January 7, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Are we still waiting? So I see Ml. Kurt, mark Laura! Do we have Mason? Oh, Mason's Mason's there, and Claudia is Claudia this here this evening. I think we're still waiting on Claudia. Okay. I. Well. For her. Would you have a. Forum, though, you could start without her. Yeah, yeah, we'll we'll start. So thanks everyone. Happy New Year. Welcome to the 1st planning Board meeting of 2025. We'll call this January 7th meeting to order, and we'll start with public participation. Thanks. Chair, Thomas, can you pull up the slides? I can read them. Sure. Yeah, I'll pull those up right now. Great. Yeah. In the meantime, thank you. Everyone from the public who's here with us tonight, and I'll just read these rules of decorum for public participation which are for everybody who's in the meeting tonight.

[1:02] So just wanting everyone to know that the city engaged with community members previously 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 and 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 this vision co-created with community on our website next slide, please. and I'll read the some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this productive atmosphere's vision, and these will all 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 are prohibited.

[2:01] and participants are required to identify themselves using the name they're commonly known by. So 1st and last name we request next slide, please. So we're all virtual tonight. So for public comment, which will be right after this and potentially public hearing later, if there are any on the agenda, you would need to raise your virtual hand, so we know you that you would like to speak, and you can do that by pressing the virtual hand icon at your bottom of your zoom screen. If you're joining from phone, you can use Star 9, and the next slide just shows another way to get to that hand. From this reactions. Menu. So that's it. So this next section is open comment for community members to we. We provide 3 min to talk to planning board members about any issues that are not hearing items for tonight. So if you would like to speak during the open comment, please let us know by raising your virtual hand. I see. Claudia joined us. As well. Go ahead and promote her.

[3:11] Give folks a couple few seconds in case anybody would like to to speak before we move on. And, Thomas, do you have the timer? Each person will have 3 min. I'm just looking for my my background that I normally use, and I'm not seeing it. But I can pull one up on my phone. Great. And I can show it to Lynn. Can reference it. Okay, thank you, Lynn Siegel, please go ahead. You've got to stop approving all of these developers greedy developers coming after you. You know your old bot. We all know this, you know it's 1 after the other. Mackenzie Junction.

[4:01] North Boulder, East Boulder Subcommunity Geological Society of America. Many of these are not even up yet. Most people don't even know, and they're going to be shocked and surprised when they see Papellios right? I mean, they've already seen all the other the Folsom development all the way to Pine Street. Right? See you south the Hell Hotel. It's actually Moxie, okay, and limelight, the Aspen Hotel, that's you know, in Boulder. Now, 7 7 7 Broadway. It's going to be 5 levels, probably 900 rented by the bedroom like the millennium, which is 900 rented by the bedroom. Who owns boulder. I watched the Jill Grano show on Kgnu. I'm surprised that she's finally come around. But what about the rest of you? What about the airport? What about the planning reserve? What about

[5:11] sensibility for this town? This is utterly, utterly shameful behavior on all of your parts for approving all of this stuff with these developers that just make it more expensive to live here, increase the wealth and equity. And and then, of course, you have a perfect industrial complex. You have to get more housing, because there's more unequal wealth, and you have to have diversity, equity, and inclusion. Right? Because you created the problem. In the 1st place, why do you do this? It's utterly self-defeating. It's like Israel. It's suicidal. What they're doing is genocide. What Boulder is doing to itself is genocide.

[6:05] I mean my Palestinian housemates saw he saw the 1st homeless person he's ever seen in his life lives in Saudi, they, you know, left in 48 from Nabilis, our sister city, actually the 1st homeless person he'd seen at the Coffee House. Why, in this rich country of America. do we have a Saudi coming here to see. I mean, he's not Saudi. There's Nobilisian. But why do we have them coming here and seeing the 1st homeless person they've seen in Boulder? It's revolting. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you for sharing your comments with planning board tonight. I don't see any other hands. If anyone else wishes to speak. Please go ahead and do so now, so that we know before moving on. Otherwise thank you for being here.

[7:01] Back over to you. Chair. Great. Thank you. Next up on the agenda is the approval of the October 20 second meeting minutes. Does anyone have any comments, or would like someone like to make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve minutes. Right. Oh, second. Right. If there are no other comments we'll go ahead and vote. Mason. Yes. Laura. Yes. Mark. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Ml. Yes. Claudia. Yes. And myself, as also a Yes. That concludes the approval of minutes. We'll go into discussion and dispositions. And then, prior to the public hearing. Item, I think we'll just talk about a little bit of rearrangement of of matters. But let's let's talk about the call up. Item, 1st

[8:07] laurel I can't remember. Do you? Do you need me to read this off into the record or not? Yeah, it's best to read it off into the record. Just so we have the full name of it. Yeah. The call up item available for call up is the final plat to subdivide the property at 1917 Upland Avenue to create 5 lots. Lot one is 24,699 square feet. Lot 2 is 7,376 square feet. Lot 3 is 8,725 square feet. Lot 4 is 7,922 square feet, and Lot 5 is 8,260 square feet. Nauman subdivision case number Tec, 2, 0, 1, 8, 0 0 4 4. The preliminary plat was approved through case number, lur. 2,018, 0, 0 4, 7. This application is subject to potential. Call up on or before. January 9, th 2025, which is why, it's here this evening. Does anyone have any comments, or would like to consider calling this item up.

[9:18] I just have a question Section J of the subdivision agreement speaks to the to stormwater conveyance, stormwater being conveyed in the historic manner. And yet there is stormwater detention shown on the plat. And so I just wanna make sure that that's not an oversight. It seems inconsistent. Hi! This is Adam, the city planner that's been working on this case. I will say that the engineers have been working on this for numerous years, and that the flood command zone has changed since this 1st came in. So we had to amend the

[10:15] maps to reflect the new flood command zone that has been updated by Fema, and with that the alright drainage patterns have been reflected on the final plat through the drainage easements. You see there. Sorry about that, Charles Farrell, planning and development services. Thanks for the question, Kurt. The other thing that I would say is that that 1st sentence is kind of stock language that's reflected in all of our subdivision agreements. and the second part of that really just makes sure that the properties are going to be designed consistent with the approved engineering drawing. So I recognize it's kind of strange language, but it's kind of stock in most of our agreements. Actually, all of our agreements.

[11:08] Yeah. Okay. Well, as long as Staff isn't worried about it, I'm not worried. So thank you. Claudia, and then Mark. Thanks. I was curious about the status of sidewalks on the south side of Vine Street. I don't think those exist currently, and I'm curious if that an easement for sidewalks is part of, or needs to be, part of, a subdivision agreement here. So on the south side of Vine Street. If memory serves me and Adam, you might have to keep me honest here. I don't think that sidewalks were a requirement when we did the original annexation on the south side. I do believe that is correct. Yeah. So I think that was part of the annexation that was negotiated back in the mid 2 thousands, that there wouldn't be sidewalks on the south side.

[12:02] Okay, so any construction there it that that moment is past. Is that what you're saying. That moment has passed. Okay. Go ahead, mark. So fall it. In a way, it's a bit of a follow on to claudia's question. This is a 2018, you know. You look at the at the document number. So it's 2018, and it seems as though you could develop 5 houses, 5 single family homes on the 5 subdivided lots. It with those 5 homes be subject to the 28. The regulations design, constraints, etc, that existed in 2018, or, as we

[13:02] may likely approve. Family, friendly, vibrant neighborhoods and State laws come into effect. That oh, free up some design constraints along transit corridors. So my question is, under what Guidelines and criteria will these lots be developed. So it's a great question. The subdivision that we're you guys are reviewing is just approved under the standards that exist today. Any future development of the lots are going to require building permits. So it really just depends, Mark, when they pull building permits, whether or not that's before or after. I wouldn't assume that they're going to apply before Thursday night, when family friendly, vibrant neighborhoods goes before council. But yeah, they would be subject to the regulations that are on the books at the time that they apply for a building permit application.

[14:01] Okay. Thank you. No. Excuse me following up on that. Charles. Are any of these lots? Will they be eligible for up zoning relative to the plexes and the transit corridor. I guess that would be. I'm not sure where the transit, if it are these within the transit corridor. bubble that we're capturing for up zoning. You know. Ml, I would have to look at the map. I apologize. I don't. I'd have to. I'd have to look and let you know. Okay. No. I'm happy to. I'm happy to do that. During the course of the meeting. Okay, yeah. I just was curious whether this was going to be some of one of the first, st if not the 1st to come out, you know, ready to move forward with more housing rather than giant housing. So interesting.

[15:01] interesting playing out of the of that ordinance potential here, thanks. And you know I would assert, ml, that the family friendly vibrant housing isn't necessarily an up zoning. It's just kind of new standards for existing zoning districts, so the the zoning itself won't change. No, I'm talking about. Is it close enough to a quarter. Oh, the transit oriented communities. Yeah. Okay, gotcha. Yeah, that's not gonna that's not gonna change the zoning, either. It's just gonna you know, allow a a higher density and variety of uses. But I can take a look at that map and get back to you. During the meeting. Correct, cool, thank you. You bet! Anybody else, or can we close this one out? All right, let's move forward before we get into the public hearing. So we have 2 things on matters this evening. Discussion of the land acknowledgement statement with the planning Board and an update to the planning board rules of Procedure. I believe the the land. Acknowledgement was also going to be discussed in the rules of procedure. So I think the goal is because of staffing and other concerns. We wanted to move

[16:15] the discussion and presentation by the city staff, and along with any clarifying questions of the land acknowledgement ahead of the public hearing to just get that out of the way. But to make things expedient and also cohesive. When we get to the rules, I think we'll debate that as a planning board with the rest of the update of the planning board Rules of Procedure. We do need a motion in order to do that. I don't know if anyone's prepared to do that. I would move. I move to amend the agenda to move. Item 6 a. As our next agenda. Item.

[17:01] Second. Alright, ml seconds let's go ahead and vote if there's no discussion ml. Yes. Kurt. Yes. Laura. Yes. Mason. Yes. Audio. Yes. Mark. Yes. And myself. I'm also yes, so we'll move that forward and we'll I think we'll pass it over to Pam for that discussion, and then again, we'll do clarifying questions. And then any debate or statements around this stuff from the board. Members like, you know, for us to hopefully reserve that for the planning board rules of procedure And Mr. Chair, if I can interject before Pam speaks. just want to appreciate the question that was raised quite a few months ago, and acknowledge that that it took us a little bit to to come back with this, but appreciate the request that came from Ml. And the rest of you

[18:03] about the possibility of having a land acknowledgement. At the beginning of the meetings, as I described to you when that was raised we? I wanted to make sure that was given consideration in the context of councils. practices, and other boards, but also appreciate that the topic itself is very important, and many of you know, Pam Davis, some of you may not, as a assistant city manager, leading the city, and we're we're privileged to have her with us, and to have her share her expertise about the subject overall, as well as to provide you and us some guidance on what the Board may or may not want to do in regards to that. So thanks, Pam, for being here, and looks like you got a Powerpoint. I do thank you so much. For the invitation as well as Brad said. I'm Pam Davis. I'm 1 of our assistant city managers I use, she her pronouns, and I serve as an executive sponsor for our city's ongoing tribal nation relationship work, and have been an active part of this work since 2019. So a lot of what you hear today. I was a part of and welcome questions. As I as I complete the presentation.

[19:20] So, as I understood the discussion before you. I I'm providing some kind of big picture context for best practices around use of a land acknowledgement boulder specific history that led us to develop it. As well as kind of delivering a message about the fact that land acknowledgements are a tool and and simply part of a conversation rather than an action in and of themselves. So I just want to express gratitude for the Planning Board's interest in this and the the journey. It's certainly part of a really important body of work that we've been engaged in for many decades, and we really seek to honor and build relationships with the indigenous peoples who have traversed and lived in boulder since time immemorial.

[20:10] And so today, as we encourage the use of excuse me while we encourage the use of the land. Acknowledgement as a resource. As I mentioned, it's 1 tool in our toolbox, and so we would encourage the Planning Board to consider how boulder can embrace our full history and ensure that we continue to become a more inclusive and trustworthy government. And so this presentation is going to walk you through ways of considering our land acknowledgement, not as a starting point or an ending point, but part of a larger body of work before we talk about the land acknowledgement itself, I'm doing just a brief mention of kind of how we, as a city organization have reflected on our shared history to lead us to the land acknowledgement. And so, first, st just to offer many of us who grew up in the United States learned a very European American version of Boulder's history, and as the city has embarked on relationship building with tribal nations, and in those conversations we've acknowledged, really, that the history many of us have learned in Boulder lacks respect for indigenous cultural traditions.

[21:22] They often contain narratives that are damaging and contradictory. They don't recognize necessarily present day experiences of indigenous peoples in this country. and they also can be improved. So we have an opportunity to do better as we think about our history in boulder by welcoming indigenous perspectives from those voices themselves, learning and correcting past harmful narratives as well as undoing institutionalized damage to tribal nation and indigenous communities. as well as including more primary sources in the histories that we share across our our community.

[22:04] And so I bring this up. We can't go into the entire history of 13,000 years of the Boulder Valley tonight, but really to say that as a planning board, both collectively and and you yourself as individuals. we, as a city, really encourage you all to take some time to learn about this history. If you do not currently have kind of that experience and knowledge. Read some of those histories, visit local museums that have great exhibits about the indigenous peoples who have been on our land since time memorial question. The narratives you currently believe to be true about Boulder, and recognize that those indigenous experiences are not only a part of history, but are a part of everyday unfolding generational experiences across the country. It is a fact that the founding of present day boulder resulted from the establishment of the Boulder Town Company on February 10, th 1859, in direct violation of the 1851 treaty of Fort Laramie that defined the area as tribal land.

