on getting onto the Zoom

[155:01] or or just email it to Amanda. If you have her address. And then, while we're working on that, I have a request potentially for Chandler. I have a request potentially for Chandler while we're working on getting the motion language up. Do we have any map or diagram where we could see and visualize this connection that Claudia is proposing anything that shows the East Boulder subcommunity plan path that she's wanting to connect to in relation to this property. My Catalan, I can find it and put it up. I'll have to take this down, though. That'd be great. Thank you. Also. Just a quick note from a legal perspective. Something to consider for you guys is there could be some constraints because of the floodplain and things like that. So I just recommend thinking about if we need to amend the motion to make sure that if it doesn't comply with the floodplain regulations like how we can make sure that it all lines up allowing staff to look into. So you're saying, we should make the motion language conditional upon

[156:06] compliance with all applicable floodplain regulations suggesting, you consider that? Yeah, okay, yeah. I think that's a great suggestion from our city attorney. I see Claudia nodding. So maybe maybe we could add that I have already sent the language. But perhaps we can add that on the fly. Maybe. you know, if that is acceptable to the motion maker and the second, and apologies floodplained wetlands, just because there's like the wetlands right there. Yeah. good evening, Amanda. Hello, everyone! I am going to share my screen here with Claudia's language. Thank you for bearing with me remotely. Okay. Claudia, can I make a 3rd request?

[157:00] Can you point us to which of the site Review criteria you believe the project currently does not meet, and then that defect would be cured with your proposal. Yes, so I am looking at the site design criteria Section A, which deals with access, transportation and mobility which discusses, amongst other things, making connections to adjacent properties. When no connections plan applies which addresses creating alternatives to the automobile through site design techniques and land use patterns and also dealing with transportation demand management. And my argument is that this site particularly given its proximity to planned, mixed use, transit oriented developments at the corner of 55th and Arapahoe, as shown in the East Boulder subcommunity plan, should be making stronger connections for both access to future residential areas and services that will be used by these workers.

[158:02] Okay? And can you point me to which Roman numeral, that is, under 9 dash 2 dash 14. I have been looking at the the criteria analysis provided by Staff. I think it's under H. 2 a. H. 2 a. But which little Roman numeral is it? This is a Roman numeral one, where it talks about adopted connection plans. Just like maybe I, for one. Little little Roman numeral. One. Okay. Yeah, I'm thinking that the project enables to provide vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between sites consistent with adopted connection plans blah blah. Okay, that looks right to me, too. Ml, thank you. So we're talking about 9. Dash, 2, dash 14 h. And then we're talking about to a Roman numeral. I. Yes. Roman numeral, one.

[159:08] Claudia, can I ask you a question? Yes, please. I believe I heard the applicant speak to this, and they talked about a significant grade. Differential. Is that correct? And if so. Mention a grade differential. I don't know the size of it. And if so, do we need to laurel speak to. But does that have a role to play? I mean, it seemed like that could potentially have a looks like Chandler's hand is up, maybe to clarify that. Oh, are you trying to. My brow was up, but I didn't realize I'd raise my hand as well. I love it. We'll take a brow. We'll take a. So I'm just curious as to whether there needs to be language that if it's practical to be able to make that connection because there's I, I think, that there's

[160:06] it was, I think, stated as a significant rate difference. But. Yeah, I I think I mean, just given the our experience with the number of engineering flood and wetland related issues on this site. I think we do have to take into consideration the fact that it might not be feasible. So, however, we want to phrase that as a caveat. I think we should. because it would be yeah. It would be unfortunate to require them to do something and then have them spend 6 months trying to get a floodplain development permit and have it not happen? I'm also just going to point out I did find the connections plan. and I think the path that you're referring to is actually 2 properties. Chandler, your screen's not on the I'm not sure, Amanda. Can you let me share my screen. Yes. It says I'm screen sharing. But that's okay. Correct. So yeah, here.

[161:00] So this is our project site right here. And then the proposed off street connection, I think that you're referring to is this one in green? so it's it's 2 properties to the West, and it's on the west side of that property. I don't know if that impacts your feelings about whether these guys should create a connection that's intended to go there or not. Just look, I'm looking to the future. And yes, I am aware of where that North South connection is. Okay, got it? Let's do go ahead. Just a quick follow up to Chandler. So the original plans, as submitted. showed a vehicular connection on that west side. Right? You showed that in your presentation you showed the original plans. Yes, it was on the kind of the north side of the site, not the south. It was not, I thought it was on the west side, right at where that property line is

[162:05] between the 2 parcels to the west. Oh, I guess my my question is, if that vehicular connection was possible from an engineering and wetland standpoint, why would a bicycle pedestrian connection not be feasible. I'm I'm not an engineer. So I don't know. But yeah, different considerations on different parts of the site. For sure. So I'm just trying to make sure I understand the geography here. So, Claudia, you're suggesting there's there's that soft gravel path that makes basically makes a loop and comes down the west side, right? So you're suggesting making a pedestrian connection or a bicycle connection. because I don't think the bike path goes along the West Edge. If I'm correct on that. My language was bicycle and pedestrian, it would be. The intent was to correspond with the type of path that they were already

[163:07] constructing on that side of the property simply to provide a connection from that path to the Western property line. Okay, but it's not a bicycle path. It's just a pedestrian path. I believe it was described as as bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the site in the plans, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I don't know if, Chandler, maybe you could clarify for that. I thought that the bicycle circulation did not extend on the western edge of the property. That that was just a soft pedestrian stroll for people who are taking coffee meetings with their colleagues and want to walk through the woods. That's correct. The only paved bicycle access is just parallel to the main drive aisle on the southeast corner of the site. Thank you. I think that is correct. Pedestrian circulation is how it's labeled in the in the site Plan.

[164:09] Quality. I have a question, and that is regardless of bike or pedestrian or pedestrian and bike. You're what you're looking for would be a temporary path to nowhere. and and there are many of those in Boulder that are that can be frustrating to transportation advocates for pedestrian cycling advocates. But in my experience, both on tab and here the constraints of what we can make adjacent property owners do are clear and strict. We can't. We can't make adjacent property owners do something as conditions of approval for Site A, you can't make Site B. Do something. On the other hand, you can anticipate that someday site, B will redevelop.

[165:09] and at that point we can then condition and require this connection be completed. And, in fact, if you don't do that. Then when site B redevelops, they say, well, site, there's no connection there. Site A is has already. They've already redeveloped. There's no connection there. We don't have to do anything now. So is that, do I understand? This is your intent to create what might be frustratingly visual to a pedestrian, that they may not be able to actually use this connection now. But you're anticipating the potential of making an actual, complete connection sometime in the future. Yes, okay. that was sorry for being wordy. But yeah, okay, just wanted to clarify that.

[166:06] So I love the intent of this. I'm not sure that for me the logistics work because it's a it would be pedestrian only. And so it's not going to be basically a transit corridor. And then the you're talking about going across 2 properties. Chandler, can you scroll that map down a little bit so that we can see the north edge there? Yeah. So you're basically talking about having 2 property owners put in a connection that's not in our connections plan to connect to a property that is just basically a research campus that has its own employees and no public amenities. Really. So I'm just not sure that those 2 property owners would be motivated to connect to this path that we would be asking this property owner to put in. So I'm probably going to be a No on this, although I really like the motivation behind it to make sure that we do have appropriate bike and pedestrian circulation in the city.

[167:08] So so I've got a question for Chandler on the the applicant mentioned. We didn't. We couldn't really know the topography, the grade Delta, but the properties to the West are lower than than the subject property. Yes. I believe so. We'll turn on, but not by much. So, Claudia, while I understand everything, I'm I also get concerned with Ada requirements and the and bike grade requirements, etc, that you know things like this in some ways. Don't you just wish you had like a little asphalt hump that you could ride over and go through the parking lot and over to the path, and

[168:00] be on your way as a cyclist, leaving that site, not wanting to go out to Arapahoe, then west on Arapahoe, and then north, you could just cut through. I get that but if the grade differential is so great that suddenly, from a design standpoint, it's actually not feasible. Then it becomes moot to me. are those 20 foot contours? Yeah, it says it's the one foot contour data, but doesn't really seem that way. There we go. I just have to zoom in.

[169:02] Oh, well. can you move north a little bit? Then to yeah. I'm not sure where where the connection was being. I think the idea was to connect to where that if I'm correct, Claudia. Sorry, speaking for you, but I think that the intent was to connect to the property line there that property line that splits that property north, South. I was not specific about where on that western boundary it would connect.

[170:04] So yeah, it's a few feet down, few feet back up. So if I can just say something responding to Laura, I understand Laura's concerns. But the the reality is, whatever is built here will be here for a hundred years, probably 50 years, easily. And this is always when we're going through Site Review. This is always the opportunity to get these connections in, because if we don't get them now, they're not going to be here for my lifetime at least, and so, even though it may be suboptimal, it may be for the time being pedestrian, only unpaved, and so on.

[171:02] To me. The cost, I think to the applicant is going to be extremely minimal, and it and yet the rewards could be huge in terms of providing that connection. Breaking up this super block, as I mentioned before, and providing the opportunity when those parcels to the West develop, which is the when this would actually be completed through when those parcels to the West redevelop to actually get a completed connection and and that that would be a tremendous benefit to all of the parcels along here, including potentially people, even on other parcels. So I will be supporting this. I have a laurel. Go ahead. Yeah. I just wanted to to chime in here a little bit. So as I'm understanding this connection, trying to be added in the the Criterion says that when there's a connections plan in place.

[172:03] that's when we want it to be consistent with that adopted connection plan. So there is an adoption connection plan for not on this site for the neighboring site. So when it talks about neighboring site, it does say that these applicants shall in good faith coordinate with the city manager to attempt to coordinate these connections. So I just don't want to create more requirements than the actual site review criteria have on there. So just wanted to add that into the conversation that was so. That and a chat comment from the applicant stating, there is a new wetland proposed in this area being discussed. I don't think that came up in discussions. So here are here. Here is I would oppose that. We modify the motion language and weaken it, just to be blunt, weaken it

[173:02] so that to a degree that it says Based upon Staff's evaluation, including Ada and Wetland, criteria and other Site review criteria to establish whether or not this potential connection could be made. If I mean, it's if we condition it. And in fact, we can't do it because of a wetland criteria, or because it's physically impossible to do it and meet Ada or other criteria that we're not prepared to adhere to tonight or discuss tonight. Then I would think that the language should be constructed to

[174:01] allow an out if it's actually not possible. or is that we have a we have some proposed language that's been floated. Yeah, it would just say, with the condition of the applicant, revised the Site plan to provide a pedestrian or bicycle connection as possible, to be determined to the satisfaction of staff at their determination. Your motion, Claudia. Okay, should I make that as a motion is that where we need to go in terms of process. and maybe we could put up the language again. Amanda, if that's okay and amend it. I mean, I think it's your motion. Claudia and staff are making a suggestion that they think may make it more practical. I'm just saying my motion was seconded. And so where are we in terms of process. Here's what here's what I would propose. We look at Staff's proposed language. If we like it, we take a vote on Claudia's amendment, vote it down, and then.