[23:10] and so I just say that to say most of what we take for granted and enjoy in the boulder community today does stand on the foundation of that violation of of a governmental treaty. And it's a really important acknowledgement, as we think about how we move forward a little bit about how the land acknowledgement that staff currently uses was developed. It's a living document. We began the development of our land acknowledgement in 2,021. We began by speaking 1st with tribal representatives that we work with in our formal tribal consultations on a nearly annual basis, we sought their support and encouragement as we began the development. We had conversations about whether or not these were meaningful and learned a lot about kind of the usage of land acknowledgements, and where they succeed, and where they

[24:07] fail to meet their intent. We then engaged the Human Relations Commission, as well as the broader boulder community to solicit themes that were important to folks here today. We then put together a draft, and had more than 3 rounds of revisions back and forth with those tribal representatives to refine language to ensure that relevant history was included in the land acknowledgement, and to make sure that we honored indigenous naming of each tribe, and so forth. We then published the version that you may have seen in the city in May of 2022. It's part of our city website, part of our messaging. We incorporate it into many of our equity and belonging trainings, as we seek to educate city staff about the history and the opportunities that we have in the city of Boulder, and we bring it to relevant meetings and events, particularly. You may have seen it

[25:07] featured at the start of a groundbreaking or something to that effect. And then, finally, updates may occur as an ongoing basis. So this is not a static document with some kind of formal approval. This is really a resource that can be leveraged in a variety of ways that I'll talk about as we think about the land acknowledgement itself, and as you consider this, and how you may want to leverage it in your interactions. There is no explicit policy for using the land acknowledgement in the city. So this is not something that's sort of codified or adopted in the way you might think of other tools at the city's disposal, and that's really by design, because use of the land acknowledgement rather than be sort of dictated in policy. We really want it to be this living, breathing experience of reflection, of learning, of consideration of truly, what's the meaning of the words? And how does it inform our tangible decision making? And the program

[26:14] that we move forward? And so, as you also consider your use, you may decide as a board to leverage the staff language that has currently developed, but adapt it to meet the specific needs of the planning board. You as a body certainly address crucial crucial decisions about land use and given that this is a land acknowledgement, there's a really natural affinity there, but ensuring that the acknowledgment is leveraged in such a way that generates new ways of thinking about your work. So with that, you know here there are a couple of different examples of purposes to think about the land acknowledgement. It's a teaching tool. It's sort of a reflection and a correction of history. It certainly honors the past and the present indigenous peoples with connection to our land, but it is certainly not an endpoint. It's an invitation for action.

[27:12] And my currently rhetorical question for you to discuss later is just really, how would the planning board define the purpose for using a land acknowledgement? And so now I'll just model free the land acknowledgement itself. Again, we have great resources on our city website that has a much lengthier land acknowledgement that actually includes, several points of history, specific occurrences in the in the area that is now the city specific policy choices that have been made related to indigenous peoples in the past. And so we have multiple versions. Because this is a virtual meeting. I decided to kind of bring to you the land acknowledgement that fits on a Powerpoint slide and is still somewhat legible here, and I will go ahead and read this simply as a model, and then kind of talk a little bit more about guidance, and how the land acknowledgement has inspired action in the city, and then we'll be all set.

[28:16] So this particular version reads, the city of Boulder, acknowledges the city, is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of indigenous peoples who have traversed lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since time immemorial. Those indigenous nations include the Apache, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa, Pani, Shoshone, Sioux, and Ute. we honor and respect the people of these nations and their ancestors. We also recognize that indigenous knowledge, oral histories and languages, handed down through generations have shaped profound cultural and spiritual connections with boulder area lands and ecosystems, connections that are sustained and celebrated. To this day.

[29:05] The city of Boulder recognizes that those now living and working on these ancestral lands have a responsibility to acknowledge and address the past. We must not only acknowledge our past, but work to build a more just future. We are committed to taking action. Beyond these words we pledge to use this land acknowledgement, to help inspire education and reflection and initiate meaningful action, to help support indigenous nations, communities, and organizations. As I read that just a couple brief notes, one is that it was very important to us that we had the names of the tribes in the languages that they speak. And so you'll see those contained in the in the land acknowledgement. You'll notice I read the English translations of those tribal names, and that is because I would not begin to properly honor the pronunciation. And that was guidance we actually did get from tribal representatives was.

[30:04] If you haven't been trained to pronounce those various names, don't try it's much better to kind of honor honor those groups with the the name that the community is is comfortable knowing them by so that's just kind of one example of a note and some guidance that we got. I'll also just say again these are heavy, weighty words, and so just consider that of and and the commitments that you're making a little bit more usage guidance for the land acknowledgement here, and we have lots of resources. So, as your discussion unfolds, happy to circle back and provide that to you all. Some of this I've covered already, so I won't belabor the points at this moment. But essentially, you know, it's really about ensuring that the use of the land. Acknowledgement is meaningful, and that it is relevant and tied to your work, and not simply performative in nature. And so we really use this in a way that creates reflection and action.

[31:12] You'll see here in some of these kind of final tips again, because it's not a codified set of words it really is. It's a well researched, well vetted document that the city has, and as the Planning Board thinks about its connection to this work again, you can adapt it for your own purposes. You can use an abridged version and then share personal reflections about how this knowledge impacts your work. You can consider it when taking up certain items, but not others, depending on the nature of those items. So there, there really is extensive guidance. And it's really, if I've learned anything from the relationships that we built with tribal nations, it's it's that the approach to the work is very much, not from the sort of Western task, oriented point of view. It's relationship based. It's grounded in heart and nature. It's about sort of

[32:11] following what is what is true for you all versus simply trying to project a a message. If you'll do me the honor of a few more minutes, I'll just share a couple of the the actions sort of beyond acknowledgement to ground you in some of the work that the city has been involved in in the last few decades. so, as we think, beyond acknowledgment. I'll take you back briefly to the late 19 nineties. The the city of Boulder Proper's 1st experience with tribal consultation began in the late 19 nineties, as there were concerns related to the development of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Building in Southwest Boulder. That specific project led to the city, initiating some of its own consultations in the late nineties and early 2 thousands, which resulted in several formal agreements over those years, largely having to do with open space, and you'll see a lot of our open space and mountain parks. Departments work ties very closely with good reason to these agreements.

[33:22] Then it, we believe just city leadership and shifting priorities led to kind of a unintention unintended, but regretful pause in those relationships. And so in the in the mid 2 thousands. There was a significant gap from about 2,004 until 2019, where we were not actively nurturing those relationships and digging into the work. But in 2016 the Human Relations Commission inspired the indigenous Peoples Day Resolution, which really reinvigorated the city's commitment as well as set out a path to encourage a reinstitution of consultations in 2019

[34:08] for those curious based on our current tribal consultation program. We have a invite list currently of 16 tribal nations that you can see here. That we directly engage with. What? What? I understand the the process to have been many years ago, was, there are 48 historical tribes of Colorado recognized by the State that have ties and so initial. that was sort of the initial list, so to speak, of that the the city considered. And so those tribal nations that are federally recognized, that have ties to the Boulder Valley includes the tribes you see here. We don't necessarily always get a representative from every tribe, in every conversation, but we usually have an excess of 10 tribes represented in any of our conversations that we engage in.

[35:07] So more recently, since the 2,019 revival of our tribal consultation, we've really had a an amazing outpouring of work and support and relationship building that has taken place 2,019 was really about folks kind of taking a chance on Boulder's invitation, and really coming back to the table and accepting our invitation to re-engage in discussions and rebuild relationships through that work. In 2019, we laid the groundwork for several different program areas as well as a commitment to update existing memorandums of understanding and a commitment to never let more than 4 years pass again without a formal boulder tribal consultation, and, in fact, we've had them nearly annually since 2,019.

[36:00] At that time we did a lot of work related to the renaming of Settlers Park that is now known as People's Crossing as well as those mou updates. Since then, again, we've had some. This is just a small sampling of the work that has taken place in terms of our our formal work. But Sellers Park was formally renamed to People's Crossing the land. Acknowledgement has been developed. We, are working with tribal nation partners as well as some anthropological anthropologists consultants to develop an ethnographic report about the Boulder Valley, and this is including oral histories from many of our tribal representatives. So we have since 2022. We've been inviting a couple of tribal representatives at a time to come visit Boulder. We spend 2 days sitting out in various locations in

[37:00] our land and hear from them about their own generational histories, to kind of build out our understanding of everything, from significant sites to to agricultural practices, to wildfire, resilience, practices and and everything in between. So those conversations have been really fascinating, and we think it'll be about another year until that final report is complete. We have since finalized the updated Memorandum of Understanding City Council approved that in February of 2024, and I think 6 of our tribal nation partners at as of today, have formally signed on to that newest mou, and we expect up to the remaining 16 to sign on. One of the challenges we've learned is that our tribal nation partners have annual elections for their councils, and and just like the city working through 2 different governments, processes, takes takes a little while. But we we had great consensus to develop that document.

[38:06] And then, most recently, you may have heard significant work with our open space and mountain parks department regarding the concept plan for 4 chambers, leveraging particularly Cheyenne and Arapaho, tribal leader, guidance, and so forth. And then a bit of good news. Just a couple months ago we were incredibly honored by a recognition from the American Cultural Resources Association for this entire body of work we've done with tribal nations, and the reason I raise it is less about celebrating the award, although we do, and much more about the fact that what is most meaningful is some of the same tribal representatives that had very broken relationships with boulder leadership after we did not kind of maintain our commitment to consultation have, since we've reengaged those relationships to the point that

[39:00] several leaders of different tribes got together to propose doing this nomination for our community in honor of our work, and have said that really in terms of a city government voluntarily engaging in tribal nation relationships that we really are the model in the Us. For this sort of work. So that's that's just as a city organization. That's the that's the context by which we pride ourselves in this work, but also are genuinely committed at an action level to to collaborate on an ongoing basis. And finally, you're the planning board. So I'll talk just again about some of the documents and plans that we look to, that you may consider spending some time with, as you think about your your roles on planning board, and I would just point you back 1st and foremost to the indigenous Peoples Day Resolution. There's some great resources on our website that you can learn about that. And the the affiliated celebrations and educational opportunities, the city funds every year.

[40:06] the updated, all the information about the updated memorandum of understanding. You can find as well specifically some of the things that were of most interest to tribal nations. During this last revision. has a lot again to do with use of open space access to open space for ceremonial purposes as well as for harvesting native plants, looking for kind of an ongoing way to integrate cultural resources, protection in our conversations with tribal nations and kind of continue on a project by project basis to collaborate. And then, finally, our staff acknowledgement, the the full text of which contains, like, I said significantly. More history than I even presented to you today. That was honestly the shortest version of this subject matter I've presented. But I do want to be respectful of what's most valuable to you, so happy to stay on, if you have any questions and turn the back the meeting back over to you. Chair.

[41:12] Thank you. And thanks for the extremely thorough and educational presentation. Does anyone have any follow on questions? Ml. Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you, George. Pam. Awesome presentation. Thank you so much. My question is. does the city currently use the land acknowledgement consistently in any setting. That's an interesting question. So in terms of like, does it read before every single of X meeting or that sort of thing? No, but we're consistent to the guidance I shared with you, if that makes sense. And so we have been we sort of have an internal roadshow to different work groups similar to a a longer version of what I've presented to you

[42:08] to suggest. You know, one example is, I think it was the like when open space and mountain parks opened the North Sky Trail recently like that was an opportunity to use a version of a land acknowledgement informed by the text that we've created, but matching that then with kind of event, specific reflection, right? So so the the portion of the north sky trail in the foothills and open space and mountain park staff being able to reflect on what it means to be stewards of the land today. So I think it it does show up in a variety of ways. We have not chosen to kind of proceduralize it up to this point, because we want to maintain that strong meaning connection to to action. That's helpful.

[43:01] I'm intrigued with that piece of it, because I think that is the That's the reason to do it right is that you're creating a consciousness that might not land any other way. And so was that I'm guessing that that is an intentional decision on the city's part not to use it as a prelude to particular meetings like city council or planning board, or you know anything that has to do with the way the mission describes it. Land, you know, land use planning, etc, etc. I mean, I'm sure you know, I know we all have experienced a consistent use of this in many settings, and I'm just curious as to why we've chosen not to. Yeah, I think it really goes back to the the just, simply the spirit articulated a few times, which is ensuring that anytime it is used, it is a meaningful use of it.

[44:08] And so I think we may arrive at a point based on our ongoing consultations based on the building body of work that we have, that we arrive in a place where our council and the individuals on our council are in a place where, like this is embraced and understood and trained and and sort of directly connected to decision making. I think. It's just not something we have have wanted to step into lately, or just sort of kind of push out. We've wanted to more organically engage in these types of conversations. What I will say, you know there's not an explicit. This is not an explicit policy. Right? This is a this is a sentiment. This is an acknowledgement. And so, if the planning board finds yourselves in a position where you sort of believe that it is true to you, and well understood and embraced, and and frankly, that this history informs your thought processes. I think.

[45:09] It's muted. Where we heard from tribal representatives that land acknowledgements have bordered on offensive at times. It's when groups have used a land acknowledgement and then proceeded to do something or make a decision about the land that is completely contrary to the interests of indigenous peoples, or or then the the business fails to sort of continue in the spirit of the acknowledgement. So it's this isn't me sort of wagging my finger to lecture at all, but it's really say, like our as staff, because we stepped into this work quite literally through personal relationship building with with tribal representatives, you know, for me, when I think about is a land acknowledgement appropriate or not at this time, like I'm now in a position where I pull up the faces of folks that we work with and think like, okay, what would you know.

[46:07] Right. these folks sort of say if if they were here and so I would just again like I think certainly as you're considering how you make your decisions. being able to leverage this in a way that informs the values of the board. There's a lot of potential. There. I'm I won't sit here and tell you to do it or not to do it. But it's it's really just to what level? Is it coming from a genuine place. Does it make sense to have the up? Your your I don't know if it's a department or office, anyway, the the body that has put this work together? Does it make sense for that body to ever weigh in on projects and say, this might be an appropriate project to have

[47:00] a land agreement on. In other words, to advise, advise us, or make a suggestion to. Let's let's put our feet in, and this is a good place to do it. Would you ever be in that position to Yeah, our preference is really not to be gatekeepers, but to be like consultative right? So so in this conversation, if you are pursuing business, that to you has a direct connection to history that you're aware of, or to a decision that you're making. I think it's the most meaningful when kind of decision makers themselves are generating the use of the land acknowledgement in conjunction with their work. Versus you know, like we don't, we have some really great consultants, some of whom are indigenous, and we learned very quickly, like we don't call and ask. We didn't ask for permission, or we don't. You know this is about coming from you all to convey that message.

[48:00] Shouldn't be yeah. To think about it. We have resources we have, you know. That's that's not to say we're not here to support that but I think ultimately. you know no one can sort of tell you as a body what's in you, what. So I was just hoping for some brilliant guidance. Yes, yeah, no, we we we intentionally make this one a little bit. I know. You're cut. Yep. Thank you so much, Pam. I'm oh, oh, go ahead with my questions, but. Hey, Mark, I saw your hand up, but I I saw Laurel might want to interject first, st so. Yeah, if it's okay. I just wanted to to respond a little bit to Ml, to one thing I would just be a little bit cautious of is, if the planning board decides, they want to try and win on this we may want to get some city Council approval or buy in, since they do decide boards and commissions, their authority and their jurisdiction, and things like that. So that's just one thing. If you are going to go as a board and start to weigh in on some of these land acknowledgement things, as in, you know, assist Pam and her team, or anything like that. I would just be a little bit cautious about that, just because of the authority under our code.

[49:09] That's all I wanted to say. Thanks. Thanks. George. Thank you. Mark. First.st I I wanted to thank Pam for that because it. It confirmed this unease I had about this whole topic, and that I I realized, after watching this, that my unease was my self knowledge, that I don't know anything about this, and consequently your your albeit brief presentation. just confirm that I don't know. I don't know that much about it, but it's such an important topic. So 1st an appreciation and and and also I'll the only final thing I'll say is that there I have an appreciation for the flexibility, the kind of burden on decision making of us

[50:06] to decide how we might go forward this with this information versus pushing it out in a way that says you're gonna do this before every meeting, or you're not going to do it, or we're prohibiting whatever it might be. because I think that that flexibility and that option creates more meaning when we implement something. So I just wanted to acknowledge that this is one of those things, the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know that much. And and and and to be exercise. Try to exercise your best judgment as individuals about how to use this tool. So I really appreciate your your presentation and education. Yeah, thank thank you for that. And and to rephrase a couple of things that I said. As I'm hearing your questions, you know for us. We let the work of

[51:07] of understanding our history. Rebuilding relationships lead us to the land acknowledgement which then in turn is leading us to additional action. And so, as you think about it, it's a little bit. It goes back to the kind of what are you trying to solve and let that lead you to how you then either present a land acknowledgement, or perhaps it's you know, doing self education as a board, as part of your onboarding like whatever that is. There are a lot of ways you can manifest kind of the spirit of acknowledging that history. That's not simply we're gonna start showing a slide at the start of every meeting. Great. I know we're gonna have. Probably everyone has some commentary. But we'll save that for the the section after the public hearing. Does anyone have any other clarifying questions they want to cover before

[52:07] we move on from this topic. All right. Well, thanks again, Pam, for the insightful presentation, I know. Like, Mark said, I feel the the exact same way. I just very thankful that you gave us this presentation, and knowing that it's only probably the tip of the iceberg versus what you have in front of you. So thank you and appreciate your time. You. Alright! We are going to move on to our public hearing. Give me one moment just to toggle over on my screen here. so the next agenda item is the public hearing. Item, it is a concept plan, review and comment. Request for a mixed use. Proposal to develop 54, 50 Airport Boulevard, with 170 attached dwelling units, a community building and approximately 10,000 square feet of office and restaurant space buildings, one and 2 are mixed. Use

[53:16] three-story buildings. Building 3 is a three-story residential building and building. 4 is a community building reviewed under case number LUR. 2024, 0 0 5, 6. Hope that was the right number of Zeros. I'll pass it over to Staff for the presentation. Let's see. Great. Thank you so much. I'm Shannon Miller with the city of Boulder Planning department. I'll be presenting I just need the ability to share my screen. It looks like, oh, I think it's working out great. All right. Can everyone see that and hear me? Okay.

[54:04] alright. Awesome. Okay, so good evening. Planning board. I'll be taking you through the staff presentation for the 54 50 airport concept plan. So I'll briefly cover the information and staff memo, the concept plan, purpose of a concept plan, public notification, the surrounding context and some background, a summary of the proposal and some key issues. So, as you know, the purpose of tonight's review is to look at a general development plan for a site and to help identify some key issues in advance of a more detailed site. Review submittal. The applicant receives comments from the Board staff and the public. No formal action is being taken on the project tonight in terms of an approval or a denial for this project the site was posted in public notification, provided per code. No public comments were received.

[55:07] so moving to the specific site. Here, you can see we're south of Airport Boulevard. This site is accessed via an easement across the neighboring lots. To the north. The property is about 4.2 9 acres, and it's bordered by other developed properties in the Lake Center business park to the south the boulder and left hand, and the North boulder farmers. Ditches run along the south edge of the site, and there's also dedicated open space and scenic trail easement in that area just slightly further out. Nearby properties also include the San Lazaro Mobile Home Park in unincorporated Boulder County down to the southeast. The Sterling Court business Park. Excuse me, industrial Park. Just to the south, to the southwest is the Belmont Bike Park. To the west is the Boulder County jail, and up to the Northwest is the airport.

[56:03] This property was part of prior site reviews that approved that also approved the buildings just to the west, and the development of this site development was previously approved 3 separate times on this site, between 1997 and 2018. But ultimately no buildings have ever been constructed here. The buildings just to the west are 2 story buildings occupied by Blue Canyon technologies, and the building to the north is 3 levels over one level of parking, occupied by also energy and scaled agile. These buildings are designed to fit into an office or industrial park context with parking and landscaping, because this property was previously approved for development, but it was not constructed. Again, it is vacant. There are some improvements on the property, like curb cuts, parking, retaining walls, some partially constructed walkways and underground utilities.

[57:04] Here you can see there is significant topography on the site. It does slope down from north to south at least 30 feet, and because of that that in turn allows for some significant views. When you face toward the south that are largely unobstructed in terms of transportation connections. This site is accessed again from Airport Boulevard, via an easement across the lots to the north the nearest transit stops are located at the intersection of Belmont and Airport Road, about a half mile, walking distance from the property. And there's limited bus service there. The transportation master plan calls for a multi-use path shown in green. It's a little hard to see, but it runs along the south edge of the site and that is planned to be constructed and eventually connect to Belmont Bike Park. There is a missing link on the triangular shape property just to the southwest of this site. The subject proposal does include adding the multi-use path along the edge of this site consistent with the Tmp plan.

[58:12] In terms of the Bvcp. This lot is designated light industrial. It allows for light industrial uses, as well as residential and other complementary uses in appropriate locations. The property is in the East Boulder subcommunity plan that was adopted in October 2022. The designations in the East Boulder plan are consistent with the Comp plan. The property was not designated as an area of change where new walkable neighborhood, not walkable neighborhoods were specifically called out and identified subsequently to that as part of the Use Table and use standards, project module 2 which focused on our industrial areas. The code was updated in 2023 for regulations for residential uses in industrial zones. So at that time

[59:06] well, backing up a bit residential uses have been permitted in the Ig. And IM. Zones so like this property since 2,004, but very few projects have moved forward to place residential and industrial zones. so as part of the Use Table and use Standards Project Council supported, both maintaining the existing opportunities for residential and industrial zones, as well as to expand eligibility to allow those uses via the use review process. So this added new standards to for new allowances for residential and industrial. based on subcommunity and area plans, proximity to Boulder Junction, and it continued to allow for residential uses on parcels and industrial zones that met 1 6 contiguity requirements. So the property we're looking at tonight meets that contiguity requirement along that South open space easement. So it would be eligible to request a use review for residential uses.

[60:14] So going back to the zoning, this property is zoned. I am industrial manufacturing, so it would be eligible for that use review for residential on this property. many of you probably remember this site. We did look at it at the planning board, hearing just over a year ago in October 2023. So I'm just going to touch on briefly the proposal that we looked at at that time. The site design at that time included 147 dwelling units of those 117 were efficiency living units. There were also areas for office and restaurant uses on the site. It proposed for 3 story buildings with multiple vehicle access points, substantial areas of surface parking, and some attached sidewalks. The proposal also had a 15 to 16% parking reduction, and it would have constructed the multi-use path along that south edge of the site.

[61:12] And here you can see some of the conceptual renderings from that prior proposal. At that. October 2023 Planning board meeting the Board provided helpful feedback. The Board looked at 3 key issues in terms of compatibility with the Bbcp land use and policies. The Board recommended additional intention to design and connectivity and attention to policy. 2.2 1 light industrial areas for any proposal that would include residential uses. The Board found that a proposal for predominantly housing in this location would provide a design and connectivity challenge in order to be consistent with the Bvcp goals and policies. The board also looked at the proposed land use. Mix the board at that time wasn't opposed to residential in this location, but recommended that the applicant reconsider the overall mix of units, and consider the types of uses and on-site amenities that would be needed for the residents.

[62:14] and looking at the site, plan, and architecture, the Board at that time recommended a heavily reworked human centered design. Looking at improving the sense of connection to the open space to the south recommended connectivity improvements like trails and a high quality Tdm plan, as well as considering learning more about the outcome of the airport community conversation that was ongoing. So now we'll move on to tonight's proposal. So the applicant has taken that feedback and they've come back tonight with an updated proposal. This concept plan also includes residential. There are 170 attached dwelling units in this plan. The community building in the southwest corner and about 10,000 square foot total of office and restaurant spaces.

[63:04] Buildings one and 2 are mixed. Use 3 story buildings. Building 3 is a 3 story. Residential building and building 4 is the community building. This would provide a multi-use path along the southern edge and walking paths throughout the property. Open space is provided as a series of amenities along the southern extents of the buildings. Pedestrian access into and through the site includes detached sidewalks and pathways, and to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking. This proposal would provide about half of the required parking as shared parking with the property just to the North. and here you can see the applicant's conceptual renderings of the building designs. Here is just a list of the required processes for this proposal. If it were to move forward it would include a Site Review amendment as well as the Use Review to allow for residential and industrial zones. Those would be followed by any needed technical documents, easements, and things like that.

[64:09] So Staff identified these key issues for the Board's discussion. And these are the same 1st 3 key issues that we talked about last time in October 2023. And then any other key issues identified by the board. So I'll just go through these briefly so, for key issue one is, if the proposed concept plan is compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Bvcp. So the proposal for a mixed use project consisting of residential dwelling units, could be consistent with the light industrial land use for this site. That light industrial land use does allow for residential and other complementary uses inappropriate locations. So the proposal would need to demonstrate how it's consistent with the use Review criteria. The specific use standards for residential and industrial, as well as the Site Review, criteria and Bvcp policies related to design and light industrial areas. Staff found that this proposal includes many features that meet Bvcp policies, including the 1st

[65:13] group at the top of this slide. These are things like a compact development pattern neighborhood building blocks, construction of trail corridors, human centric, physical design and enhanced site design as well as it introduces 170 housing units where none currently exist. Staff also recommended that the proposal at the time of Site Review more clearly addressed the lack of services, amenities, and transportation connections in area, providing those on-site amenities for future residents and having a high quality. Tdm plan staff also recommended the site design be further developed in terms of how permeability will be used defining areas of the site that are intended to be private versus public, and how the proposed restaurant spaces and community buildings will be located to that end.

[66:07] The second key issue was feedback on the proposed mix of uses. So again, this includes 170 dwelling units that require that use review as well as spaces for office and restaurant uses staff found. There is policy support for residential uses in this location. Since the earlier proposal, the applicant has adjusted the dwelling unit mix as noted on this slide Staff recommended that the ultimate mix of units and expected households help guide the design of resident amenities like gathering spaces or storage spaces, and that additional information on the programming and amenities be provided to help address the lack of services, amenities, and transportation connections in this area. And then for the 3rd Key issue. Staff found that overall the proposal addressed many of the design concerns that were identified by the prior concept plan.

[67:04] including improving the building, siting, and creating a public realm on the site, reducing the excess surface, parking through the shared parking proposal and improving the open space design Staff recommended that the applicant carefully consider Ada accessibility and designing with the contours of the land as much as possible, given the notable topography on this site. ensuring that the proposed streetscape provides for adequate tree growth, and including a high quality Tdm plan, with special attention to bike infrastructure in terms of the building design staff recommended some additional attention to the Site Review criteria that are specific to then limiting the number and type of high quality materials on the buildings. So for next steps following tonight's concept plan, review, hearing city council might vote to call up the item, then the applicant can then decide if or when to submit those future development review applications which would be the Site Review Amendment and use review. Those would be a staff level decision, and they would be subject to call up by the planning board.

[68:19] That concludes the staff presentation. The applicant is here as well with their presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions before I turn it over to them. Great any questions for Shannon or other staff members. Ml. Thank you, George. And thank you, Shannon. Excuse me for that presentation, and reminding us that we absolutely have been here before. So I have 2 questions. you talked about the open space requirement and in the packet it talk. It still refers to a minimum. 60 square foot. Private open space is also required. Is that, in fact, true.

[69:09] I believe that's the case. I could look at the code really quick and just make sure for you. But I believe, yeah, it's now 30% of the site. Right? The 30%. And then. Right. But is it also, in addition to that, the 60 square feet of private. Yes, taking a quick look at the code, I do see for IM that we still require a 60 square foot private open space, which would be like the balcony deck. That sort of thing. Okay, good. Thank you for that. And my second question was, do we know what percent of this proposal is? Non residential versus residential. Like of the square footage of the buildings.