[175:07] rather than amend the amendment, we just vote that amendment down, and and then vote, and then propose and vote on a revised amendment? Or or could Claudia just withdraw the amendment rather than voting it down? No, you you can't withdraw. Yeah, yeah. Right? It belongs. Okay. So you're typing or Amanda's typing. The okay staff recommendation. And you guys can amend this. Of course, what's that? And you can amend this, the staff recommendation. Yeah, yeah, because we'll need to grab some of my language to make it coherent possible. I would support that motion language.

[176:05] Just a quick straw poll, or go ahead, Kurt. Yeah, I would support it in concept. I would try to make it a little more specific about where the bike bed connection would be. And in particular. obviously, it needs to be stating. I think it's it's obvious to me that it needs to be stating that it's connecting at the West property line, which it doesn't. And my preference would be also to state that it connect in the vicinity of that East-west property line that divides the parcel to the West in half, because that is where it's going to be easiest to provide a connection in the future. Okay, I want to do a quick straw poll conceptually, though, if our will, we have a successful vote to defeat Claudia's 1st amendment.

[177:05] based on some version of the of the second amendment. Okay? Yes. Okay. So I'm going to Call Ml. And George. I can't see you, but if you have anything to say, say it now, otherwise I'm going to call a vote on Claudia's motion, and then we can go on to a subsequent motion. Okay, so we have a motion as, and it's been seconded. I'm not going to read it, but I'll go ahead and take a vote. Claudia. Yes, okay, Laura. No, Kurt, no. Ml. No. George. No. And I'm a no, okay. So now, would someone like to make any.

[178:10] propose any revisions to the second motion language? You or Kurt in terms of the western edge. Sort of thing. I can try it. I would like to see the language above, please. Yeah. So I move that we amend the motion to add the following condition. yeah, that the applicant revise the Site plan to provide a pedestrian and bike connection to the Western property line

[179:01] as possible. to be determined by to the satisfaction of staff at their determination. Kurt, do you have a way to get the the location pinned down a little more. Well, yeah, it's hard without specifying GPS coordinates or something. But I would recommend saying something like to the Western property line in alignment with the property line on the parcel to the West in alignment with the East-west property line. the Northern East-west property line, the parcel to the West, isn't it the Northern you're referring to. Yeah.

[180:00] isn't that? Yeah. Okay, okay, okay. I understand. The East-west property line. Let me leave it as it is for the moment. Okay. to the East-west property line of the parcels to the west. Parcels plural? Because, yes, okay. that might be better. Yes, Laura has suggested amending to say, the East West property line dividing the parcels to the west and get rid of the of should there be a comma after as possible, or before as possible to the West as possible after west after West, and then, after possible. Sorry, I'm not clarifying that. Very well.

[181:03] just so. The sentence makes sense. Thank you. Okay, so I feel like I should restate this in its entirety. Yes. So begin with, yes, I move that we condition approval. Okay, I move that we amend to add the following condition to the approval that the applicant revised the Site plan to provide a pedestrian and bike connection to the Western property line in alignment with the East-west property line dividing the parcels to the West as possible, to be determined to the satisfaction of staff at their determination should that say at their discretion rather than at their determination. So we don't have determination twice that would feel a lot better to me, maybe to the last word could be to be determined to the satisfaction of staff at their discretion.

[182:06] Do we need to have a reference to the That we're connecting to the corridor shown in the East Boulder sub community plan. I mean, that's the criteria we're responding to. Right is connecting to existing does that should that be in there. Laurel. Do we need to cite the portion of the Site Review criteria? No conditions don't have to cite them. It's just on the record as you guys talk about them explaining why it meets the site review criteria. Yeah. So I would like to second this motion. Okay? Moved and seconded. yeah, so just question to staff, does this cover things like geography, floodplain regulations, willingness of adjacent property owners?

[183:01] Does it cover all of the things that would make this possible or not possible? I think so. Yeah, Staff, I mean, staff includes all of the engineers and everything. Yep, thank you. Okay, unless there's oh, okay. Ml, you have your hand up. Please. I do have my hand up, and and the question I have on this is we have. We're talking about as possible, and determined to the satisfaction of staff. And then and yet we're saying where it should be so. What if the alliance? What if the pedestrian bike connection makes more sense someplace else. So we're putting specificity on it. And then we're also saying. but wherever it's Po, however, it's possible. So I think that there is an inherent conflict there.

[184:04] Which makes it a little bit fuzzy. In my in my opinion. I think that's a good point. And even though it's been moved and seconded. what would we think about the word approximately following Western Western property line, approximately in alignment with the East West property line. I'm fine with, approximately that was certainly the intent. Yes, that was the intent. Okay, I'd like to. We we this has got a lot of qualifications to it, so I don't see a whole lot of downside to anyone in not approving this, so I would, in the spirit of moving on.

[185:07] Are are we ready? Did anyone else have any other debate they want to put forth? Or shall we vote on this? And Mel? Is your hand still up. I'm sorry it is. Let me take it down. Okay, all right. Okay, we're going to vote. Claudia. Yes, Kurt, yes, Laura, can you come back to me? Okay. George. No. Ml. And Mel. I'm I'm I. My concern remains that it's it's I think it's still too precise. So I'm gonna say, no, because I I think we can say, Hey, connect to the future.

[186:06] Put a connection for the future ebsp corridor? If possible. I mean, I think, that there's a lot put in here that it's gonna be more cumbersome than it needs to be. Anyway. At this point I'm voting. Okay, I'm just gonna ask you, are you voting? Yes or no on this one. At this point without changing the language. I'm going to say no. Okay, I'm a yes. So, Laura, that comes to you now. No, I'm sorry, but you can try again with modified language if you want to try to get Ml. On board. Okay, that motion fails. If all right with you, I have a couple, and and so I am going to put my.

[187:07] I've been busy with this, so I'm now hang on just one second, and I'll send my okay, Amanda. It is on its way, and I'll verbally speak to this while it makes its way through the interwebs.

[188:01] So, as I said earlier, I found that the Tdm. Plans, especially in regard to cycling, which I think this can be a great site to cycle to were wholly inadequate, especially with all vertical bike parking compact. It's it's kind of like, anyway. the world of bicycles, and who rides bicycles, and for what distances is changing radically and quickly, based upon the electrification of bicycles. And so the while it might be convenient to meet your long-term cycling, your your long-term bike parking requirements with paired hanging racks. The functionality of that condition

[189:04] is, I think, doesn't address the needs of folks that can't lift a heavy e-bike, the wide range of tire sizes and widths, and so forth, that when you start doing hooks and picking bikes up to hang them. You essentially are greatly limiting the type of bike. the person that it can accommodate the weather. There's just a million limitations. And so my proposal is that I would move to condition approval upon one. A minimum of 60% of long-term bike parking shall be horizontal and not require lifting the bike. A minimum of 60% of long-term bike parking

[190:02] shall be charger ready with 120 volt outlets and a minimum of 80% of long-term bike parking shall be fully secure. So those are the 3 conditions I'm proposing. And before we turn that into a motion, and a second. If anyone has great thoughts on how to improve this, I'm open to it. Kirk, what is your definition of fully secure inside, either inside a room or a locked cage with controlled access. because I think it might be better to specify that if those are the words you want to use rather than leaving it a little vaguer, as I think it is in the motion, in, in the language that you have up here.

[191:00] Okay, Amanda, could you just put a bracket, a parentheses. After that, fully secure, either in a secure room or cage with controlled access end of parentheses. Closing parentheses. Okay. okay, so I'm going to make that point. Can I ask a question mark? Where in the Site Review criteria, what is the Site Review criteria that we are trying to cure here. Okay, I am not going to cite the Site Review criteria because our Tdm requirements in the code and in our site review criteria are. and I, in fact, since they've changed, I was struggling to locate them, but they have changed to become even more subjective, less specific, and so they are, they are entirely subjective. It just says a Tdm plan will be submitted. It supports these goals, but there is no.

[192:15] there is nothing specific like we have for height, like we have for drive, lane, widths, etc. There's nothing in the Dcs. So anyway, this has been my bugaboo for years now is that we have a subjective. It's flexible. and applicants should take part of that flexibility. But it is entirely subjective, Kurt. Well, I just want to point out that we do have the parking reduction criteria in 9, 9, 6, which I've been, which 9, 9, 6 f. 2D. Which speak to this. And Chandler actually had that up earlier in the presentation as one of the one of the criteria that need

[193:03] to be met. So I think that that I'm not to put words in your mouth. But I think that that might be the motivating or the justifying code language that you're looking for. Right? So 9, 9, 6. Does it then go to F. 2 f. 2D. but it it continues to be. Applications, including such programs, shall describe any existing or proposed facilities and proximity to transit lines, and shall demonstrate that use of multimodal transportation options will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis. So that's the extent of the criteria.

[194:01] I mean, there, there is the Tdm criterion in the Site Review criteria, that's and this is 9 dash. 2. Dash. 14 h. To a Roman numeral. 3. A transportation demand management plan will be compiled, including methods that result in a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternate modes. So one with one or the other of those 2 code standards, you're saying that these proposals would help us achieve the shift, significant shift away from single occupant vehicle uses to alternative modes. Yes, I will say that for me. I really am struggling with this because I absolutely get where you're coming from. Our current code is not adequate. It does not have standards. And so how can we hold applicants to standards that don't exist, and yet still expect them to be resulting in a significant shift away from single occupant vehicles to alternate modes. It's kind of a catch 22. So it's very hard to say this applicant needs to do these specific things that we have not required of other applicants.

[195:09] and who knows if we would require them of future applicants because they're not in the code. So for me, this feels maybe a little too specific. But I'm very sympathetic to the idea that all hanging bike racks they're they're not equitable. They don't accommodate people with disabilities very well, who might want to use trikes or recumbent bikes or other things that are not a lightweight bike that you can lift up onto a hanging bike rack right? And so I definitely think that having some kind of requirement that says will include a significant number of horizontal bike parking spaces to accommodate heavy e-bikes, cargo bikes, people with disabilities. That kind of thing is language that I could totally get behind, but specifying a certain percentage feels like that would put us on some shaky ground in terms of equitability with other applications.

[196:05] So I'd like to address that. And my counter to that is my experience with the development community is asking for flexibility, asking for optionality, that that options and flexibility, and just cut us loose, and we'll do the right thing. And in this case and again, I'm not trying to punish this applicant for doing the good deed of asking for a parking reduction. But we have discussed this on multiple boards on multiple occasions, and the message the message I have said to universally to applicants is this is subjective, but it's flexible. Do your best excel at this. and I think that this applicant has shown that they can excel at landscaping design.