[70:02] Like the floor area. The applicant may know that off the top of their head. I believe it was, you know, definitely majority residential, for sure, but the applicant may have more exact numbers. Right and correctly. Am I correctly understanding that what used to be a proposal for 20,000 square foot of non residential has now been halved to 10,000. Is that correct? Yeah, I believe so. I believe the total of the restaurant and the office is now about 10,000. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you so much. Shanna. Okay. And I'm just gonna I'm calling you online. You guys can just jump in when you're ready. So Claudia Mark, then Mason, then Laura, go ahead. Thanks for that presentation. Shannon. I had some questions about transportation, connectivity, etc. and the 1st one is with this proposal for shared parking with the

[71:02] building to the north. Do you know how much parking is currently provided on that parcel? And what our code requires for the current use. That's there. I don't know off the top of my head. I know the applicant has been in talks with that property owner, and may have a little more information at their fingertips about the exact numbers of everything. Okay, I will flag that question for them. The multi use path that is proposed to be built, and that is slated for the south of the property. Who is responsible for completing the Missing Link, that there's a portion that was referred to as a missing link several times in the packet. Which is, are responsible for that. Yeah, that piece goes off of this property. It would be kind of down here. I'm showing a good scene. Here we go so it would. It would cross this property here. So the responsibility would fall essentially on that property owner if they were ever able to develop the site. It would not fall on the property owner of of this subject application that does not own this particular area.

[72:22] How would that Missing Link be completed if it's not addressed as part of this particular project? Yeah, there could be a couple ways. One could be either some type of negotiation with the city and the owner of that property to try to develop that develop that connection which I know the city staff has has spoken to that property owner another could be is if this, if this applicant was able to to make some sort of arrangement as part of a site review process. We're generally not able to require that type of offsite improvement, but I know the applicant has been in some talks because the question came up during the prior

[73:09] prior concept plan, and so I know they have had been in some discussions and could potentially share a bit more about what they've learned since the since the previous concept plan. Okay? And then, finally, in the future, are there any opportunities that we anticipate for pedestrian and or bike connections? Between that multi-use path and the areas to the south. So the sterling circle business area and the San Lazaro community. I don't believe we show anything on our Tmp at this time that would create a new connection there. I know that was that was of interest. I think, at the at the prior concept plan we touched on that a bit that there was interest in creating a connection there. I don't believe that's reflected on our current transportation master Plan. However.

[74:05] Okay. And if at some point in the future the San Lacero property is annexed to the city. Is that something that could be revisited at that time? Yes, I think there's always opportunities to update. Yeah, the Tmp plan for sure. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry, could I? Just on a couple of points from what Claudia just said? I don't mean to skip the line, but there's a couple of things I'm confused about, because I think I read in the memo that it's not just one property owner. It's 3 property owners that have a piece of that missing link. It was on the staff comments on page like 39, or 40. That said Staff wants to make sure the applicant is having this conversation with all the relevant parties. The transportation Master Plan shows that the Missing Link is proposed on 3 different lots. In addition to this subject property is, that

[75:00] is that the case? It's it's actually 3 property owners that would have to help construct the missing link. My understanding is when I'm referring to the Missing Link. I'm I'm kind of referring to. I don't know if you can see my mouse this this sort of triangular property here is what I'm referring to. So this this property would be responsible for constructing the multi-use path along it. I think this this area here would be the the primary one that is not owned by the property owner. That's part of this proposal. Okay, then I'm I'm just confused by that staff comment then about it being 3 different lots in addition to 54 50 Airport Boulevard. So maybe that's. Okay. To think about before Site Review and then the other. The other follow up, is on page 39 of the packet. There is a figure

[76:01] from the transportation master Plan that, I think does show a connection to the San Lacero Mobile Home Park that that green kind of comes in on the sort of northeast edge of the property. There. Oh, sorry you mean up up here in this. Yeah, yeah, is that is that already constructed? Does that exist? Would that need to be constructed? What what is that? There. I believe that is a plan. Connection there. Sorry. I thought the question. The earlier question had more to do down with this area here. So I believe this is a plan connection that we're showing on the Tmp but it wouldn't come into play with this subject proposal, since the property is not adjacent to that area. Okay, I'll I'll hold the rest of my questions until it's my turn. Okay, thank you.

[77:00] Okay. Okay, Shannon on the on the map one of your prior pages. I I noticed an OS dash Dr. Designation. I'm familiar with Oso. But I'm not familiar with Osdr. What does Dr. Stand for? I believe that stands for development reserve. Maybe other staff can jump in if I'm misstating that but I believe those are areas. I think, where the city has acquired, like an easement or something of that nature over the property. In in that case, following up on ml, and Laura's, or I'm sorry. Claudia's and and Laura's question. Say. I think I think this board will be very, is is and will continue to be very concerned about connections. And if, in fact

[78:06] the city has easements, and I know that like, for instance, Oso doesn't have much meaning. If there is meaning to this Osdr designation. meaning that the city can actually create connections that oh, whether through our authority over that property. Even if we don't technically own, if we have an easement like public service can drive trucks on things, do things on property that they don't own, but they have easements to, anyway, that that would be something that for me it would be an important to understand. How to connect both to I believe it's Michelle Drive, which is the main street through San Lazaro and to the to the to the bike and dog bike. So anyway, that's partly a comment. But if anyone.

[79:14] before we go into deliberation can actually clarify that I would I would find that very interesting. also. Then, who owns? Is San Lazaro still privately owned, or does the has the county purchase an interest in it. What? What is the status of San Lazaro? And I asked that not because I'm curious, but because of the ability to create connections from this site into San Lazaro without waiting decades. Brad's got his hand up. Yeah, Shannon, if you want me to answer that, I've got some knowledge about that. Sure. That sounds great. That is privately owned. Still.

[80:04] and in fact, it. It lies within unincorporated Boulder County at the time, but we are at in very preliminary discussions with mostly the county, with an intent to talk to the owner about, you know, potentially encouraging an annexation. And then these types of discussions will follow. Okay? All right. Well, that's encouraging. okay. Last question is, just doing a little Google map search. I couldn't find any cafe restaurant type of establishment anywhere along Airport Boulevard. Am I missing anything? There. Not that I'm aware of. I haven't specifically searched those out, but you probably have the most accurate information.

[81:08] Mark you can get chips and cookies at the airport. Oh, okay, alright, but but in terms of actual even coffee shops. I I know where the where the toad is, or whatever, anyway, by the post office. There's that center. But but on that pull up closer on Airport Boulevard I couldn't find anything. I just wanna make sure I wasn't missing anything. Okay, thank you. My up, next. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah, Shannon, thanks again for your presentation. Following on Claudia's line of questioning. For the shared parking agreement. What happens to it. Should it be approved if the North lot was developed like, does the agreement require the lot to remain? Or what happens? In that case.

[82:06] Like if the property to the north was proposed to be redeveloped in some way. Yep. I believe there would be a condition of approval on this Site Review that they would need to maintain that parking so most likely that would create somewhat of a restriction on redevelopment of a property that's being used to to share parking for this site. potentially so. I'm sorry if I didn't, I didn't quite follow, so would it be revisited whether or not the shared parking agreement would be needed, or what what would. Yeah. Like, if the if the property to the north say it was proposed to be redeveloped as as something completely different that would no longer allow for the shared parking agreement to to continue on. Then then this property would probably either need to show that they have maybe parking in a different location that they could provide, or else you know, they just need to maintain

[83:17] that parking in some way is probably what the condition of approval would require. Thanks. That's my only remaining question. Great. Hey? Brad, is your is your hand still up for a reason. It is not. I apologize. Okay. No. Problem. Laura. Thank you. So back to the transportation connection plan. Thanks for having that slide up, you anticipated. What of? I know the multi-use path itself obviously is not complete. Is any of that multi-use path shown in green, constructed at this point in between the proposed connection to San Lacero and the Bike Park.

[84:03] The let me make sure I understand the the part up in this area or the part along this. Any of it like, what what does this property connect to, as far as that bike path goes? What's actually on the ground out there, and I apologize. I didn't go out there today because of the road conditions. Yeah, there is. A segment here that connects. If you can see the mouse hopefully. That goes in this direction and it's gonna terminate toward the end of the business park up here. Is where it terminates. This is not. This is a proposed connection that would cross here. There's kind of like an informal, you know, that people can use to cross there and then. This is not constructed along the edge of the property, and would be proposed with the applicants proposal.

[85:01] that they would connect up as much as they can for property, that they that they have. Okay. And so so currently, folks from San Lacero can actually get onto that bike path, even if it's like an informal use trail rather than a formally constructed connection is that is that so they can get to the end of Airport Road from. It's not. Yeah. It's not like a formal, you know. Bridge, I think people just can. You know. they just sort of use that area. But. There's there's a social trail there, but it's not. Yeah, yeah. There is actually a multi use path that goes along that part of you know, behind. Yeah. Parking lot there in the northeast. Okay, okay, thank you. That's good. And then on the south, sort of heading south and west, is there anything there? Is there a social trail? Is there any connection to the Belmont Bike Park.

[86:01] I don't know. Maybe Kurt knows the answer to that. I think Kurt's been riding, or Mark has been riding around out there. Certainly a social trail down there to this southwest that crosses that section of property that is actually addressed on sterling circle, and there are signs up that say private property, and everyone seems to ignore that, and it continues on in and connects up to Belmont Bike Park. Okay, so people are actually using it today. even if it's not official. Okay, thank you. Today, but they certainly were yesterday. Maybe not stay. It's pretty icy out there. Okay, thank you. I just want to add to Kurt's information that the portion. if you were on the site and you went south and west. you would from from the very from the south east corner of the site

[87:01] the the current paved multi-use path north and east of the site ends, and it becomes a a single track. It's like no, no crusher fine, no, nothing. It can be kind of a muddy single track depending upon the weather, but it's a single track all the way into Belmont Bike Park kind of rushing, overgrown. And but a lot of people go from Belmont Bike Park and ride out north and east on the little bit of single track back into pay. The farther you go, north and east. Very helpful to know. Thank you. And then those those connections that don't currently exist. I don't know. We probably don't have the answer to this tonight. But I would want to know, at least before Site Review. Where do those fall in terms of transportation, master plan, development, priorities, right like are those likely to get

[88:03] built anytime in the foreseeable future? Or are they way down on the list of priorities, and maybe might get axed from the plan. I guess I'd like to have a sense of that. And if any of the staff here tonight know the answers to that. Happy to talk about it tonight, too. but hearing nobody jumping forward to talk about that, I'll move on to my next question. Do do we know I didn't? I didn't see it in the packet, but I might have missed it. Where is the long term bicycle parking? Is it inside the individual units, or is there? Are there bike parking rooms proposed. What? What's the plan for the long-term bike parking. Oh, I don't recall off the top of my head. I think maybe the applicant could share a little bit about kind of their thoughts, for that. Okay, I can move that to an applicant question.

[89:00] And I think that is it. Thank you. Great Kurt. Thank you and thank you for the presentation, Shannon. I also have questions about transportation connections of all things. The 1st one is about the connection to the north to Airport Road. The memo, says Staff, encourages the applicant to talk to neighbors regarding dedicating a public access easement on the private road that runs adjacent to the site's West property line. Can you explain. I guess, 1st of all, why, that's important. And what would happen if that were not provided. So my understanding is that the way this site or this group of lots was developed is that when they dedicated easements for access they dedicated it wasn't like a public

[90:03] easement that we would typically get today. So that was a comment. I think from our transportation staff is to see if we can go ahead and get those public access easements like we would typically get today. To your second point of what would happen if that doesn't happen. I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Maybe that might be. I don't know if that would be a legal question or other staff might know. Because if there's not a public access, easement would would, if this got built, would residents have to trespass? Then every time they were coming down from Airport Road is if laurel is on. Maybe that's a laurel question. Hey? There? Okay. So well, Airport road is a is public right? The road itself. So are you talking about? I guess I might not have been following totally.

[91:03] The question is about the little, the basically it's a driveway connection that goes north up to Airport Road, which apparently is currently not. It doesn't have a public access easement attached to it. And it's not. Public. Road. It sounds like. It's not only not a public road. Right. Even a public access is my understanding. It's just it's sort of what I'm intuiting from this comment in the memo. And so I'm wondering. and maybe this becomes partly a question for the applicant. But what is the status of that? And and is there even legal access without that. And my recollection is that when this was all platted, that there were easements that were dedicated for shared access. But it just wasn't a public access easement to the city, which is what we would typically get. I don't know if that helps answer laurel or or provide some context.

[92:12] That makes sense. Well. there is. If there is a shared access right? That's a little bit different. Though that's shared access between those who use the particular properties, not the general public as at large. If that makes sense, it's a little bit of a difference. So maybe the applicant can give us a little bit more context as to what exactly the easement is there that might be helpful to understand. A little bit more, and I saw Charles came off mute, so I don't know if he. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know our hope as part of the ultimately, the Site Review is to get a public access easement through there, since it really serves, as you know, a primary access to the site. Yeah. Okay? And then, if it does, does become a public access easement, it means anybody can go there, or at least use that easement, for any reason. Is that correct. For for any access. Reason. Yeah. For any accessories. Yeah, right?

[93:00] Yeah, not for any reason. But yeah, yeah. And and without that it's kind of a question mark like you said, maybe it could be trespass. We'd have to understand the. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, sounds great. Thank you. I appreciate that one last question also about access. So the the something in the memo, maybe it was in the applicant statement there was an indication that someone referred to earlier that the that the applicant does have an agreement with the adjoining property to build the Missing link. But my question is assuming that's the case. What mechanism do we have to in ensure that that actually happens as part of the Site Review approval. Yeah, I'll defer to the applicant on in terms of any agreements or discussions they've had, because I know they've they've had several different discussions going about that issue in terms of the Site Review process. I think we don't necessarily have, like a mechanism or a leverage to require that other than just kind of the discussion we're having now where we would greatly prefer and love for you know that to happen.

[94:22] Laurel. Do you want to? Yeah, no. I agree with the Site Review criteria. We can only like really regulate the actual site itself. We can't do the stuff on other folks's property. So I agree, I think the goal would be to try and get, and maybe the access. The joint shared access is something that we can negotiate with or the applicant to negotiate with. I'm not really sure but site review criteria only applies to the actual. Site, itself. Yeah, unfortunately. Okay. And and I guess this is something really to face more inside review. But so if the applicant says, I cross cross my heart and hope to die. I'm gonna get the joining property owner to build this

[95:05] connection. And we approve site review on sort of on that assumption. And then doesn't happen. We have no recourse. Right. Okay. Right? Yeah, that would be it so. And and one way you could do it is is, have them get the access prior to a certain thing. But it I think we really can't regulate the outside of that site. Like you said, Yeah. Yeah, okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff before we go to the applicant presentation? Great thanks, Shannon. See, and I will just turn it over to the applicant. I think we have 3 folks to promote. Or you guys can start when you're ready. please note, you've got a maximum of 15 min for your presentation. We appreciate you coming here.

[96:13] Hey? Good evening! Can you guys hear me? Perfect? Let me share my screen quick. and you have my screen. Alright. Well, good evening. My name is Sam Coots. I'm a land planner and landscape architect with Ripley design. I'm representing Markel Holmes, the applicant for the Concept Plan Review tonight. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I heard a lot of good questions. I'll try to cover those in my presentation, or maybe loop them in at the end here. I think Shannon gave a lot of good background on the previous proposal. I'll add a couple more tidbits and then talk about our current proposal, and how it relates to the vision for boulder and and east boulder here.

[97:03] So, as as Shannon mentioned, this was the previous proposal. again, the big takeaways we hear heard here is that this was a very car centric design, and we wanna turn it on its head and and make sure that what we bring forward today is not car centric, and it focuses on the pedestrian and and creating that sense of scale. That means something to people and more on. That is the location. How livable is it really to develop residential in the middle of this light industrial area Office Park area. So we've looked at that enhanced site amenities to ensure that livability we've. And then, of course, we've been talking about the transportation issues and the missing link. So that leads us to the current proposal. The overall theme of what we wanted to accomplish with this new design

[98:00] is Orient. The entire development towards the south, to front along this amazing green belt that we have along the ditches leading to Belmont Bike Park and that trail connection. So everything is oriented to the south. They get this great site views onto the flat irons. And now we're using our open space in a really meaningful way. It's very intentional. We're creating rooms and spaces out of that open space. It's not leftover scraps anymore, like it was on the original plan that we were here back in October. as that plan transitions a little bit more into the site we create this public realm along the streetscape, with this 12 foot attached sidewalk with a lot of site amenities, benches, trash receptacles, canopy trees lining the street on parallel parking, making this feel a little bit more urban and then transitioning into the parking zone. So now, quite literally, the the vehicle is subordinate to the the pedestrian activity. On the on the south the south is our front door. The north has now become our back door, and there's some synergy there, too, with the existing parking off site, and and

[99:18] Markel has been in communications with that property owner about developing some type of shared parking agreements, and they're they're still in conversations about what that looks like. But the idea is to use that in some way to help mitigate some of the parking concerns on site building one and 2 are both mixed. Use buildings. So here, I don't know if you can see my cursors, but on the middle corner of each of these buildings is the non residential space along with. We have a community building on the southwest that provides additional amenities to the site, and then the multi-use trail connection that does connect all the way down to Belmont. I'll talk about that here in a little bit

[100:11] just to really reiterate the lack of a car centric design here, and highlighting all of the open space, all of the amenities, and give you just a flavor of what this space might feel like. Some examples on the left of the streetscape. We have tree lined canopies nice paving site benches, receptacles, and then we have some passive green space with fire pits gathering spaces, extra trails, and then the landscape, of course, would be native species, but done very ornamentally in terms of livability, and what it's like to be a resident in a office park. We wanted to put a focus on the amenities and make sure that residents can thrive in this environment, and that the site has now become an extension of their living space. So the main building, the building one will have that co-working space building. 2 has outdoor dining along with retail restaurants, Bodega

[101:19] type space there. I heard comments about lack of of restaurant dining and in the area, and this would be open to the public. So this is not only an amenity to the residents, but also to office users in the area and then, of course, active recreation with the pickleball court and fitness in the community building, and a rooftop amenity that looks out over the flat irons with a rooftop fire pit and hot Tub community gardens, also anchor on the eastern edge, so that each building gets a flavor of some type of passive amenity here.

[102:02] So the Missing Link. Obviously this is a huge piece to the puzzle, for this project, and what you're looking at is everything in yellow are existing trails, or or paths multi-use paths. And then the blue is that social path, the single track that was brought up. and the red is just the conceptual alignment for what that missing link would look like, and it does traverse that arrow shaped property. Markells have been in contact with that property owner and have an mou with that property owner to ensure that it is included as part of the application, so it will be constructed as part of this project. And then we we were talking about the Osdr piece that that is here. Dr. Is for the development rights. Actually. So it's a private piece of property that's been encumbered by by easements mainly the the ditches here that have really

[103:04] made it open space, but it is privately owned, and so the Markells have ownership in that piece as well, so you can rest easy that between the Mo Ownership rights in the in the ostr piece and the main site itself, this missing link will be completed, you can see how important that is as it connects everything else together here. Furthermore, we we look at what that means to a resident, and what what does your bike commute? Look like now through boulder we have destinations in red that are services that often needed for residential life, but also the the main commercial cores of downtown Boulder Boulder Junction. Only a 7 min bike ride. You have other milestones on here that are the closest bus stops a 2 min bike ride through Belmont Park Safeway 15 min bike ride. Walgreens. 12 min. So really, the emphasis here is that that missing link opens up all of boulder for residents here, and and we truly want to encourage that

[104:15] mobility piece, the the micro modes, the scooters, the E-bikes skating, whatever it is. This is the front door is the trail system. That being said, we recognize that cars are real, and we need to plan for it. So Airport Boulevard is obviously the back door. But what do we do to help mitigate the use of that and limit the single vehicle trips generated here and encourage all of the other modes of transportation. So that's all. Part of this transportation demand management plan, and Markel has committed to bike share programs. vouchers for e-bikes. Zip cars the permanent bike parking on site. I'll point that out here in a couple of slides

[105:00] and then working with lime to get a scooter depot at that community building, so that it's anchored on that southwest corner and really help complete that last mile or the 1st mile to the transit system on Belmont. And how does all this tie into the comprehensive plan and the sub community plan? Obviously, we're in the light industrial zone. But that policy 2 point or 2.2 1 does encourage infill housing in the light industrial areas when it is near transit and on underutilized surface parking lots like we have here in the top, right and along open space or green way and trail connections. Obviously, we are near the open space in the trail connection. So this site is perfect in the eyes of the Comp. Plan for infill housing in an industrial area.

[106:01] The the Comp plan talks about offering a mix of uses when when you're presenting housing in this area, we've talked about the retail restaurant Bodega piece with outdoor dining here on the right, and then, as well as a coworking space on the building on the left. and then encouraging that richness of transportation amenities. So in these red squares or rectangles are the permanent bike storage. The long term bikes bike parking. So each building does get one. There is additional long term bike storage in the community building as well. So it's been dispersed through the site. Make sure every resident has access to that, but also creating scooter depots, Zip cars, making sure there's e-bikes available and then utilizing parking management strategies, such as shared parking, which is again in line with policy, 2.2 1.

[107:07] As far as the sub community plan goes. You can see where we sit in the picture of East Boulder here. and that sub community plan has a handful of different place types to choose from to design off of, and the Parkside residential is just perfect for this site. The Parkside residential is geared for land that is adjacent to public green space or outdoor recreation, and gives residents the benefit of access to the outdoors that is perfect. For this site is that type of design. So what comes along with that type of design. Streetscapes need to look and feel like a park like atmosphere with consistent tree canopies. amenities, benches along the street, and really make sure it's an activated street, with eyes on the street and and ground floor transparency whenever you have commercial uses on that street.

[108:06] But it's also talking about promoting efficient use of parking through different, unbundled, paid, flexible, shared, use different types of parking strategies. The goal here is to limit the emphasis on the car and and put a lot of that land and the emphasis towards open space connectivity, micro mobility. So here is just a glimpse of the street facing architecture along that northern edge, and you can see the parallel parking with the enhanced streetscape. Here also the way the architecture addresses the street. It's transparent. There's porches encouraging that community involvement. When when you have that porch conversation with your neighbor here, you can see on the left the retail Bodega outdoor dining concept and the entry to the the shared work concept. Here

[109:06] on the south side, the park facing Amenity. This is the passive seating area with with a fire pit which opens up onto the green space and trail connections overlooking the flat irons and the community building here. This is fitness on the ground floor that interacts with the pickleball court. This right side is where you'll on the back side of this building. You'll see the bike parking and scooter depot with the rooftop amenity. So with that I I think I'll wrap it up. There are a couple of detailed questions that I I took note of that. I've got some answers to and feel free. I I can answer those now, or we can wait to get asked for those again, and I've got some answers. Yeah, Sam, you you've got a you got a minute or 2, so why don't you see if

[110:00] just run down your list? So we can try to get some. Get some thoughts from you. No problem. So there's a question on square footage of non-residential to residential. There is, 13,000 square feet of non-residential that includes the Amenity building the community building building for. And then there's roughly 87,000 square feet of residential so gross, all in a hundred 1,000 square feet total. There. The parking lot to the north. The existing parking is is approximately 230 spaces. Right now. Currently, we're we're looking at using around 115 of those again. Those talks are still pretty early on with that property owner. So that's ever evolving. We talked about the Osdr and then access along this western drive. So there's reciprocal private access easements on that now, as well as an emergency access easement So

[111:10] it sounds like where where that conversation was headed is through Site Site Review. We'll look at A public access easement through that and then mechanisms to make sure that Missing Link is secured I I could be misspeaking here and feel free to correct me, Staff, if I, if I'm wrong, but I in in the past I've seen if that property is included in our application, and we show the link in our application that that is now tied to the approval of that project. And and maybe there's some language in a development agreement or something that could ensure that as well. But just my thoughts on on that issue. I think those were my notes. Great. Thank you. Thanks for the informative presentation and for grabbing those notes, Dan, that was super helpful. Hopefully. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant.

[112:11] Claudia. Then Laura. Thanks for that presentation, Sam. I have one question about the current site design. and that is what is the logic behind your placing, parking between buildings one and 2 is that to meet minimum parking requirements? Is it for some other purpose? Yeah, mostly that. Honestly, there is some strategy there that when you have the commercial space that you commercial space wants parking in front of it to be successful. But that you know the 2 of those between the minimum parking requirements. And you know, if we, if we need some parking. Where does it make sense to put it? And it's next to that, that commercial space. Thank you.

[113:06] Go ahead, Laura. Thank you. And thank you so much for that presentation. Very informative. I will have comments later, but I'll stick to questions and forgive me if you mentioned these during your presentation, and I missed it. But are you folks following some principles with the parking? And in particular, is it unbundled from the units, and then will it be paid. That is a management question. I'll I'll toss to Jason Markel here. Yeah. Hi, Jason Markel, with Markel homes? Yeah. Happy to answer that. You know we are. Gonna have some parking spaces be paid, and then we have our shared parking agreement. And so, you know, those will be permit parking to people who are working. You know, via car. And so our parking agreement is based upon people who are leaving on a 9 to 5 basis. And they'll vacate those spaces.

[114:05] So when the office or industrial users need their parking spaces, our tenants will be vacated, and so those those spaces will only be offered to people who are, you know, commuters. and then, you know, the spaces that are closest on on site would be some paid, some unpaid. Okay, thank you. Got it going back to the long term bike parking. And again, I'm sorry if I missed this. Is there bike parking like, are there locked rooms within the buildings is all of the long term bike parking, either within your owned unit or your rented unit, or external to the building. Where are those things located? Where's your long term bike parking. Yeah, each unit has, or each building has, its own long term bike parking. And then we do have, you know, areas within the units as bike parking as well, but beside the each building, including the community building, has long term bike parking.

[115:15] So that's that's outside like uncovered, exposed to the elements bike parking? Or is there a bike room within the buildings. Yeah, we're envisioning more of a you know. It has a cover. It might not be fully enclosed, but it is secured and covered. Secure it and cover. It's like a cage kind of thing. Yep. Okay, thank you. could could we go again to like talking about the different non residential spaces within the building? I saw that they're on in the corners of buildings. I think it was buildings one and 2 is that is that all of your non residential areas, those red squares there.

[116:00] Yeah, so we have a couple of different amenities that are co-working. And so building, one has a couple of floors of Co working space. and then and that is in that you know where the 2 buildings can join. And then on building 2, that is where the open floor concept of restaurant Bodega and office. And so, you know, we envision this open floor concept that has a lot of, you know, square footage efficiencies. And then on the second floor we have a office space and co-working. Okay? And when you say a Co working space is that like people can rent a space like a commercial co working space? Or is that you mentioned? It's an amenity. Is that like a. it's an area that residents can use.

[117:00] Yeah. So we're our thoughts are on building 2 where we have open to the public. You know, Restaurant Bodega. Concept that the you know public. You know, Co, working space. Yeah. And in office would be above that. And then on building one. That is the amenity space. And it is a Co working space. But it's just for the tenants of the project. Okay. So the tenants have a free place that they can go to take their laptop, get out of their unit, go work, and then in the other building there's a paid office space and maybe a paid Co working space that anybody could rent a space in. Anybody could get a membership. Thank you. That's helpful. And then, you know, you mentioned in the presentation, and you've mentioned in your comments several times retail or Bodega. But the proposal that we saw just said, office and restaurant. Are you officially also looking at retail and like Bodega, kind of space? I'm particularly interested in

[118:06] you know, there's no availability to purchase food anywhere in this area without, you know, either driving or biking to a grocery store or one of the markets on Belmont street is there? You know our. how are you thinking about having a place where people can purchase food products? Not just a restaurant, but like a Bodega or a convenience store? Yeah, that's exactly our thought process. There is. We wanted a restaurant, because, as you know, there's no restaurant in that whole, you know area. And so we wanted to provide a restaurant where people can come by and have lunch, and, you know, utilize, you know the patio. And then we also wanted to have a Bodega for people to pick up, you know, everyday goods and specialty goods for both tenants. And you know, you know, office workers in the general vicinity, so we wanted to have it more as a open floor concept where the Bodega is situated, you know, right next to the restaurant, and you could stroll from, you know, grabbing a sandwich to grabbing some.