[197:05] This applicant can excel at architectural design, and and I think for me, the specificity of these kind of things are a result of the lack of real good design and clarity in the Tdm plan. And so I am in support of minimums versus. you know, it's like it's like, if they had come with 60% or 55%. Well, all right, maybe that would be great. But they haven't. And so I think there is benefit in our conditions being as specific as they can. May I ask Staff a question? Sure. what? And maybe this is for Brad? Maybe this is for Chandler or laurel. What potential is there for getting this level of specificity into our code in the future through the amps project, or through something else? Right? Because we are clearly seeking a way to have applicants have some standards they need to meet rather than this flexible Tdm. That is interpreted in different ways.

[198:25] Good evening, Brad Mueller, planning and development Services director. That's a little tough question to ask at this point. We're still doing research on that. But I would say that. One of the things we want to make sure is thought through very carefully as we fold this into the amps. Discussion is what is operational to exactly to the debate you're having right now, what are the things that we can make sure are functionally operational when they're imposed on a particular development, and that they can be sustained and enforced on those types of things as well.

[199:03] That will require some level of specificity. But we're still working out. you know what that really would be. one of the things that I think we've discovered in doing the preliminary. And I'm currently speaking for Lisa so she can kick me when I'm wrong about this. But one of the things we've found in the research is that even in places where this is a best practice, there's not a long history of how it's been sustained over time, and we want to make sure to bring forward, you know, recommendations that can actually do that over time. Did that answer your question? It answers my question. I'm looking to Mark to see his reaction. I I look at their fulfillment in excess by 4 spaces of their long-term bike parking, which I find the requirement actually small.

[200:05] Given the number of employees, the site. the connections, etc, and and that. And so I just don't think that that the specificity I've put here is particularly onerous. It's not. It's not onerous. It's it's just like. I think this is kind of minimum good practice. Should we? Should we vote on this and move forward. Well, let let me make a motion. See if I get a second, and then we'll. I have one comment before you do that. Can I make a comment, Mark? Sure. My my comment is, you know I don't think that any of the 3 conditions that you're putting items in the conditions to putting out there are are bad. I'm in full agreement. I don't wanna. I wouldn't wanna have to lift an electric bike up on a you know, to to to secure it, etc, etc. The problem is with the percentages, and I'm wondering if you would be amenable to a minimum

[201:17] to be determined by staff. And so if I heard Brad correctly, this is this is something that is being investigated and researched as we speak. and if we put it in their hands to give us a starting place right? We haven't required this, and maybe we can let Staff give us the starting place, because I absolutely agree, if not now, when right, we need to start putting stakes in the ground and saying, we're serious about about these alternative modes, and we want to make sure that people actually use them and that they're useful. But I, the problem I'm having

[202:00] is with those percentages. And if I can comment, my my issue is not necessarily with the that, I think it's too onerous. I'm worried about the legality and the equitability in terms of how we apply this to different projects, how we have applied it in the past. This feels a little bit like creating new standards whole in a spontaneous fashion for one project. and I don't know if Laurel, our legal folks, have any comment on that. I might be way out of line. But I have that concern. Yeah. One of the things that I noticed in your conversation, Mark, is you said that it does meet the bike parking requirements that are in our code. But it's still like this. You're saying that this project does not quite meet our site review criteria. So I think, trying to flesh that out. A little bit more would help would help in in any sort of cases, because we want to show that if this particular application is not meeting our site review criteria, why is it not? And that's how we create these conditions. So I just want to go back to that. And and, like Brad said, we are working on

[203:00] some of these into them. And it's it might be also worth mentioning like this, the percentage parking reduction. They're asking for. This would typically be an administrative level review where it would. Just someone can just ask for this to staff right where it just wouldn't even come to you guys. So I don't know if there's like precedent. If we should be concerned any about like precedent there, because this probably would have. You know, Staff approves parking reductions under 25% a lot of the time based on existing code requirements. so this makes me a little bit nervous. Just as for future administrative parking reductions, whether we feel like they're not going to meet the criteria based on stuff that's not in our code. right? So it's a little bit legally risky, is what what we're saying. Okay, I'll I'll I'll comment on this, and that is staff has had their chance! They've had their feedback.

[204:01] I've had this discussion, and and and in this case Staff has provided lots of feedback all along the way that has resulted in a better project. I don't see much evidence of staff exerting their discretion for a forward-looking Tdm plan in this case. And the result is here we are late hour. We've been here before with a subjective and flexible Tdm. Plan. where neither staff nor the applicant has. I think. taken a lesson we have. We don't require, for instance, shared parking. We did a site review the months ago where we said, Hey, you have to have. You're going to unbundle your parking. We made that a condition of approval, and it as part of the Site Review process.

[205:11] So if if this is going to fail because of the percentages fine. There's no reason to fall on this. I just point out that this has been a multi-year discussion, and in fact, the Amps project is going on a year now without anything. I'm not saying you guys aren't working on. I'm just saying it's it's frustrating. But let's let's do this. staff show. Well, let's

[206:02] Okay. staff. Shall. The condition of approval staff shall work with the applicant to provide for horizontal bike parking. Comma charger ready bike, parking. and and maximize the number of fully secure, long term bike parking locations

[207:06] within with what is up. Just period. We'll just put a period after locations. Can I just make one small suggestion? We want to make sure that staff are the last level of approval for this. So it doesn't come back for the planning board to do this. So like, we want to make sure Staff has a discretion to approve this. Okay, yeah, so we can work with them. But just making sure that we have a discretion to approve, otherwise we'll have to bring it back to you to make sure. You know, we just want to make sure that Staff has the discretion. If that's what your staff working towards. Okay, South Shore exam, period, approval, new new sentence, approval. Shell be at Staff's discretion.

[208:10] Okay, may I make one? Suggested edit. When you say provide for horizontal bike parking? They have that in the short term bike parking. So I think you want to say, provide for horizontal long term bike parking in the garage. In fact, the better correction would be staff show work with the applicant to provide for long-term bike parking. That is horizontal charger ready. Yeah. Horizontal comma charger ready and maximize the number of secure and maximize the number of fully secure long-term spaces.

[209:01] So the word spaces rather than locations. Thank you. Yes. Mark, would you like to add any language that references. The motivation for this, which I think is to accommodate a variety of bike users, you know. I no, okay. So I move that the following items are conditions of approval. Staff shall work with the applicant to provide for long-term bike parking that is, horizontal charger, ready and maximize the number of fully secure long-term spaces. Approval shall be at Staff's discretion. End of motion. Second, okay. Moved and seconded any additional debate. Now that we've debated the hell out of this. I just want to ask if Staff have any legal qualms or any potential improvements to this before we vote.

[210:10] Did you have any trailer. No, I think that we understand what you're trying to say with us. So yeah, we can follow that. Thank you. All right, we're going to vote I'll come around to George and Ml. Claudia. Yes, Kirk. Yes, Laura. Yes, George. No. Ml. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Well, that was easy. Okay, any any one else have any other? Kurt? Yeah, I have a condition that I sent to Amanda that is based on similar motivation surrounding the Tdm plan, and whether the parking reduction which again I support is justified in the Tdm plan, and it particularly relates to

[211:18] the the lack of sump principles in the Tdm plan. And so, Amanda, you had that up there for a moment. I think. Sorry backup. Can you see that now? Yup. Great thanks so I move a condition that the Tdm plan will be revised to include either a parking pricing program or parking cash out at a fair market price for all parking on the site.

[212:03] And as Mark I think it was mentioned. this a similar sort of thing has been done by Google with parking price out. As far as I know, no one else has done actual parking, pricing, parking cash out. Perhaps no one has done parking, pricing for for commercial properties, which doesn't mean that it's not possible. I think landlords tend not to like to do it, because it's highly effective. But I think that in order to meet the Site Review criteria 9 to 14 h. 2, a. 3, and 9, 9 6 f. 2D. The parking reduction criteria. I think that just as we require, as a matter of course.

[213:06] sump principles to be implemented with residential developments, that we should similarly be requiring them with with commercial developments. And so that's the motivation for this. I second it. Laura. So discussion. I think this is a wonderful idea that should be implemented citywide through code rather than done project by project. I think this should be considered and get public input and, you know, work on this as a part of our amps project, or whatever project this might be, or our our parking, our rethinking of parking requirements. I don't think it's something that I am comfortable, imposing on a single applicant with no warning and no

[214:03] like staff analysis or anything like that. This this feels very sort of spontaneous and I just think it's really hard to argue that the Site Review criteria require this. Okay, yeah, thank you for that. I will just say again that we require this as a matter of course, with residential developments, and we use the exact same site review criteria, right? So consistency would actually argue for requiring this. for since we always basically always do it for residential properties, residential projects, consistency would argue for doing it for resident, for commercial projects as well. I think that is a so just for me. Personally, I think it's a wonderful argument to make in terms of our reconsideration of our code citywide rather than

[215:01] unless we're going to do this for every single project. and argue that we, as planning board, have the authority to impose this this new requirement on all commercial development in the city. I just I'm I'm hesitant to go there tonight, although I very much resonate with what you're saying. Ml, I see you have your hand up. I do? I'm curious as to what Laurel might have to say. Can we can? Is this. does this have legal consequences? I I think it's it's legally risky to not ground it in the Site Review criteria, right? And it sounds like we're making a Site review criteria argument that there's some things in the Tdm plan in the Site Review. But it's It's not specific, right? It's not. It doesn't specifically say we have to do this or that. We do this every time. So yeah, I think that there is some risk to it. Thank you.

[216:03] Laurel. Can I follow up on that? I guess I'm still confused because we do this as a matter of course for residential properties and the Site Review criteria are identical. Right? So why do you not object in that context? Well, I think that in the in the residential there is. there is potentially. And and again. I'm not objecting. I'm just saying it's a little bit legally risky. It's it's a risk that you guys can take as you create this condition, it's something that you can add on. But the risk here is that you haven't done it before. There isn't this like pattern. We're not doing it to every single application. There's not. There's a kind of that equity piece. Now, you're saying that we should treat commercial and residential the same, and that is an argument that we could make. But the other side of that argument is, but we treat all commercial this way, and we changed it with this one particular development instead of doing it citywide at a code change effort. So I think that that's the part that becomes kind of risky, is, there's arguments on both sides to it.

[217:07] Thank you. Not to be very vague about that. Yeah. And Mel, do you still? Do you want to comment again. Okay, all right. It's a question, yes, related to the fact that we require the sump principles for residential. Where does that live in the code? Because the sump doesn't appear in the Site Review criteria. I don't think it doesn't live in the code or the Site Review criteria. So where does that like, for instance, with Alpine balsam, the area plan specifically mentioned some principles. So there's there's places where sometimes area plans will mention some principles like the transportation master plan. Right mentions some principles as being something that that are good, but we don't actually require them anywhere, or recommend them in the Site Review criteria, or in the land use code.