[119:16] You know, Pasta for your dinner that you're gonna cook later. And then, you know, working in the adjacent space and sitting down and eating your lunch. And you know, having your laptop open similar to a coffee shop. Thank you so much. That's the end of my question. Great. Thank you. Mason. Yeah, thanks, Sam, for your presentation. I had some questions around the the fire pits. I assume they're gas. Who manages them, turning them on and off, etc. Yeah. So you know, we'll have a You know, a property manager.

[120:00] And so I think it'll be. You know. A fire pit that's on a timer is how I've seen it done. And so when people are utilizing that they can, you know, turn the timer, and you know, have the, you know, amenity. Come, come to life. It's a lot of sense. About the outdoor furniture. Is it permanent? The outcome. Oh, you on the streetscape! Is that what you're referring to? Fire pits. Streetscape. Yeah. I think we have a combination. You know we have. you know, envisioned Adirondack chairs in certain locations, taking advantage of the views and the fire pit, and then I you know we have some permanent furnishings along the street, with, you know, built in benches into, you know, sort of a stylized, you know, concrete. Thanks, and then to the can you speak more to the community building? I didn't see a lot of detail about what kind of amenities are planned on being in the building itself was this, are you thinking like kitchen or.

[121:12] Yeah. So the community building, how we have it envisioned is, there's a lounge with a TV, and you know, light kitchen. And then there is a workout room, and so there'll be, you know, a workout amenities. And then when you go upstairs, there is a rooftop lounge, and you know, living, you know. gathering area. And then on the other side of the rooftop there's a couple hot tubs where people can enjoy the view and jump in the pool. On the bike parking? Will it facilitate cargo bikes, and will there be charging. Yeah, that's something we've been talking about. And I've actually been.

[122:03] you know, looking into different companies that provide outdoor, you know, bike charging. And so there's, you know, a few companies out there that have some interesting systems that integrate into, you know, secure bike parking. And so, you know, we'll have secure bike parking with, yeah, I know electricity and and charging capabilities, you know, associated with that. And then we're also trying to navigate, you know, having a you know, lime scooter area for that last mile connectivity, and then having a Zip car with, you know a charging capabilities so that people could, you know, do short term rentals on the car and buzz around town.

[123:00] So my last question, are there any like kid friendly zones with like safe play areas or anything like that? I'm not really seeing it for the map. Yeah, we have. You know, we we angled these buildings and created an L to sort of alcove that open space. And so within those open space areas. There's, you know, ample opportunity. To either have. you know, turf for kids to play and run around. We were, you know, debating whether to have playgrounds. But you know, I think we're just gonna have to see, you know, if that becomes a a tenant, feasibility analysis on the on like an actual playground. But I think as of right now trying to, you know, have it as a field where people can play and take their kids and dogs. Thank you for your time. It's my last question.

[124:01] Thank you. But. Great. Thank you. Just a couple of questions. The 1st one is about topography. It looks to me like you're retaining, retaining the retaining wall walls, the existing retaining walls, including the wavy one, down by the the ditches, and then the straight one sort of on the property line. Is that correct? Yeah. So you know, there's an existing retaining wall that actually. Market. You know, there is topography on the site, but the site's actually pretty flat where the buildings and on site parking are, and then that wavy retaining wall. It sounds like you've, you know, been, you know, on that social trail is pretty substantial. And so we have stairs leading through the retaining wall. So we'll be chopping certain sections of that retaining wall out and including stairs going down. And then we also have an Ada access, you know on the you know West Side.

[125:04] you know, switch backing, and you know, getting down to that multi modal path. Okay. So then, the question is, how much additional grading would need to be done for excavation or earth moving. We're actually. Okay. The way we design the site. We really looked at the contours, and you know we're lucky where you know the the previous owner, you know, did most of the grading work because of those retaining walls. And so there's not a ton of earthwork to be done to achieve what we're showing here. Okay, thank you. And then

[126:00] my only other question. Oh, no. 2 questions. One, your statement. The applicant statement refers a number of times to Elus, and then the actual documents. Talk about studios. Are those really the same. Yeah, I think we, you know, I think the city of Boulder has their Elu definition. And so we have, you know, studios and one bedrooms that are probably, you know. You know we're we're interchanging as elus. Okay. So the studios and the one bedrooms would count as the only use under city codes. Under city code. Yeah. Yeah, okay, great. And then last question is again about the retail restaurant. If I work on Airport Road, for example, which I used to do. and I'm hungry at lunch. Will there be any kind of signage, or any way of knowing that this Bodega or restaurant is there other than

[127:08] hopefully. Eventually, it shows up on Google Maps or something. Yeah, yeah, we're actually. Telling me. In discussions with surrounding property owners, namely, you know, Unico, and we've, you know, been talking about, you know, sign easements. And so where Airport Road, you know, meets our access road, you know we are trying to, you know. Spend the money on a you know. you know. Really nice sign that showcases the, you know apartment complex, and also the, you know, retail and office locations. In addition to, you know, Unico's existing office buildings. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[128:00] Yeah, thank, you. Any other questions for the applicant before we go to the public? All right. Thanks for the presentation. You'll have a chance an opportunity to respond to a public comment that we get, and then we'll go into deliberations. Thanks, Vivian. It popped up. Great, is it? Okay? If we move to public hearing. Yes. Okay? So each member of the public who would wish to provide some comments will have 3 min. So please let us know. I'll go ahead and call on people in the order that they raise their hand and give people a few minutes or a few seconds, rather to raise their hand.

[129:03] If nobody wishes to speak, it'll be a very fast public hearing. Okay, we have at least one person. Lindsey. Go, please go ahead. You have 3 min. Ian went dead. What's going on? I can't see any of you. We can hear. We can hear you, Lynn. The timer. Yeah, but I want to see you when I don't want to be parochial about this. But I want to see you when I'm talking to you. Thank you. Now, I see you sorry about that. If it was at my end. Yeah. Can I have my time back? Please? Thank you. Okay? 1st of all, I'm sure that the developers did a great job here.

[130:02] It's just a great job for San Francisco. This is Boulder. We're overbuilt absolutely no. forget it. 0, you know. I mean, I know they have a right to develop here, but I would not put lipstick on a pig. There is nothing, you know, and they've done a beautiful job and all that. But you know this Badiga discussion is so elitist like grocery store, hey? You know, when I go to whole foods, and it says curated cheeses, you know, it's like, No, when I go to an art museum I want it to be curated. this is just another example of the wealth disparity in Boulder that goes on every time you approve any benefit in any remote way for any developer. so I'm sure you have to give them what they, you know, require. unfortunately, but nothing more. And the Bvcp. I tell you I'm going to be there to make sure that

[131:08] the Comp plan is very, very explicit in what they, what kind of specific things you have to do within the Comp plan, because, as it stands, it's useless. You can take anything from the Bvcp. And you know, turn it into whatever you want. You know the real problem. Here. Number one is Gaza, the West bank, East Jerusalem a minor, you know. 3rd World War, Syria, Lebanon. That's what we really have to deal with, and that's what this disgusting country is behind this genocide. And it really doesn't matter if they build this thing tomorrow, because we're all going to be blasted to holy hell over this Israeli-palestinian issue.

[132:03] So I bring it up at every board meeting I go to, which are about 5 that I follow. It seems like Boulder has gotten on board with Elon Musk. Do you know what prenatalism is? It's what I've been talking about for decades. Now stop already. This is called overpopulation. This is called too many physical bodies at the farmers market in the downtown area, everywhere, all over Boulder. It's too many physical bodies. I don't care if they're going on buses on transit oriented development. I could care less. I care about gridlock. I don't even drive my car but 5 times a year. and you know, as far as having your Evs. Thank you, Lynn. That's the end of the 3 min. Sorry we have a tiny timer tonight, but I was watching it. If any other members of the public would like to speak. Please go ahead and also raise your hand. Now.

[133:14] okay, I think that's it. Alright, thanks, Vivian. if if anyone like to comment to the to the public comment, Welcome to as well as the developer. If not I would suggest we take a short breather it's basically 8, 45. How about 8 min? Be back at 8, 53. That sound good. Okay, that's great. Thanks. Everyone.

[142:57] Alright. Everybody's back.

[143:04] I was hoping we could put up the items for consideration up on the screen. thank you. as usual. I'm I'm open to how we want to. Go through this If people want to comment on everything at once. I think that probably makes sense. Yeah, okay, does anyone want to? Just give their thoughts and start us off? Mark. you're muted.

[144:00] Yeah, I'm kind of excited to comment on this, because I think it's It's a good example of an applicant really taking to heart a lot of comments from the prior Concept review. And it's also a good example of, I think, the benefit of a second concept review not to create more work for staff or us or applicants, but I think it's an example of how things can can really work out. And I reviewed my notes and some of the video from the last time we saw this project and thought about my thoughts about it at that time and the applicant and staff. I I appreciate both taking to heart our comments and incorporating them into the the new design

[145:00] and and I I realize it's it's it's still a concept review, and we don't have a full Tdm plan and we don't. There's questions about the connections. But it seems to me that everyone has has taken this in the right direction, especially in terms of the way. Where the front door is, where the back door is where the amenities are, how it's structured, how it takes advantage of views versus views of parking lots. And you know to me. wow! It is an odd location and it is a definitely, distinctly industrial. Really, I I in my more office area. But it's in an IM zone, and there is no other residents on Airport Boulevard. I think I think if if they continue to refine the design and to advance the principles that they say they're advancing in this concept review. This could be actually a really desirable place to live. It could be very quiet. It could be really close to outdoor amenities with great views, and those are attributes that many times are often associated with

[146:23] expensive single family homes in neighborhoods in Western boulder, and we don't associate those kind of outdoor amenities and views, and so forth, with this kind of location. And I think that this current design uses to their developers advantage these amenities. So anyway, I I'm I'm heartened by that. And as I just want to comment on the Tdm requirement here. and I'm going to say this, not to punish a good deed, but because in my email communications and other communications about recent applications and so forth, I've said that, hey? We're going to, we. I am going to talk to applicants, especially in concept review

[147:19] about fulfilling the subjective Tdm requirements of our code. And so I want to commend the applicant for saying the right things, and promoting both acknowledgement of the benefits of e-bikes, of micro transportation of car sharing these kind of things which I hope they continue to advance and flesh out before they come back to site. Review but if you do continue to flesh those out and promote those things and be creative. And I also like the shared parking with your

[148:06] with your neighbor. I think that that makes a lot of sense, and it requires some management, but it makes a lot of sense. So continue to advance the idea of connecting this site via all the ways you've talked about in addition to a car. And I think you'll have a have a good site review. But I think everything from the architectural design has been much improved, and I appreciate you taking that to heart, as my comments. Great I'll just. I'll just jump in real quick. And then, Kurt, I'll I'll call on you just because I I'll just piggyback on Mark's comments, because in general I agree with what he said. There was one thing that resonated with me, as it relates to a comment that Claudia. May I think it was Claudia around?

[149:01] Why, that? Why, that that parking space between buildings. I think it was 4 and 2. It was that that part that kind of divided the site. And it. It's hard, right? Because we're just looking at it in plan view. So it's hard to put yourself on the ground level as a pedestrian, but I do think there there might be an opportunity for connectivity where the rest of the buildings don't have to traverse a parking lot to get to the amenity space. So that's my comment. In general, I agree with what Mark said. I'll leave it there, Kurt. Great. Thank you. And thanks to both of you, Mark and George, I totally agree, and I will come back to that last point. Very shortly. But I think that the what we're seeing tonight is significantly improved from the last iteration. So I'll echo Mark's appreciation for the developer really listening to us and and working hard to make it better.

[150:06] And I appreciate the mix of uses, the greater mix of uses than last time. Both the the mix of residential uses in particular. To have some more. One bedrooms and 2 bedrooms, I think, is great. As George said. I think that that parking area in between I think it's buildings one and 2. I count it to be 25 spaces, and I think that that really messes up the site design. We have a comp plan. policy, 2.4 1 about site design. And and there are actually a number of others, but I think that the site design would be so much better, and also the just, the general flow both of motor vehicle, traffic, and pedestrian traffic, and everything would be better if that were replaced. If those 25 spaces were replaced with

[151:06] some green space, some, maybe some more active open space. You've got plenty of parking already. You don't need those additional 25 spaces, in my opinion, so just get rid of them. I was a little concerned that the applicant said that not all of the parking would be unbundled and paid, or some principals say that it all should be unbundled and paid so I would I would plan to stick with that at site review. I very much appreciate the work on getting the multi-use path connection to the West and working with the property owner there of that funny arrow shaped property. So that's great. And yeah, figuring out some way to give us assurances that site review that that actually will happen would be good.