[218:02] So maybe that's the defect to cure. But but again, I would be hesitant to do it with this application tonight. So and I'll I'll play devil's Advocate here. And so in the in the Site Review, criteria 9. Dash, 2, dash. 14 little h. 2 Roman little Roman numeral. 3, which says, a transportation demand management plan will be compiled with including methods that result in significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternative modes. That is an entire, that that very important, highly discussed. One sentence in the code leaves us open to our subjective as a board are subjective

[219:01] criteria, and it's a. It is a defect in the code that it is so subjective, and that different boards might apply it different ways. But it is. It is our up to our discretion and determination. In a quasi-judicial way does the Tdm plan that the applicant has submitted result in a significant shift away from vehicle, single vehicle use and to alternative modes. And if not, then it is up to us to condition. said Tdm. Plan again, wanting to move on. If we're if we're determined, I'd like to vote. Okay.

[220:00] Claudia. Yes, Kurt, yes, Laura. No, ml. No. George. Yeah. And I'm a yes, so that fails. Okay. But I would like to emphasize for Staff that there is significant support on this board for this concept being included in our parking or amps. Reconsideration, citywide. Okay? All right. Anything else for conditions. Yeah, I have one more condition, which I believe I also sent to Amanda. Did I send that. Let's see. No, I didn't. I was still sorry.

[221:04] okay, I will read it. The. So this is in the context, for this is the amount of surface parking that is shown, and and that is not really very well shaded by trees or other kinds of landscaping. And this is in reference to 9, 2, 14 h. 2 no. h. 1 GI think I'll get that number. But Ml. Properly referenced that in her comments earlier. So my condition is the plans will be revised to show 2 additional tree planting bands

[222:00] in the surface parking lot to provide more shading of the paved surface with a corresponding reduction in the parking provided so the current. As I as I mentioned in my comments, the current site plan for the parking shows the the parking area generally divided in half north, south. with a band of trees in the middle, and this condition would add 2 more similar bands in presumably equally spaced, in order to better divide up the parking and provide additional shading and additional buffer of rainfall. And yeah. So that is, that is my motion. and I think, yeah, Amanda has it? Thank you.

[223:03] Before someone seconds it. Would you consider at the applicant's discretion the alternative would be solar shading structures. I would need to look at the Site review criteria again to verify that that would. Actually. I actually have a question about that, Kurt, are you referencing? 9. Dash 2, 14 h. One g. Environmental preservation? Yes, the project provides for the preservation or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features. including without limitation, healthy, long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas and species on the Federal endangered species list.

[224:09] etc. I'm not sure how that criterion relates to planting new trees in a parking lot. This is about protection or mitigation of impacts to existing natural features. Yeah, no, that is not sorry. That is not the criterion. I'm sorry. Heard that. You might be thinking about. I was speaking about the Heat Island effect. and I was, and I was referencing the reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. Criteria. That would be one see? The heat Island. And I think Chandler answered the question with that is taken into account. The impact of the heat. Ion is taken into account in the code, in the energy code.

[225:07] Not knowing where they're landing with the meeting. That code. Okay. I would wonder whether requiring mitigation of the Heat Island impact would go beyond what code would require. Yeah, they're they're meeting the code as far as parking lot landscaping goes. But as far as the energy. Ultimately the greenhouse gas emissions which translate over to how much emission is the building, putting out, usually having to do with that bigger hit on their air conditioning due to the adjacency of a heat island. I mean, that's how that kind of trickles back to that particular, and without having that information, I think it would be hard to

[226:01] reference. Anyway, that's where I that that's why I kind of accepted what Chandler was saying regards to the heat island of that parking lot, anyway, Kurt, that that was My thinking around it. Yeah. And I'm looking for the criterion that I had referenced, or that I yeah, that I was. That was the motivation for this earlier and so far I am not finding it. Do you have a keyword? Well, it was. It was about the landscaping. There is a landscaping section in H. 2. See? I don't know that any of those are what you're looking at, though.

[227:18] Well, this has not been seconded, so why don't I? Why don't we move on. Let me see if I can find this. See if there are other conditions, and then we can potentially come back to it. Okay, we might be coming back very quickly. But I appreciate you holding up for a second. Okay, are there any? Does anyone else have a proposed condition or conditions. Okay.

[228:04] yeah. Unless Claudia wants to try to propose that pedestrian connection again in a less specific way that might get Ml. On board. I'm probably still going to be a no, though. Just so, you know. Yeah, I think I'll let that pass. Okay, I'm not sorry. I'm looking on my ipad. I'm not finding what it was. And so I think we should just move on. Okay. I want to sympathize with the searching for a section in Muni code that is like 8 levels in. And it's like, Wait, where did that go? So anyway, I sympathize with that completely. But we will move on. So now we have approved Amanda, if you could scroll so. And can we

[229:03] either open up another document and just have the approved conditions condition? I think there's only one the approved motions to amend. Yeah. Okay. So we're going to go back to the main motion now as amended, and vote on the main motion. So that would be. and I'll read the main motion with, I hope, an acceptable segue to our conditions.

[230:01] So we are. We are now coming to a vote on a motion to approve. Site review, application. LUR. 202-30-0036. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis and analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. subject to the following, take out, recommend. recommended to the subject to the following adopted conditions of approval condition. One is staff shall work with the applicant to provide for long-term bike parking that is, horizontal charger, ready and maximize the number of fully secure long-term spaces. Approval shall be at Staff's Staff's discretion.

[231:12] Mark just a comment. I think the original staff language in the main motion needs to stay there, because there's standard conditions of approval, and with the following additional conditions, as amended by the board. Thank you very much. That was, that was a that was a mistake. Sorry. Hang on one second oops. Yeah, we've got you jumping around there, Amanda. Thank you very much for. No worries, no worries, and subject to the recommended. Okay?

[232:00] And including the following adopted condition of approval, well, that's that's still modifying the main motion. So if we just enumerate 1, 2, 3 the adopted conditions. After following the the conditions of approval. Colon, one. Will that work for you? Does it work for each other? Yeah, I'm just going to look up an example, dispo of something where we've done the exact same thing and just find the language that we used last time. I think it's it's close to what you guys are saying. But okay. so yeah, we we usually just say, including the attached analysis of review criteria subject to the recommended conditions of approval. and with the following additions to the conditions, okay.

[233:01] yeah, with the so and so managed to catch that. So. Sorry. Subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and with the following additions to the conditions. that's funny language. Okay, auditions. Colon. Oh, sorry to the. Following additions to the conditions. Addition. Sorry. Thank you. All right. Turned my volume down, and didn't hear very well. Colon, there we go. And then just list them. Yeah, okay, okay. And then we we have. We have a second condition that was approved. Correct. No, I think that's the only 1. 0, that was the only one that was the only 1. 0, okay. okay. I'm just going to read this over and begin again.

[234:00] So we are now coming to the vote on motion to approve. Site review application, lur. 202-30-0036, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, with the following addition to the conditions. One staff shall work with the applicant to provide for long-term bike parking that is, horizontal charger, ready and maximize the number of fully secure long-term spaces. Approval shall be at Staff's discretion. End of motion and conditions. Okay, this has been moved and seconded, debated. And now we're going to vote. So I'm going to begin with our online members. George.

[235:01] No. I'm sorry. Did you say? No? He said, no, okay. Ml. Yes. Claudia. Yes, Kurt, no, Laura. Yes, and I'm a yes. okay. I think that closes out this item. thanks to Chandler and Laurel and Amanda and Staff for this and the applicant. So thank you very much for bearing with us. And now we're going to move on to our next agenda. Item. Hey? Hey, Mark? Sorry. Interrupt and to the board it's it's midnight here on the east coast, and I've got a 5 o'clock work thing. So I've got to jump off, appreciate everyone, apologize. I can't join. Okay, thank you, George. I appreciate your attendance and contribution tonight.

[236:06] Okay. okay. so we're moving on to agenda. Item 6 matters from the planning board, planning director and city attorney. 6. A. Introduction to wildfire hardening and waterwise landscaping policy and code update projects and scope discussion. Okay? And it looks like we have Lisa and someone new to me. Good evening board. I'm Lisa Hood, principal city planner, and I want to also introduce Chris Ricardello, our principal landscape architect

[237:06] who is our subject matter expert for this, and then online. We also have Crystal, Morey and Kim Hutton from our utilities department to answer any utility. Specific questions. Give me a second to just share. I'm sorry. Could you say your your name again? Yes, Chris Ricardo. Okay. So principal landscape architect with pnds. Great, thank you, Chris, you bet! All right. So I took the liberty of shortening the presentation a little bit to acknowledging the time, but if you feel like I'm not getting into enough detail. I'm happy to answer more questions, but I'm going to try to do this at a high level. The intent of this is really to introduce you to this project. You'll see in the schedule we have about a year to work on this, so I just wanted. We wanted to make you aware. We took this to Council last week

[238:03] and get some initial feedback on direction, and what you might be interested in seeing with this project. But I won't get too far into the weeds for a landscaping joke. Okay. so this is a city council priority project for 2024 to 2025. It's really 2 projects melded into one. So it's Wildfire hardening and waterwise landscaping. We're treating them as far as project management as 2 different projects. But they're one priority. And what I'm going to do with the presentation is, I'll go through Wildfire hardening. Stop to see if you guys have any questions, and then I'll go to waterwise landscaping, and then we can do the discussion questions altogether. All right. Should we all do Jumping Jacks. First.st Okay, project schedule. Like I mentioned, we're aiming to complete this project by the end of next year there's a couple engagement window points. And then also, we're hoping, or we are planning to have 2 different sets of changes changes to the building code related to wildfire hardening and changes to the land use code, which would be both wildfire and landscaping.

[239:05] So you will see this several times over the next year. The engagement plan is primarily consult. There are some state bills that I'll talk about where it would be closer to inform number of engagement strategies that are in your packet if you're interested. Alright. So, starting with Wildfire hardening. What is Wildfire hardening? This graphic is a really good way to think about it. There's both the the. It's essentially the practice of ensuring that buildings are prepared for a wildfire or embers, reducing the threat and vulnerability and focusing both on the structural ignitability. So how the actual structure would fare, and then also the features that are around it. So the defensible space. And how that impacts the structure. You'll hear me talk about this acronym, the Wui a lot. That's the Wildland urban interface. It's the geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. This is the current map of the Wui along the western, primarily along the western border of the city.

[240:07] the city has. And really any local government has basically 4 4 aspects of an umbrella that are key elements of wildfire, mitigation, regulation, education and incentives, plans and policies and programs and operations. This project is really going to focus on the regulation side, but also inform the other aspects. And there's a lot of work being done in every department of the city on Wildfire mitigation. This particular project is all about regulations. There's a state effort going on at the same time. In 2023 the State passed a bill to create this Wildfire Resiliency Code Board. They're creating a model code for all jurisdictions that have Wui in them to adopt. We've seen the initial drafts. We're involved in the stakeholder engagement and boulder's current regulations for the Wui are actually for the most part, already stricter than what the State model code is. But we will keep up to date with this as it moves forward.