[152:02] Since you're talking with that property owner, it would also be really great to get a connection down to sterling circle. You heard so many a very large proportion of the comments and questions and concerns expressed were about transportation connections here. And so, if you really want to get a strong site review proposal? It would also include a connection across that exact same property. It's the same property owner down to Sterling Circle, and then we'd have a really great connection through, so that people can travel from the sterling Circle area up to the little Bodega and restaurant. The the people in this in in your living, in your development can go down to the boulder pottery lab there, and there's it would just open up all kinds of things. If you could make that happen

[153:04] in the last suggestion or or improvement that I can see is the the currently the connection from the building. 3, the easternmost building to the multi-use path. As shown, there's a stair connection. So that would not be Ada compatible. It wouldn't be very bike friendly. And so for Ada access, you have to go all the way to the West side and then back down. It's a very circuitous route. And so. if it's at all possible, making a an Ada accessible, or at least bike accessible route from that building, 3 more directly down to the multi-use path, I think would be a significant improvement. So those are my comments. Thank you. Great ml then, Mason. Then, Claudia, I don't know if I'm getting in the right order, but

[154:06] it's just the way it's the way it's popping up on my screen. Go ahead, ml. Thank you. So I will speak to the key issues. Kind of sequentially here regarding the Bdcp and regarding the zoning. So the the Bdcp and I know that the applicant quoted 2.2 1 2.2 1 also has something called an area guiding principles, and number 2 says that housing should be located near other residential uses or retail service. The zoning. and they both talk about residential being allowed, or a possibility in appropriate locations. So

[155:02] those are the questions that have come up for me regarding Number One, and how they meet the Zoning and Boulder Valley Comp plan. Is this an appropriate location for for residential? The non-residential takes up 13%. And if this is primarily manufacturing zoning and land use 13% is a small percent of non-residential. So I will move through the other issues and speak about what? What might be a direction to to go under the use criteria. I absolutely concur with. I think there's been a huge improvement in the site and the orientation the southern edge has clearly been developed for residential use and for creating

[156:07] an interesting place to be on that site the thing that is missing is support for the residential with on-site retail opportunities. And this speaks directly back to the zoning and the non residential components. So I think under the mix of uses I would encourage you to look at increasing the on-site retail opportunities. and I will take this onto the next number 3, the conceptual site plan and architectural so contextually at a glance. This is a residential apartment project. but nothing refers to the fact that it's a primarily

[157:02] technology park that this is located. In. Additionally, there's a jail. There's a mental health treatment facility. And there's an airport. So this is not going to necessarily be a peaceful, quiet neighborhood. None of those. none of the existing fabric of the context support residential. So my encouragement is moving forward. I would encourage you to increase the non residential component with retail commercial that supports what the East Boulder sub community plan was looking for, which is walkable, vibrant, 15 min neighborhoods, and clearly this being perhaps the 1st in a development of residential in this in this part of of town. But if this project could begin to point toward what we are looking for, which is

[158:10] a an actual neighborhood, and how do you connect? And how do you create an amenity for all the other office buildings we've already talked about. You talked about the Bodega. You talked about the restaurant. I would encourage you to increase that on the site toward meeting the zoning and the land use that are the base of the site and to create some livability for people. There's a lot of there's been a lot of discussion about the connections. And how do people, you know bite from A to B, and where the paths are. But but the truth being told, people are going to get in their cars to go do the basic shopping, or to or to to get some

[159:01] whatever it is that people do, I think about the the peloton, and how they have developed these little commercial areas inside their apartment complex. That idea of bringing some retail services so that people don't need to get in their cars to go get fundamental necessities, I think, is really important. And you have. You have halved the amount of non-residential from the original from the 1st concept review. It was 10, it was 20,000 square feet, and now it's 10,000 square feet. I think that's going in the wrong direction. I would encourage you to get that percent back up so that you can actually start creating the nucleus for a neighborhood that becomes an asset to the technology park

[160:06] rather than it happens to be next to a technology park and an airport and a jail. And these other things. So I think context is really important. And we're trying to create neighborhoods, not just put housing on on land. Oh, so yep. Those are my thoughts regarding those those 3 issues. Thank you. Thanks. Amal. I think it, said Mason next, and then Claudia, and then Laura. Yeah, thanks. Before I really get into my comments, I just wanted in to mention something which might be a little pedantic. But it is across the creek from residential. This development is, and there is presidential on airport, the velo condos. So it's not completely out of

[161:07] context to have some residential here. With that being said much like, Mark said. I watched the the last concept review a couple of times, and I also thought about Mark's comments and thoughts in great detail as well as everyone else on this board. And I really do appreciate the obvious willingness to work with the staff and the planning board to come up with a better plan, which I think I think we see here. So just going through these. For the 1st one. I I do think out in those that original meeting the board was right to call out the the incompatibility of the project with Bdc. But I do think in this iteration it a lot of the concerns have been addressed.

[162:10] Access to transportation walkability is still an issue, of course. And I think piggybacking on what Kurt and others have talked about with this parking space in the middle of the buildings, removing that and adding in. I don't know something a little more creative, like a space for for ride, share, pickup or car sharing, parking, or something of that nature. I know that that commercial tends to ask for parking in front of the buildings. I I but I see that there's there is a lot of parking right there in front of the buildings. Sticking on the transportation side of things to Well, I'll get to that more in point 3

[163:02] for point 2. I don't really have a lot of comments. I think the proposed mix is reasonable. I think shifting thought to more of a variety of uses for the residents and workers of the area. Makes a lot of sense. I was happy to see the community building the community working space, the shift towards Bodega, things that really show that developers striving to make this a people centric development. So more on feedback for the site plan and architecture. So you know, just a thought. Obviously, you all have to make this pencil. But instead of that parking in the middle, maybe having that right share pickup or car share parking.

[164:00] I do think that this this development needs to be It's right. Well. let me back up a little bit. My hope is this area will become more walkable. I think it is very bikeable. I bike this area often as well, and I ride my bike up to the various breweries that are close by to that bike park bike park. My kids love to go there because actually really like to go to the airport as well and watch planes land and take off which is why I'm about the chips and cookies. But I do think that every design decision should make walking, biking, and community community interaction easier and more enjoyable than driving. So there was a lot of discussion about what this gets right. co-working space, maybe building outdoor facilities. I think that when we get closer to site design site review, you know, I'd like to see more about clear signage way finding with bike lanes, I do think secure bike storage rooms inside of the buildings makes a lot of sense, the charging for e-bikes like what you were discussing about having them in the spaces, close facilities.

[165:20] You know, self service bike, repair bike washing stations, even looking at things like providing bike carts or trailers, and for folks to borrow security measures like Ccc TV cameras around the bikes and then making it also, you've done a a good job at making this a people centered design. As I mentioned. I didn't see a lot about pause points. I know you mentioned it. There was going to be some stylized concrete places to sit we would like to see more detail there the Site Review.

[166:00] ensuring that spaces are accessible to people of all ages and abilities. And you did talk about a lot of work, friendly spaces which I appreciated. But I would like to know your thoughts more on having outdoor workspaces with power outlets and Wi-fi that residents can access in certain areas. I think those are all my thoughts. Thanks. Claudia. Thank you. I'll probably be somewhat repetitive, but it's good to be on the same page as a lot of my colleagues. Bear with me, please. I'm going to deviate from the sequence of questions that Staff has here my comments kind of move between things. I wanted to start with a quick comment on the site design echoing Kurt and George and others who've spoken already. I find the placement of parking between buildings one and 2, and that signs you've shown us to be somewhat unfortunate.

[167:08] I think that breaks up the usable open space for residents on this property, and it also degrades the environmental amenity that is created by that elevation and slope to the south. And I think that is an impact on both folks who may live at this property up on top of that slope, but also for neighbors to the south who might be looking up that gradient. So if there is a way to relocate, or further set back that parking that has pushed out to the bluff. I think that could improve the design significantly. Most of what I want to talk about, though, is, I think, the real crux of this proposal in terms of our Site Review criteria, and that's going to be whether it conforms to the Bvcp guidance on residential uses in light industrial areas specifically as Ml. Flagged. Whether this is an appropriate location for residential

[168:03] I think Mason is is right to remind us that this is not the 1st housing by any means on Airport Road. And not the 1st new housing on Airport Road. So we have the Villa Condos in the 3,200 block that were approved by use. Review in 2017. I think that project matters here because it creates a precedent for mixed uses in this area. and it also tells us it's not inappropriate to have housing out in this area of the city. In fact, it makes it more appropriate to add additional mixed uses. To make this a more viable neighborhood. I do disagree with Ml. On asking for more commercial space. In this project. I think that's something where we have to have a market for it. That market may not exist yet in this particular location and vacant commercial spaces do not serve any of our goals.

[169:01] As it is, I think this project adds housing largely in line with the guidance that the Bvcp gives us, and there's no no displacement of industrial uses. It infills existing parking takes advantage of shared parking opportunities and provides access to open space amenities, and I think those are significant. My primary concern about the appropriateness, appropriateness of housing. Like many folks, here is connections to the transportation network. To be fair, though I would have the same concern about intensive employment uses at this site. Airport road is pretty isolated one way in one way out as it stands. So I think to improve access and connectivity. There's 2 things that I hope the applicant team will continue to focus on as they move into a Site Review amendment. and both Mark and Kurt have touched on a lot of this already. 1st of all, I think, securing permission to complete that missing link of the multi-use path is critical. To making this site connected. It would provide safe and comfortable access to our broader path network for people who aren't driving it. Also, as you showed up on diagrams, it would reduce the distance that residents need to travel to exit this neighborhood.

[170:25] Second, in addition to securing that missing link. I really urge the applicant team to take the Tdm requirement seriously. I think at this particular site the components of a Tdm. Will be what makes the site appropriate or not for housing. So in the application materials, it looks like the applicant sees bikes as a primary means of limiting private car usage. I agree with that emphasis. If that is the case. I would expect to see a Tdm. That is both rich in programs and incentives, but also a physical design on this site that provides for best in class storage, for bicycles.

[171:09] and charging facilities for e-bikes. So thinking about not just the quantity of bike parking, but the quality of what's provided, and a plan that would accommodate e-bikes, cargo bikes, trailers, and also the many different abilities and types of people who might be using those bikes. And I would also hope to see a site design that both accommodates and encourages other forms of micro mobility. whether that's scooters, bike share, etc, and also car share and ride share options for residents and visitors so really building that into the infrastructure and design of the site. and I will stop there. Great Laura. Thank you. I am not going to be repetitive to the extent that I can manage that. And just say I really appreciate all of my colleagues comments I don't think I heard much that I disagreed with at all.

[172:10] Although I will say about the idea of retail space as a former resident of the peloton, I really appreciated their desire to incorporate restaurants and retail and shopping into the site design. and I witnessed those spaces be vacant for years upon years. And that's right on Arapaho, right like. That's a much more connected and accessible space. Boulder Junction has also struggled with empty retail space. So I'm gonna come down on the side of. I'm not concerned about the quantity of retail space so much as the quality and what services you are providing. And I really like the applicants. The track that you are on in terms of having a restaurant and a Bodega where people can pick up some daily life necessities and some working, co-working space. I think those are the right kinds of uses for the people who are going to want to live here. And so it's gonna be about quality for me rather than quantity.

[173:07] And I do, you know, I do want to point out that in addition to the Velo residents on Airport Road, there is also the entire Vista village, Mobile Home Park, which is connected to Kings Ridge. So there's a huge amount of housing actually, that is near this site, even if it isn't always entirely well connected. And I think to the extent that this site can cultivate connections and a reputation and some community feeling with vista village and Kings Ridge and Bello Condos in San Lazaro. You'll get customers for your restaurant and your your Bodega and your co-working space. So so that's 1 of my comments I also agree with all of my colleagues. Comments about the Tdm plan. And I you know, I just want to put a marker out there that when when I think about a Tdm plan, you know there's the code requirement is that a transportation demand management plan will be complied with. That includes methods that result in a significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use to alternate modes.

[174:09] I think it's very clear in the materials that we received in the presentation tonight that the applicant is absolutely thinking about this, and I really want to appreciate and laud the applicants comments about looking at the multimodal connections as the front door and the preferred way to access the site. and not having single occupancy, vehicle, use, be the privileged and preferred and convenient default method of travel that we have all taken for granted in city, planning for decades, not these individuals sitting before you, but you know the United States in general has made that kind of our watchword is, make sure you got parking, and it's convenient, and it's easy. And so I'm always going to be looking from this moment. Henceforth does the applicant in the site amenities that are provided. Not just this applicant, but applicants going forward, do they try to make it so that using alternate modes of travel is as easy, safe, convenienced, inexpensive

[175:08] as parking and so doing, something like charging for car parking, but not charging for bicycle, parking, or scooter. Parking goes a long way, having best in class amenities, for people who want to travel by alternate modes goes a long way. So I want to really compliment the applicant for the thinking that they have done, and look forward to, seeing that in come forward in the Site Review as well. I do want to emphasize and highlight the if you can have some principles for all your parking, we will absolutely look very favorably upon that that long term. Bike parking needs to be horizontal. There needs to be a lot of horizontal 2 wheels on the ground, safe, secure bike parking the hanging bike racks that are somewhat popular. I also dealt with that at the peloton, and even for a young healthy person. Those are a pain in the butt. And if you're trying to do an e-bike, a cargo bike, a recumbent bike, a trike, a trailer, forget it. It doesn't work. So if we want to be accommodating the types of bicycles that are practical for people who want to be doing daily commuting and getting their groceries and things like that. You got to have a lot of horizontal bike parking, not just hanging bike racks.

[176:20] I really liked Kurt's suggestion to try linking that multi-use path with Sterling Court. If that can be done. I don't know exactly how that connection would work, and what property owner and how it would connect with the road system in Sterling Court. But I think that's definitely worth exploring, and that would be a big plus in the applicants favor if they can make that happen in addition to that missing link. But I just I guess I just really want to say this project has come an awfully long way, and it's very clear from the applicants presentation that they are thinking about these values that are so important to us around connectivity and community and pedestrian experience and human scale development. And I really like where this project is headed. I was very. I'll say I was dubious when we saw the 1st concept plan that this could work, that this location could be appropriate because it did feel like a little island of residential in a sea of industrial, and I think this applicant has done about the best that anybody possibly could to make this a vision that's really going to work for for residents of this site.

[177:21] And so I will. Oh, I just want to also give a shout out to Staff, to Shannon especially, and Daniel Valorant and transportation it. It does not go unnoticed that how good your comments were, and that they're very much in line with the things that matter to to your board members here on the planning board, as well as to the Bbcp. And to City Council. and hopefully the residents of boulder, and I just want to say Staff's comments from pages 38, through about 52, or so were like dead on, and the applicant would be well advised to to address those. So thank you very much. Those are my comments. Great mark! You have your hand up. You want to say something.