[241:06] as they're required by law to adopt this model code by July 1st of next year. The way that our current regulations work in the Wui that mapped area. We've adopted the 2018 international Wui code. So that's similar to the International Building code residential code. There's an international code for wildfire hardening. Essentially, what we do is we require all new construction additions and remodels in that area to meet some additional regulations. So fire resistant materials, underfloors, eaves, gutters, windows. There's special standards that further protect those structures against fire. We 1st adopted it in 2014. We've had 900 building permits approved in the Wui. Since then about 50 new structures and 300 decks. We've been working with our fire rescue department and the building code official to develop some initial changes to the International Wui code. As we set up our adoption of the next International Wui code, the 2024, and these are the requirements or the recommendations that we have thus far.

[242:16] 1st of all, citywide, not just in the Wui, requiring building permits for window replacement and siding replacement that is actually something that's really common in other communities. and provides an important check to make sure that those really important features, like windows and siding, are compliant with the fire resistant requirements. It also supports just general best practices in other parts of the city to require that the building permits for that in the actual Wui some of the initial recommendations are to require a non-combustible fence when it's within 8 feet of a habitable structure. So you could have a wood fence, but at 8 feet. What we've seen in recent fires is that the fences really act like a fuse to the structure. And so by creating that break of noncombustible fuel, you can prevent the spread of wildfire to the home.

[243:10] so requiring that requiring a 5 foot noncombustible zone around the structure. If you think back to that graphic. So having nothing that is combustible within 5 feet, and then also, this is where the 2 projects tie together is that they're both kind of about plants, but requiring only low flammability plants in that defensible space area. And so that's between 5 and 30 feet from a structure. In that way we would prohibit some specific plants that are very highly flammable, like junipers. Another concept that we're looking into is perhaps expanding the Wui area that mapped area that I showed on the previous slide, doing some fire modeling ember, modeling to determine the areas that might not be as high of a risk as what we are currently showing in the Wui. But they have some risk from embers flying from that area essentially. And so that wouldn't be like it wouldn't be a massive increase, but a minor increase in the

[244:10] the scale of the Wui area and its applicability. So those are the building code changes. We also looked into other communities and how they regulate wildfire. We do not have any standards in our land use code related to wildfire protection. And so what we saw in other communities is often there's a Wui overlay district that matches what would apply in the building code. And so our initial recommendation is to create that would act similarly to a floodplain or other hazard overlay district where we're able to apply certain site specific requirements that would support the wildfire mitigation. So that's where we have similar standards that I've already talked about like landscaping, and fences could also be incorporated in the land use code, and then we could also require certain plans for those properties in that area, like they would have to do a hazard, mitigation, assessment, or something like that. But

[245:03] that's an initial idea. All of these considerations we have to balance with the understanding that pretty much any regulation or any additional standard we create will require additional staffing for the people who review the plans, people who do inspections and enforcement. And then, like I said, this is focused on regulations. But we also have seen a lot of recent success in our incentive and education programs. We have a new wildfire resilience Grants program where we've had 53 executed contracts for people to do wildfire mitigation work just since September, and hundreds of people have done our detailed home assessment program where they get recommendations from our fire rescue folks on changes that they can make to harden their home. We went like I said. We went to council last week. This is the feedback we got from them. They were generally supportive of those recommended changes interested in expanding the Wui area. Some of the newer things that they mentioned included, or some other ideas that they mentioned included, encouraging us to explore greater applicability. So confirming

[246:11] compliance with wildfire regulations at the time of sale of a property is something they asked us to look into, or when people are seeking a rental license, and so that expands beyond just the building permit or land use approval. Idea. I also talk really fast. That's helpful, too. Right? Okay, so that's Wildfire. I'm happy to take. If you need any clarifying questions on Wildfire before I go into landscaping I have a couple related to landmarking. so land, and I want to acknowledge I live in the Wui. This is very important to me. I love that we're doing this. I think it's so important, not just for me personally, but for the city. So with regard to landmarking are landmarked structures within the Wui allowed to use comparable fire resistant materials rather than historic materials that might be more flammable like wood wood frames. Window frames, for example.

[247:04] Yeah, that's a that's an interesting point. I haven't. I don't know the answer exactly. I think there is some flexibility on the requirements, but we have our historic preservation planner as part of our team. And I can look into that. Okay, thanks. And then, similarly, again, with regard to historic preservation, you talked about requiring building permits for window replacement and siding replacement in low rise, residential buildings of 3 stories or less in the memo which I'm all for my concern is whether that would trigger historic Preservation Review as a demolition, for example, of a street facing facade. because if it does trigger historic preservation review. That might be a deterrent to doing the siding or window replacement, because that has some pretty hefty consequences. If you're landmarked. Yeah, that's a great point. I'll look into that. I know there's a certain percentage that has to be removed for it to qualify as demolition. So yeah, we'll look into that definitely.

[248:02] Thank you. Yeah. Just following up on that. I believe any change in street facing facade materials is considered a demolition. Maybe there's some threshold, but certainly, if you replace all of the street facing facade materials. That's a demolition. But under the historic preservation code, yeah. And I do know there's some flex. Now, I'm remembering that there's some flexibility, I went on, one of the detailed home assessments as like a ride along, and they were talking about how there can be some flexibility where it's really important to have the siding replaced for a certain amount of like a certain height. And so there can be kind of a balance struck between historic preservation and wildfire hardening. You know some of that flexibility and meeting in the middle where you could allow for that. I have comments about that. But I just want to make sure that that's on your radar, that if if we do require building permits for that purpose that that could get into landmarking concerns. Yeah, that's great. Thanks. Do you want comments now, or you want them later? However, you prefer. But I had envisioned. We would do comments a bit

[249:05] altogether, fire related. Let's do okay for me. Fire absolutely takes precedence over landmarking. I know that landmarking has a special status, and that often when they're doing landmark reviews. The only thing that can be considered is the historic preservation value to the city. I do not think that should be the case when we're talking about fire safety, right? So I would say that if you are replacing your siding and windows for because you're in the and you're concerned about fire hardening that should not trigger Historic Preservation Review. I don't care what structure you've got or how old it is. That's my personal opinion. And maybe that could be argued, and and maybe it should be argued. But I want to put that on the table that I think that fire resistance should trump historic preservation in all cases. Go ahead.

[250:02] Thanks. My 1st question is sort of an epistemological question. I guess it seems like when before the Marshall fire. For example, the general consensus, even among fire experts, was, Oh, a place like, you know, Superior and and Louisville wouldn't burn, and we learned that that was wrong. And so the question is, what what don't we know at this point, and how much flexibility can we put into this to reflect changing knowledge? Because it seems like the the understanding of fire dynamics is actually changing really fast. Yeah, that's a great point. I know our fire rescue team is they're the ones who are responsible for creating the map. And I think they have to update it every 3 years based on new modeling and new data. And so, even though, like, for instance, the recommendation was to create an overlay district. That doesn't mean that that is set in stone, and we wouldn't be able to change that and shift that. And that's why the one of the recommendations is to pull in that affected area where embers could fly.

[251:13] Is understanding recent fires and how that's happened. And so I think there there would still be the opportunity to be nimble and react to additional data. Okay, yeah. Great. Thank you. Why didn't yeah, just a comment. Now that you mentioned that community outreach and kind of voluntary compliance is going to be an important part of making these changes successful. And I'm just curious if any of what is happening so far encourages kind of clusters of compliance neighbors doing things together rather than kind of one off parcel by parcel individual hardening projects. And if there's a way to incentivize that kind of behavior, yeah, I think that our

[252:00] our fire folks have been working with, like various hoas in particular, to do the detailed home assessments. And I think this is an we've just established the Wildfire resilience grants program. It's basically just had its pilot so far. So I think, as we learn from and adapt. And maybe there's some kind of incentive like, if all your neighbors do it too, you get more money or something like that, you know, like there's opportunities to shift the program, I think. And I think this whole project and the regulatory side of it is going to help inform those incentives, because I don't think you can do one without the other more. I don't know if Ml's trying to get in here. I don't want to jump the queue. Okay, just one other comment building off of what Claudia said, I have some colleagues who have worked in consensus building around. You know fire, forest fire, and communities that live are near forests, and you know one of the major things they talk about is sort of the

[253:01] cultural and emotional reactions. When you start talking about doing some of these fire, hardening things like taking out trees like we have notions about what is a beautiful home? What is a safe area? What? What is what is beauty? Right? And I think Claudia is onto something in terms of some of these shifts have to happen as a neighborhood or as a street, or as neighbors together, because you don't want to be the person that, like you took out your lawn and you put in a bunch of rocks, and that's ugly, and your neighbors hate you right. So. having education, having outreach around different ways of perceiving beauty and safety, I think can go can go a long way, like, for example. you know, I think other communities have done competitions, for, like the most beautiful water-wise, landscaping and doing, done like a tour of homes where people can see models of how to do this in a really beautiful way, not just on city property, but like their neighbors, right, and going into people's houses and their yards, and seeing that we're doing this as a community.

[254:05] So I definitely, I appreciated you had those 4 buckets of the different ways that we're approaching this and policy and code updates are only one of those buckets, but I really do think it goes hand in hand with the outreach and sort of the cultural shift that needs to happen around. How do we become safe as a community? And that may change. But you know there's a little bit of tension with, you know, for example, wanting to have a lot of trees and a lot of shade. But if it's near your house, that's that's a you know, a fuse for your house so that can, I'll stop there. You get what I'm saying. Yeah, yeah, there's an inherent. There's inherent trade-offs in all of these these projects are challenging in that. One of the just I wanted to mention in the City Council discussion something that came up was with upcoming, comprehensive plan process trying to. you know, have wildfire resilience, a bigger part of the conversation, and the big community conversations that we're having. It is in the comp plan so far, but making it kind of a bigger part of what we're talking about.

[255:07] Kirk. in the Memo you also talk about, and I can't remember exactly where this was, but it said explore applying some vegetation management standards to a larger area beyond the Wui that could be affected by wildfire based on risk modeling. Why, why is that not just expanding the Wui? What? Well, it would. Sorry did I interrupt? No, I'm not it would be. It would be kind of that idea of the affected area. So that's the same as this effect. We affected area. The difference is that in those areas, because the risk isn't as high. There wouldn't be the structural requirements like the structural ignitability requirements to the building. There would just be the defensible space vegetation requirements. And so it's kind of like a wooey light. But we already have those levels, different levels within the Wui, the different colors on the map. Right? The 1, 2 and 3. Yeah, yeah.

[256:07] okay, so I'm saying the same thing. Well, it it goes to. It's a it's an even another step beyond the 1, 2 and 3 that we already have where it's just about the vegetation requirements. Okay, yeah. maybe it's not a big deal. It just seems complicated to say, no. This is now outside the Wui, but it still has sort of Wui light requirements. I'd rather just add another level to the Wui kind of just from a simplicity standpoint. It's not a big deal. And then just one comment. So in the memo, at least, it talked a fair bit about enforcement, and it seemed like largely as with other code enforcement, it would rely on complaint based enforcement. which is always concerning to me, because I think that it is pretty. It

[257:04] it can be prone to bias and inequity, inequitable enforcement. And I realize that we have resource constraints that mean that we can't just have people traveling around the city looking for junipers or whatever. But I just want to raise that as a concern. Yeah, that's that's gonna be our next task for the over the next couple of months is to understand kind of the cost benefit of different approaches for enforcement. I'm sorry. One more question 1 1 more so. Staff has probably considered this, but does labeling something in the Wui have implications for insurance so that might go to Kurt's question. So I'll just raise it and leave it there. Yeah, I think we need to look into that more. My understanding is that insurance uses their own risk modeling. And they do. There's kind of 2 sides to it, where it could be a benefit that, like it could be good to be located in the Wui, because they know there's stronger requirements, or you know, maybe it's a negative, because it highlights that there's a risk there. So we'll look into it more. And I know our fire department is engaged with the insurance agency. What?

[258:20] As whatever that is. Okay onto water. Okay? All right. Finally, Chris gets to his moment to shine. Okay. So I'm going to give. So we, this is the waterwise landscaping it's a we were able to secure support from a consultant to do best practices research. So the recommendations are a little more tailored than the wildfire one. But I did like, I said, cut half of them to try to speed this up, but the project purpose for the waterwise landscaping is to look at our existing regulations for landscaping in the goal of supporting water conservation and seeing what we could do to better support water conservation through landscaping practices, and also support all of our other many goals.

[259:11] And another important part of this is, there was a State Bill passed last year the non-functional Turf Bill that actually prohibits non functional turf in specific use, types essentially so on our street right of way and transportation corridors, commercial uses, industrial uses, institutional uses. And then what the State calls common interest communities which I've been thinking of as like Hoa, common space. And so in those areas the city cannot install ourselves or permit anyone else to install on new development or redevelopment, nonfunctional, turf, artificial turf or invasive plant species. The definition of non-functional turf is on the right. Or this is the State Bill's definition. It's not located in a recreational use area or other space regularly used for civic community or recreational purposes. This, this bill has a compliance date of January 1, st 2026. So it aligns perfectly with our plan for this project. So we're including aligning our requirements with these, this new State Bill. As part of this project.

[260:19] we have an established water conservation program. We've had a lot of success over the last few decades at conserving Water. There's things from kind of this is similar to the umbrella graphic for Wildfire. We have foundational things. We have lots of technical and assistance and incentives like resources and rebates our garden in a box program, lawn replacement programs. We do lots of education and outreach like waterwise yard seminars. And then we have our rules and ordinances, which, again, is the focus of this update. So I just wanted to give. And it's kind of interesting because you talked about landscape review in the last item, a little bit. But an idea of how this works, how we review landscapes.

[261:02] So we have one full time landscape architect in planning and development services. Chris reviews all of the plans and inspects the plans after installation. So just in a typical year, he reviews 545 building permits 132 planning cases and then goes out and does 268 inspections, and that's only in the planting time of year. So that's 1 full time employee. Then we have enforcement. So that's like you said complaint based. When we have complaints come up, there's 2 different departments that take on different types of violations. If there were any issues, landscape plans are required for new construction additions and significant remodels. And there's some variation in the code of which standards apply, based on how like the value of the the project. I thought this graph was an interesting way to look at the last 22 years of water use in boulder, and you can see that we have made significant strides in reducing water use, but primarily it's been on the indoor water. Use side. So outdoor water use has stayed pretty consistent over the years.

[262:09] Per capita, though, we've reduced water use by 30%. And so this project obviously would focus on the outdoor water use. So it's going to tackle that yellow part. And oh, I wanted to highlight that. We have not updated our landscape code since 2,003. So we have 20 years. We had a lot of really great forward thinking ideas in 2,003. But there's lots of other communities that have. And just an evolution of the practice that's happened over the last 20 years. just to further explain the State Bill. When we look at water use by what utilities calls customer sector. But we would call land use type. You can see single family residential accounts for 40% of water use multifamily a quarter commercial, industrial, institutional. About a 3, rd when we think about that State Bill, the State Bill really only applies to that part of the users.

[263:01] And so one of the recommendations that we're asking for your feedback on tonight is whether to expand that to multifamily residential uses as well to have a bigger impact on water conservation. And that's related to the non-functional Turf bill I mentioned, we were able to get help from a consultant on evaluation, and so they did. A review of all of our standards, our current standards. There's lots of great best practices out there on waterwise landscaping, especially in Colorado, and especially knowing that the State Bill is coming. There's a lot coming out recently. So our consultant Martin and Wood looked at 8 different cities, mostly in Colorado, that have primarily recently updated their landscaping code to look at those forward thinking best practices, and then see what might be a good fit for boulder they evaluated. There's lots more detail in your packet, but they evaluated things based on foundational aspects of a landscaping code, things that really move the needle on water efficiency and things that work as an ecosystem service. So they have multi benefits. And then a really important part of this project is understanding the level of effort for all of these, because we probably can't do all of them

[264:09] realistically. And so we tried to anticipate what would be a low level of impact like we could do it with our existing staff implement it medium to high means. We really need additional staff to be able to do that successfully. and then, or high, would be more staff and more funding things like that. Okay? So our landscape consultant had 7 recommendations for us to consider in the landscaping code. The 1st is that implementing the nonfunctional Turf bill. So I'll start with the low effort. You can kind of see the green going to yellow and red and then the firewise or fire resistant standard. So we already talked about that with the wildfire hardening but incorporating landscaping regulations that restrict those higher flammability plants, especially in the Wui area, and maybe having different standards in the Wui compared to the rest of the city.

[265:05] both non-functional turf and firewise standards. They're called low effort. It's still effort. It's just work that we can do with our existing staff soil amendment and mulch standards. This one was interesting because you can see it hits all 3 important points. Every single city except us has this. So it's 1 that's definitely something we should look into. And a lot of these are coming up with are really focused on setting plants up for success, so that you know the soil is proper. The mulch is going to help retain water, and so those plants are not going to die watering schedules. Another thing that a lot of other communities have, that boulder doesn't, which is regulations on the books about not watering during the day, or having specific days that are allotted to you for watering. So that's another thing to consider, and that could be something regulatory or just recommendations. Temporary irrigation is for those low water use plants that we're trying to

[266:00] encourage people to use. They often need temporary irrigation to get them established. And so this is more just providing some initial flexibility in the 1st few years of establishing plants to have that irrigation that they need rather than restricting the water so drastically that they never get a chance to establish. And then finally moving into the higher effort. There's a concept that a lot of cities have been taking or implementing in their codes recently that we're calling a landscape water efficiency standard, which is essentially creating an allotment per property. Of how much, how many gallons per square foot per season, so how much water the whole site can use. and then we would have a plant list that would establish like low water, use medium water, use something like that. And then there's a bunch of math involved. And basically it would. It would lead the design, the landscape design in a way that they would have to meet that allotment like whatever they could fit in. So if they wanted to have turf.

[267:02] assuming they're not one of the types where it's prohibited. They could have turf. But that's going to use a lot of their water. So they're going to have to make some trade-offs about what other plants they use in order to have that turf. So that's a concept that's been increasing in popularity, especially in Colorado. And then, finally, the last high effort. One is professional training and certification. Lots of communities in Colorado now are either requiring or recommending that landscapers and irrigation professionals go through some water conservation trainings. And so, for instance, Castle Rock requires any landscape plans that are submitted have to be from somebody who's gone through this training. And again. That's trying to get at making sure that things are installed correctly and in the way that it's going to actually move towards water conservation. This would be high level of effort, because, as we've talked to other communities, it takes staffing. It takes funding. It takes time. It's definitely a big commitment in order to do that, but they they all thought it was very beneficial, and ended up in good outcomes.

[268:07] So those are the recommendations we got from the consultant. the feedback that we got from Council last week was greatest interest in the low and medium effort changes, and then really wanting to understand the cost benefit of those high effort changes. If we're going to take that on and do need additional resources for that, what's the benefit that we're going to see from it lots of interest in the idea of developing a plant list to guide people. And then we talked about rock mulch and having different standards in the Wui, that are more fire resistant than some of the other standards. So that's it for waterwise landscaping. And then we have questions that we had set up for what we already kind of went through Wildfire. But just to bring those graphics back up for waterwise. just really hoping for your initial feedback, you're going to see this several times over the next year. But if there are certain aspects or certain recommendations that you're more interested in us looking into more or something sounds like, Oh, that's not even worth looking into. That's the kind of feedback we're hoping for. And then also whether you would support expanding the applicability of the State Bill to multifamily residential.

[269:23] I see Ml. Has a hand up. I do. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Lisa, that that was just brilliantly done between your fast talking and the compressed slides. We got a lot of information. So I'm curious. Why, I I think this diagram is specifically for the non functional turf. Or maybe it isn't. But how does single family. Get absorbed into this reducing our well, the whole landscaping did.

[270:10] Yeah, yeah, I can take it out. And then Chris maybe could add more. But so the nonfunctional, this graph really is focused on the Nonfunctional Turf Bill. But we have the other idea. The idea I mentioned of the Landscape water Efficiency standard having that allotment of water that would apply bye. and then we also, I'll let Chris explain. We already the one of the things we had that was forward. Thinking from 2,003 is, we already have turf restrictions that apply. Chris, do you want to explain that sure, currently, within code, there are xeriscape requirements and and low water usage requirements for landscapes. Currently, we allow 50% of a landscaped area or total landscape area to be water wise. Essentially, it has to be a water efficient landscape, and then 25% of that area can be turf grass at this time. And we're we're going to have a look at that and see if that's still applicable today with the current requirements.

[271:10] And is that inclusing single family, residential. Yes, all types of like. Perfect, because it seems I mean, I think that's where you see the inequitable application right? You see some of these properties that have acres of mowed lawn. Anyway. Okay, that that's my question is, are we going to apply this equitably across across the city because everybody needs to do their part. Thanks. Okay, Claudia. thank you for that presentation. I want to dig into a couple of the things that I think you marked as potentially higher effort and try to understand those better. And the 1st is this potential landscape water efficiency standard. And I'm curious, like how that relates to the water budgets that we currently get from the water utility. What has that existing tool accomplished, and what are the

[272:13] what are the kind of limits on what we can get out of that tool before we go to other things like these kind, these additional types of water budgets with landscaping design. That's a great question, and I'm so glad our utilities folks hung on virtually to answer that. So I will pass it over to Kim Hutton, who is our water resources manager. I think. Good evening planning board. Can you all hear me? Yes. Okay, great. I think that the difference between the water budgets that you're familiar with of from the billing perspective versus this landscape water efficiency standard relates to The 1st is more like in influencing customer behavior for water use, and I think the Landscape Water Efficiency standard is related to kind of informing

[273:05] development itself. and what what plants are going in the ground? The water budgets, you know. How effective have the water budgets been, we have seen, since their implementation in roughly 2,007. We've seen a decrease in water use over over that time, and we are actually planning on doing an assessment of the water budgets starting in 2025. That'll be a 1 to 2 year process to look at. How effective are the water budgets in meeting our goals. And you know, one of the goals of of these water budgets is to improve water efficiency, water efficient use by customers. So that that's something. We'll be circling back with council on it. I'm not sure if we'd come back to planning board on that. But

[274:00] that's something we'll be taking a look at in the next year or so. Appreciate that if there's, you know. feedback to be given on this, I would just hope that that the the existing water budgets that we have with the utility can be, you know, seen as part of a unified system. With this right? Like, let's get as much out of that tool as we can, because I think one of the things that's attractive about the utility water Budget Tool is that, 1st of all, it's already there. But second of all, it somehow touches everybody right. It does not require review of plans. It doesn't require any kind of compliance inspections, etc. Everybody gets a water bill. Everybody has a water budget, and so on some level that touches all of the properties that we might be dealing with in this in this approach. Let's see couple of other comments just on water that came up as I was looking through some of the proposals, I think.

[275:03] thinking about water billing and how we do that is also potentially relevant to how you were talking about this idea of a temporary irrigation or establishment period. So when you have new plantings, and so on. And the question was, you know, if we were to have some sort of requirement about that to allow for temporary irrigation, how do you enforce it right? How do you enforce that? It's turned off? How do you enforce the time limit on that? And is there a way to also incorporate that into water billing. Right? So to have like variable water budgets that say, yeah, we recognize you get a certain bonus allotment for 3 years. When you've established something. But then that's somehow tied to your water account that that your water budget changes at that time. So those are just some thoughts on on water billing the other thing. I was curious about changing gears a little bit. Here is the landscaping certifications, so professional certifications.

[276:03] And I'm curious what kind of external certifications are currently out there. I think the consultants were talking about. Should the city develop its own program? Are there existing programs that have accreditation in Colorado or similar climates. And what kind of access does the city have to those? Yeah, that's something we're talking about. So some of the other communities that we've looked at or we've talked to are Aspen and Castle Rock, and they both use the quell program which is qualified water efficiency, landscaper training. And so that I think it started in California. But it's a nationwide, and then they adapt it to the State. So now it's in Colorado. So we have an opportunity to use an establish or to explore using an established program. And I can also, I can pass it back to Kim and maybe Crystal. If they have, I know there's other. There's like the irrigation certification. There's lots of other types of certifications that we could look into and see which one kind of fits. Our needs best. Okay, yeah. And like, related to that to

[277:09] do local community colleges have programs that do these kinds of certifications front range any other organizations here on the front range. Just looking at ways that we could, or that the city could, you know, look for these kinds of professional qualifications and certifications without like reinventing a local program. Because I think it's also important to recognize that a lot of landscaping professionals, they work in regional labor markets, right and regional customer markets. It's not just folks working in the city of Boulder. They're working throughout the county. They're working up and down the front range. So are there opportunities for synergies there so that the city would not have to rebuild that program on its own. Yeah. And I, yeah, I'll pass it back to utilities. Because I know this was, we also have a water efficiency plan which got the slide got cut for time, but that the city adopts, and so, looking into trainings was part of that, too. But so I know, Kim, if you want to add anything on trainings.

[278:06] I'm sorry I'm gonna let Crystal speak to that one. She's more familiar with that than I am. Crystal. More utilities. Just a couple of the children, I'll add on to on top of 12. There's an associated landscaper cooperation of Colorado Alcc, I probably watch that. That's more focused on maintenance and installation. So kind of a 4 h sustainable landscape management course, where there's a test involved. That same organization that is, landscaper led. working on a more comprehensive training really focused on the landscape industry that we could tie into. And then Csu offers a landscape for life program that our Climate Initiatives Department has been investigating. That is more focused on holistic design concepts. Thanks. Crystal. Okay, thanks. Yeah. Just looking for ways to use some of our existing organizational infrastructure to kind of go further. Yeah.

[279:09] Laura. thank you and thank you, Lisa and Chris. I did actually note in the memo with an exclamation point, how much work you are doing, Chris, how many permits. You are reviewing and inspections you are doing, and just want to give you some kudos. And this is our 1st time meeting you. But we're impressed. So thank you. Thank you for that. Yeah. So I have a couple of questions. So on page 7 of the packet, there's a chart tying, landscaping requirements, bringing your structure up to the landscape requirements based on the assessed value of the structure, that you're doing an improvement to like a new addition. And I know that for energy efficiency, I believe we have moved away from that model of basing it on the percentage value of your assessed structure and moved more towards the extensiveness of the reconstruction that you're doing. And I believe the reason for that is that so many of us have assessed values that are so low right? Because it's just the structure itself. And so you might have a 1.5 million dollar home. And the assessed value of your structure is $200,000, and it's quite easy to like

[280:21] with a renovation or something. Get up to 100% of your assessed value quite quickly, in a way that you might not expect, and so I don't know if it's I mean definitely. We want to be moving towards these water, saving water, wise landscapes, but I don't know if those triggers are the right triggers, so I just wanted to put that out there in terms of have you considered moving to the same model that we use for energy efficiency upgrades. I can start. I will definitely be looking at all of the parts of the landscape code. And so Chris is much more familiar with all the intricacies of how it works. So he's got lots of ideas of how to improve things. You're absolutely right. We do run into issues in terms of

[281:01] of whether or not we are triggering landscape improvements relative to current values, of of structures on a piece of property. Again, relative to the renovations that are proposed. it definitely happens there are some very low values that are currently represented in the assessors database. Have I gone further to try to identify other methods of of triggering landscape improvements? Not yet. I think it's a worthy exercise, though, and then certainly open to to methodologies as to how that might happen. Just a thought. Because I think that we did. We went through that for the energy efficiency triggers. So maybe that's a model to look at. But I'm not trying to micromanage that just wanted to put that out there. I have a couple of other questions and thoughts. So one of the things that you asked about was expanding, that what's it called the non-functional turf to multifamily residential properties. And you talked about how do you define a multifamily residential property? And you said, typically 2 units, or above or 4 units of or above, are used, and I think the consultant that you use recommended 4 or above.

[282:15] So I guess my question is, we've talked a lot about plexes right? And allowing more plexes throughout the single family neighborhoods. Would that mean that plexes could not have lawns in the same way that a single family residence could have lawns? Well, it would have to be a functional lawn. We still have to. I had the non functional turf definition from the State. A part of this project is we're going to have to better define what non functional turf means for Boulder, because it's a pretty vague definition in the State Bill, but I think the idea, I think the reason the consultant recommended the 4 plus is because that's where the building code cuts off. So you're in commercial construction 4 units or above, and then it would be single family duplex triplex would have

[283:04] like. If we had the water Efficiency standard, they would still have the turf restrictions, or, you know, have to fit within their allotment and have some limitations and plant lists and things like that. But it maybe wouldn't be quite as strict of no non-functional turf. yeah. And it's probably too late at night for me to think about all the intricacies here. But my interest in this is that we don't want to disincentivize people from doing plexes because they really like lawns or something like that. And I think the answer is probably equity across all single family. And multifamily, if that's a direction that we can even head in. But I just want to make sure that how we define multifamily isn't going to discourage the creation of these plexes that we have worked so hard to try to get into our code. As Carl well knows, I can see Carl. Not so that that was one question. the idea of the landscape professionals and the training and the level of effort. There, I want to take a step back and just say, in general, I'm I am with Council in terms of. I think we need to understand

[284:09] the potential water savings and the cost and try to focus our efforts on the things where we're going to get the biggest bang for the buck, like what we're trying to do here is increase water efficiency, I think you know, for my experience working in collaboration has really pushed me towards things that do not require human beings to individually self, monitor and regulate and behave well. you want to go towards more structural solutions rather than trying to incentivize behavioral solutions. Right? But that said, I, do think you need to do some cost benefit analysis of how much potential water savings are we looking at? And what's it going to cost the city? So with that general principle out there going to the specifics of the landscape professionals. If if doing a training seems less onerous than the certification and the monitoring and the enforcement of are you using a certified professional. So maybe there is a way to incentivize people to use people who've gone through the training and to take the training. So, for example.

[285:10] anybody who goes through the training gets on a list of landscapers that the city, you know, verifies that they've gone through the training, and therefore is a recommended landscaper for waterwise development, something like that, so that the people, the landscapers themselves, want to take the training, and that it's easy for the customer to find those professionals. It seems a lot easier than a certification program. So it's just one, maybe middle ground solution. Speaking of experience of other communities. I admit my ignorance that I don't know much about how we build water in this city. And do we use tiered rates like? So if somebody is like using tremendous amounts of water, they pay more per unit. Yes, okay, excellent good that we have that one love. The idea of assigned days of the week and hours for watering. I didn't see things I've seen in other communities, and my knowledge of this is several decades old. So take this for what it's worth. It may be that these are no longer best practices, but things like

[286:11] really educating the public and practicing drought, water restrictions, so that people understand what it could mean if we're in a drought, and that that gives people more of a sense of maybe I don't want to plant very thirsty plants that are going to die during a drought, because it is really possible that we might have to pull back to this level during a drought. So I don't know if there's more around education, around drought restrictions and those triggers. and then also using hoses for cleaning off your driveway or washing your car in your driveway. Some communities have banned those I didn't see that mentioned at all. I don't know if that's still something that people talk about much. I know. I see it in my neighborhood of people just like hosing down their driveway or the sidewalk instead of sweeping So just put putting that out there.

[287:01] And I think I think those are the big ones. Thank you. Thanks. Great. Yeah. Just a couple of comments. First, st I want to echo what Ml. And Laura said. About this diagram on the lower right. we're looking at single family residential is 40% of usage multifamily is 25% of usage, which probably means that single family residential per capita is much greater. It's a much greater ratio than we see there in the pie chart. Right? And so, and also in general, people who live in or own single family residential are. are wealthier than residents of multifamily, I think, is as a general rule, and so from an equity standpoint, and I know you talked about this, but from an equity standpoint it really and just from a result standpoint it seems like it would make more sense to focus 1st on the single family

[288:04] sector, because we can just get we can accomplish more there than multifamily. The one other thing I want to raise is our setback standards, especially front and side setbacks, which you know I don't. I don't know. I can't think of a single front yard anywhere in my neighborhood. That is functional. It's all non-functional, I mean, I have a front yard, and it's totally non-functional. I never do anything out there other than weed, you know, and and water right and and same with side setbacks, and I think rear yards just tend to be much more used. And so I think, to the extent that we can relax, reduce, or even in some cases eliminate, our front and side setbacks. We could

[289:03] reduce water usage, and it would result in more usable open space. That that would just It would work better for people. I was just thinking that my dog would say that my backyard turf is very functional. That's very important to his life, right? And and I think that that's that's true. For most people backyards is the area that they use. Front yards are not used. Okay, last, call for comments. Questions. Mark, I have my hand up. Oh, okay, thank you. Ml, I'm so. I have both hands up. Thank you. So Lisa. I'm guessing this is in here somewhere, but I don't. I didn't see it, or maybe I missed it. Are we promoting non potable or gray water for all outdoor uses?

[290:05] I will pass that to our utilities. Folks. It. It's like it. Yeah, there's- there's so many hits to oh, Kim, Hello! Oh! We? Are we doing that? Finally, can we just say there is no more potable water use for watering or washing your car, or whatever you use your hose for. Sure. Yeah. So so in order to get non potable waters, that's water that has not gone through the water treatment plant to order in order to distribute that widespread across the city, we would need to construct a whole new set of infrastructure. Or grey water, gray water coming from the residence itself. Sure. Yeah, so so non potable water. There are some some I guess, residences that live adjacent to irrigation ditches that might own water rights.

[291:00] And so there is a little bit of non-potable use for irrigation in the city. But it's a small percentage of of, I think the lots that that do that. So then Gray Water currently City does not have a authorized gray water use in the city that needs to be. The the State has some regulations on how that's authorized. And those regulations have recently been updated. So in addition to the water budget assessment that we will be doing over the next 2 years. We are also in the next year looking at the change in gray water regulations, and how the city might apply or implement that, and that one has That assessment needs to be done by January 1st of 2026. Okay? So that's being triggered by a State. Yes, a state requirement or state.

[292:01] Yeah, state regulation. Related to authorization and use of gray water with within the state. Yeah. Okay, cause it seems to me that that's that's a big one. You know that that's just huge. When you see, you know, people watering their lawns every single day all summer long. You're like, Wow, that's a lot of that's a lot of water that has a a footprint, right? Because it gets processed, and it's watering a lawn. So I would encourage that to be a significant priority in that I think I think it could make a big dent in our in our water use to to do that. I I hear that the State is regulating it currently, but it'd be nice if we were like ready to go the minute any legislation changes.

[293:01] That's my only question regarding water. I you know, and how, as I said the 1st time. How do we capture single family into At this turp one. All right. Okay. I guess that's that's me. Thanks. Okay, anything else. Okay, are you? Very helpful? Yes, thank you. Okay, all right. Great. You'll see this next, probably in summertime. Okay, yes, all right. Great. Thank you guys for staying late expediting your presentation, anyway. Thank you for doing that. Thanks. Okay. Now, I'm going to make a suggestion. It's probably the same one I have. Did we consider this in great length, in depth, in detail and great length? Yeah,

[294:06] that that we actually postpone this agenda. Yeah. So we have availability at our next meeting on 1 7, I will need like a a motion and approval to, because it's a agenda item on our calendar. But yeah, if we could move it to 1 7, if that's okay with you guys, and that's what you'd like to do. Yes, so you need a motion. Like to move that we? I'd like to move that we move the next agenda item to. 7, th yeah. 7th Meeting. The next week. Yeah. Second, okay, we're going to vote on that. Ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes, Laura. Yes, Claudia, yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Yeah. Just since it was an agenda item, it helps out, yeah. So thank you. Okay, can. I just follow up quickly on that? Do you want any more comments or any other input on that? Yeah. So what we would do is I would pull up that document. We'd go through it, and then I'd give you a clean version of it, and you could look at it again.

[295:13] So we'll go through the and if you have any additional comments you can give it during the meeting, and then I'll give you another opportunity before we finally adopt it. Does that make sense? Okay. So you don't need anything in advance of the January 7th unless you really want to. But yeah, okay, great, yeah, I can bring it. And then we'll have more discussion. And then, yeah, you'll have another opportunity. Okay, Brad, I cleared out the room. I think. Okay, great, thank you, Laurel. We appreciate you prepping it for tonight. It's a super important item, and we're going to. We'll get there. It's good to not start it at 11. Pm. Okay, yeah, thanks. Okay, Brad, do you have any thing for us? I do have a few matters. So thank you for the work tonight. I want to. I think they're probably off line by now, but I want to acknowledge all the various partners we had kind of at the ready for those items.

[296:07] and really, that's a segue for me to point out that the Department has just undertaken an immense amount of work. We appreciate your role in helping with that. I'm going to send to you a citywide list of accomplishments for the year and just encourage you to maybe look through that for understanding of the bigger context that you all are working in, and you'll be able to pick out the things that planning and development services has done. and many of those things that that don't even come to planning board. So just hoping to to give you that context and and do that. You know one of the things that hopefully struck you in Lisa's work, and and the work of that team is just the amount of time and resources to do something even like finding out peer information from cities which

[297:00] involves, you know, reading literature in the field and picking out some cities and combing through their codes, and usually finding somebody at that city to ask questions, because the code's not clear about things, and then compiling that into these very concise and meaningful charts that we all get to to enjoy digesting, to try to help make policy recommendations to you and the Council and others. So one of the themes that I've heard a little bit towards the end of the year, and I'm not picking on you by any means. It's coming from council. It's coming from the community. It's coming from ourselves is the speed at which we can do all these things. And it it can take a while. There's a long legacy of code that we need to unravel and recognize and understand how they were maybe initiated. And there's public outreach and engagement and trying to reconcile a lot of competing values and competing opinions out there. We know that you, recognizing that and you appreciate it. And yet we all wish things could be faster, too. So

[298:13] you know, hang in. There is my message as we go into 2025. There's there's even more to come. And and these things are moving along at a good pace, and we continue to work on that, and to work on daily operations and meeting our performance standards there, and and all the other work. So I just want to give a big shout out to the team, and in working to try to meet a lot of a lot of expectations from the community this year and appreciate you helping us get many of those across the across the finish line. I'm also going to talk to staff a little bit how we can maybe daylight even more than we've done in the past about the work plan for the Department next year, and I've got some thoughts how we can share that with you. But again, just want to reflect on that for the year and say, Thank you, and

[299:04] wish you a very, very happy holiday season and a Happy New Year. Great I'm going to take an opportunity to to respond just a little bit in the context of tonight. And I I want to say for myself that I am a planning and development services team advocate. You know, when I talk to members of the community. I convey that you know. the wording in in a Site review is, you know, on the whole, or whatever it's a it's a really excellent team, and it's you do really good work and And at the same time we do have to be able. And I I hope that staff tonight, Chandler, etc, that when we discuss

[300:01] site review criteria and we make judgments about things, it's funny, people say, Oh, you know, that's don't be so, judgy. It's like, well, judgment is, that's that's our job, right? So anyway, that that when we see a a deficiency or a difference of opinion with staff that that also has to be okay, and that that is not a. It's a, it's a difference. It's not a comment on work or quality of work. But it's a difference of opinion and thought. So, yeah, I can assure you we take none of that personally, and we absolutely understand that's part of the process. In fact, I've shared with. Oh, some of the team. I don't know if everybody's heard this come out of my mouth, but just my kind of personal mantra having been in this kind of career for a while now is that if we don't

[301:02] maybe have maybe 5% of the things that come forward to you and or counsel that you simply take the opposite opinion of the staff recommendation. Then we're probably not doing something right, because either we are not pushing ourselves enough to try to do things if you don't disagree sometimes, or or we're being too complacent. And and not doing things or well to say it differently. If if you're agreeing with us, a hundred percent of the time, I think is what I'm trying to say, then we're probably not trying hard enough. If you disagree with us, you know 40% of the time. Then there's probably something in the code fundamentally that needs to change? So we, you know, we recognize that there are going to be those, and we recognize. And I'm often at the forefront of these conversations of explaining that you all act in a quasi judicial manner. You know. I'll say this to applicants to the public, which means that you're judging things, and that planning is not like engineering, no slight engineers. It's not

[302:10] if it's 3, then yes, if it's 4, then no, it's things like compatibility and walkability and things like that. I will say, when we do pipe up occasionally, whether it's, you know, Laurel or myself. We're talking about things that are within our judgment kind of are on the, on the edge of what is defendable in the way that the code has been interpreted, and things like that, and and even that represents a certain amount of judgment on our part, too. So we we try to be very discrete on that. I won't speak for you, but you know that's that's kind of my threshold for those things. But yes, we absolutely know that, and I can assure you that nobody takes that personally, or, you know, feels slighted by by disagreeing with an aspect of a recommendation.

[303:00] Okay, Kurt. I just want to say, express my thanks for your leadership, too. On this you have an amazing team. You've got tremendous people. I am so in awe of all the people on planning and development services. But really, so much of it comes from the top, and I just am deeply appreciative of all that you've helped the team accomplish and and just having your your foresighted and really forward thinking leadership up there, is it to me? Makes a world of difference. So I just want to really appreciate it. Well, that's very kind of you. I mean, it is just the talent of the team, and I would be embarrassed if they were here to have you say that because. you know I consider myself just the person that kind of bounces from thing to thing, and person to person, to kind of keep the encouragement and perspective alive. But I appreciate your thoughts. That's why I waited until they were all gone. Good! Good! You can't tell anybody. Laurel.

[304:11] Okay, Laura. I know we all want to go home. but I want to just concur with Kurt, and then also, just so I don't embarrass you, Brad, by waxing on too much. I also complimented Chris tonight on his impressive statistics of like the number of plans that he has cranking through. He is cranking through every year and inspections he's doing, but I'm sure that all of our team members have equally impressive statistics and work histories, and a lot of that may be invisible to us or not as easy to count or to show in a pie chart. But we really do appreciate all the work, you know, for all of the work that we do in digesting these packets. There's 10 times more work, 20 times 100 times more work in getting us to the point where we can even look at those packets. So we really appreciate all that you and your department and all of your partners and other departments are doing

[305:00] for the city. So thank you so much, and please convey that to everyone. I will. I'll pass that on, and not to draw out the meeting. But I do want to reiterate that I know how much we've brought to you all, too, and I appreciate that you've stuck with us on that maybe even 2 years in a row. Now that we've kind of really pushed the envelope on the amount of things coming to you, and in the summer to the end of the year. And obviously, we. We don't control that. We get the applications we get and we get the council priorities we get. And this year layered on top of that were state mandates, that we, you know, had deadlines to hit. Whether it was on the natural medicine or the occupancy, or adu, I mean, those were all additive and appreciate you hanging in there with all the all the work that we've brought to you all. We're hoping for a little less next year. But the signs are not good. It looks like it's, Hey, bring us more. That's what we're here for. But thank you very much. We appreciate all that you do.

[306:02] Thank you. Brad. I wanna chime in from up here in the sky right? That's where I'm at down there. Thank you, Brad, for for your leadership. Welcome. Okay, all right, I think we're all ready to adjourn. So unless I hear an objection, we're going to adjourn. Thank you. We're adjourned. Good night all, and have a happy holiday.