[178:03] Yeah, I I had. I I spaced one comment that I I need to say, and it's 2 staff us as a board, and the applicant, and that is, we are on the cusp of creating code that mandates housing within the East Boulder sub community plan over in Flatbridge Industrial Park, within the same building as potentially life sciences, buildings, or other industrial uses. And I've advocated that that mandate is actually inappropriate, and that we can have housing within areas like flatirons. Industrial park, like the airport industrial park. But it doesn't need to be in the building that's being proposed. And this, to me, is an example of of a developer coming forth with housing.

[179:02] helping us with our jobs, population goals and doing it within an industrial park in a creative way. And and not because we have mandated housing within the same building as an industrial as other industrial uses. So I just point that out for all of us. As this is a good example, I think, of how to get housing in those areas. We're outside of Amanda. Laura, you have another comment. Yeah, I do. And I'm sorry. I don't want to prolong this, but I have to respond to Mark's comment. And, Mark, you know I love you, and I agree with you in spirit. 100%, although not always in the details. I have to just correct something that I think is a misunderstanding and misinformation. There is nothing in the East boulder save community plan that either has been adopted or is proposed for adoption that would mandate that any individual property owner include housing in an industrial building. It is a choice that if they want to take advantage of the form-based code and get the advantages that that portrays.

[180:09] Then they can use the building types that are provided, and get that that bonus and that incentive, if they would like to continue with a site review and do a purely industrial building. They have that option. So it is not a mandate. It is a choice to get an incentive. You'd be continued offline. Thank you. Yeah. Alright! Any other comments on this project? if not, does staff have, and the applicant have what they need from the board, to move forward. Anything. I I do have one quick question. If I could really appreciate all the comments. Really great feedback on the the parking between building one and 2 totally agree. I would love to see something else there other than parking curious. If there's guidance or feedback on. Is, are we looking at relocating that parking elsewhere, or just removing that parking is? Is there

[181:15] one or the other that this board. You'll you'll probably find varying opinions on that. Okay. Since I was one of the, I think I was the 1st to bring it up. From my perspective. This site is still very much an island, and so I know that the needs of your residents are going to be high, and all sorts of different modes of transportation. And so my goal was really to create a connectivity that didn't require someone to navigate across a parking lot. That was the that was the context of my particular answer. I I don't. Yeah, I think in in this, in this capacity I would. I would leave it a little bit to your discretion as to what you feel like you need after you go through all the the Tdm planning, etc. And present it back to us. I don't know if anyone else wants to give feedback on that.

[182:10] Can I just quickly. Sure. Yeah. Sorry, quickly respond. I, as I said in my comments, I feel that it could just be removed. You're sorry you're already proposing over the required amount of parking. And typically that is very unusual in boulder these days. Most people have, you know, a, a, a parking reduction. Sometimes it's quite significant parking reduction, and those projects all seem to be working fine. And so I I would certainly support just. Claudia and Mason. Yeah. So to clarify. I also raised this issue, and I'm often a person who is asking on this board for reduced parking. I see it in this case as really a spectrum of things, and I raised it specifically as a site design consideration, and not as a parking consideration for a reason. I think, that the I think that in the grand scheme of concerns the the site design is a bigger issue in my mind, but if you can bring it with a parking reduction, too.

[183:17] I'm not a person that will say a note about you. In Mason. Repeat anyone agree wholeheartedly with Claudia's comments. I but I did just want to add, like I you're next to the Velma Park. You're on that trail. I kind of see this as being like a people focused by Paradise. Obviously, it doesn't work for everybody who wants to live in a place like this, but like, I think, a partner reduction makes sense from that angle. All right. Sam. Any other Laura. I'll just say, really quickly. I don't know what analysis you're going to be doing about, you know, like the fact that a lot of your parking spaces are shared, and people would have to move their car during the day. To me.

[184:07] That's a consideration that I don't fully understand. I don't think we've had a lot of projects to come through like that where a large percentage of the parking was not accessible. 24, 7, like when people are sick or people are on vacation. What do they do with their car when it can't be there during the workday? So for me. I'm not looking necessarily for a parking reduction. I'm actually not super bothered by that parking there, because there is that continuous bike path that goes all along the site on the south edge where people do not have to traverse the parking. I'm not actually sure why people would traverse the parking unless they're trying to go directly from building 2 to building 3 and that doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But so I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not gonna deny your project if you still have this in, but if you can find a way to get rid of it, I don't think anybody on the board would say no. Fair enough. Thank you. Everybody. Jason, did you have any other questions.

[185:00] Yeah, no. I just wanted to comment and say, You know, really appreciate everybody's comments. And we did really take all your comments to heart from the 1st sketch plan, and you know I'm really grateful that you're recognizing all the hard work that went in to, you know. Realize that. And you know the project, you know, from the old to the new is a marked improvement, and you know we really appreciate the process and all your comments and really appreciate staff working with us and guiding us. And so, yeah, I think this is really working out. And we're really happy with the outcome. So thank you. And yeah, thank you for your comments tonight, and we'll look forward to seeing you in Site Review. Awesome. Alright I think that concludes the concept plant review and our public hearing, thanks to the applicant and for city staff for bringing that forward.

[186:02] We do have a rather It all depends on on how we approach it large matters. Item, that we've got to get through. I think. Laura Laurel, you're planning to take us through the document. Yeah, thank you. Chair laurel. What with the city attorney's office, I realize I don't think I introduced myself earlier for the record. So it's good to see you all this evening, and then we're getting a little bit late. So this is getting into the planning board rules of procedure. So if it's okay with you. Chair, I was thinking about just sharing my screen and walking through, it would be exhibit A in your packet of my memo, and just looking at each individual change that's been proposed. Would be great. Do you? Before we get started. So that yeah. remain efficient and not get into too much wordsmithing. but more on Con, I think, and I'll defer to the board. Obviously, I'm just one of one of 7, but I think I would prefer to focus on concepts than wordsmithing, and get through things as quickly and efficiently as we can unless anyone has a disagreement. With that I suggest we go down that tact. Okay.

[187:15] Think about this. I'm not gonna have a full vote tonight. If that's all right, we're gonna take all of your edits, take them back, put them in, and then you'll have another chance to Wordsmith, or add any other comments. And I think I think around that wordsmithing things right from my perspective, it wouldn't be so much that we're giving you edits. It's more like a you know, a 4 plus sort of thumbs up or down. As to if these things should stay in, and then we'll leave it to you to Wordsmith, and and put it in appropriately. Yeah. Yeah. And of course, I welcome any additional changes. We'll have another. Thank you. To do that before adoption absolutely. Okay, I might have one or 2 wording suggestions. We don't have to wordsmith together as a group, but I might just put something out there. That sounds yeah, yeah. Great. And feel free to to email me afterwards, if we don't get to your specific.

[188:00] Okay, great. Let me share I you should be able to see it. Not yet. I can't. You're not sure. There we go. Can you see it now? Yes. Okay. Great. Is it big enough for you to see. Ish, I know. I'll zoom in a little bit. Okay. And I'll kind of verbally explain it as we walk through, too. So feel. Please feel free to let me know if you can't see anything, or if you want clarification. And again, this is in exhibit A of the of the memo. Okay, so just so, we know as we go through. I thought the easiest way to do this was to take the comments from the people that have given them to me and give them color coding, because you'll see in a couple of sections there's several people. So if you're confused about who has asked for a certain change. I'm happy to do that. I apologize for the scrolling. The 1st change.

[189:00] Occurs in Section 2.2 duties of the chair. So one of the things that was pointed out is that the chair usually joins with the planning director to set the agenda for each meeting. So Kurt wanted that that change instead of it just being the planning director just being the chair, that they do it together. And then the second change in that same. I don't know if it is the same same time is to change his or her to there. So we have gender neutrality in this. So are you guys good with that thumbs up is good. Okay, cool. If how about if if people have a have a have a strong opinion, rejection, or something like that, then then we go through that we have to look for a thumbs up every time, and just kind of okay, perfect. Have a great day. Yeah, that sounds great. Yeah, and feel free to please interrupt me. If there's anything that needs to be interrupted on. Okay, great. So we're going to some of Laura's she had a little bit of wordsmithing changes on this one instead of saying absence. It's more the chair and vice chair and unable to preside. A good example of this is, if like George in the past, has been traveling and been able, unable to be the chair for the evening, so he'll have Mark present. So just a little bit of word changing here so that it's more of an unable to preside

[190:13] and then kind of word specific at the end to say like, if they come back and they're able to present in the middle of the meeting. They can do that. So that's what the section 2.5 changes are. There is a suggestion from Ml. In here which I didn't include. But I can add it in if we need it, or if we decide that we want it. So here the Ml. Suggestion is to provide provision for notice of absence of any board member. The goal is to provide last minute scramble to verify a quorum. So if we wanna have an email into the secretary or something in advance. If there's any absences we can add that in. I know sometimes Thomas does checks. If he knows that there's gonna be a few people absent if it's starting to get a quorum question. So I don't know if there's a preference for the board on which way you want to do that. Amal, do you feel passionately about it, or

[191:01] something that we from a from a chair perspective? I can say that I think it works pretty effectively as as it as it does today. So I guess the question is, do we do we need it? And if it's important. be interesting to hear. No, I'm not passionate about it. I I was just concerned there. It seemed that we had a a run of meetings where there were very short notice about absences and whatnot, and then it was, well, do we have enough people to have a meeting? It was just. And it could have just been contextual. And it's not a usual thing. So I'm fine if we don't need to put anything in here. I must say it's a good idea to to include it. I think I think we're all. I think we try to do it, anyway. But I think if you're a new person to the to the board, you're looking for what to do in absence, that's there. Give all the secretary.

[192:01] I think there's no harm to including it, and clarity is always good and encouraging. Good behavior is always good, so I would prefer including it. So it sounds like, include is kind of where we're at. We can make it not mandatory, kind of like encouragement. Language. Yeah, I think encourage is good. We don't. I don't wanna footfall people, either. If That sounds good. Okay, I'm going to continue scrolling apologies for the eyes. One thing that was brought up by Laura. And this is the language, I added. So, Laura, please feel free to amend as you see fit. So under the duties of the secretary. This has to do with minutes. And this was kind of addressed in one of the questions that was asked to, and and one of the other exhibits. But something that we're trying to balance is this idea of getting minutes to you guys to be able to review them, but also be able to continue moving forward with the cycle and the call up periods and all of that. So we added this language in here that says that ideally within 30 days we'll get minutes to the Board for review.

[193:01] and that's under section 2.7. If it's kind of hard to read, it's right here. That's fine with me, and and I apologize. There was another concept about when planning board is advising city Council and our opportunity to know what is being conveyed to city council and comment upon that before it is sent to city council is that in here, somewhere. Yeah, so that one the issue that we had with that was timing. So sometimes we have to give council memos the next day, so it'll be it will finish, and then we'll have to like submit it the next day or the following day, and there's not usually enough time for all planning board to be able to respond in that short period of time. So I think I didn't include that because I wasn't sure how to include that. I don't know that there's enough time to get planning boards feedback on what we tell council. If it is. Those. Really short turnaround. So I think, just as a matter of best practice, it is something that Staff should strive for to when we're summarizing a board's advice to give to City Council to give us an opportunity to, you know, read it over, and verify it either as part of the meeting minutes, and then just take it from our approved meeting minutes, or if the meeting minutes aren't approved yet.

[194:13] just send us a copy of what you intend to send to council, and if there are rare occasions when you do have that like 24 h turnaround time, I think we can understand that, but there are times when it doesn't go to city council for months, and we still don't see it before it gets to city council. So I think it's a good thing to strive for, to give us an opportunity to review those summaries of our comments before they go to council. So I would like to see that concept included, with the understanding that you know we can't always do it for practical reasons. Yeah, like the one I gave as an example of. Well, and we don't want it to be unfair, for, like whoever act is able to check their email that day to give feedback, but nobody else. Yeah. Okay, yeah. I can add some some language in there and run it by his staff. I think, at the very least. if you're sending something to council, you should send us a copy, so that we can communicate to council about it. If we think it doesn't quite get it right, or there's something left out, we can testify before council, or send a letter to council.

[195:11] But just give us a heads up of here's what's going to counsel with your advice. Here's what we're telling them. Well, that can be kind of problematic for quasi judicial concerns, right? Like saying stuff outside the record. Now I will say, talking to council about it as a whole isn't the issue, but like being able to call council members and talking about things off the record for some of those quasi judicial. Right. Well, we still, we still shouldn't do that, but we could testify in front of council at a council meeting, or we could send a letter to the Council. You know, email Portal, that goes to all council members. And it's part of the public record. It just gives us an opportunity to to weigh in. If we are. Yeah, totally. I just wanted to make sure you guys aren't calling off the record about quasi additional matters. Great. Laura, what section are we talking about? We're in at 2.7. Sorry. It's kind of an awkward. It's straddling the lines of these 2 pages in front of you. Okay, where did I? Ideally, within 30 days.

[196:00] Yeah. So we added the ideally within 30 days for meeting minutes. And then Laura is talking about outside of meeting minutes. Count or staff will summarize what planning board has decided. In memos usually for call ups or other items. And so Laura was asking to see those in advance of going to council where possible. Yeah, if that makes sense to make sure that if you know same, I mischaracterize something that you all have said that you're able to come back and say, Hey, this isn't quite right. or to be able to address counsel. Does that sound good to everybody? Think so. And I can run it past that, too. Okay, I'll keep going in the interest of time. Okay. So orange, this one is Mark. Yeah, Mark added, so requested to have this permanent removal of the chair. So, to remove the chair from the position, the Board may vote to remove the chair with a vote of at least 4 members of the board. If the chair has removed a new chair must be selected as soon as practicable.

[197:04] So I just put in a note on the side. Roberts rules requires a 3 5th vote to remove a chair. Since we have 7 members, 4 is the closest number, and 4 is kind of the common number that we use. So unless anyone has a problem with that the other thing that can happen is council also has the ability to remove a chair or remove a board member. Sorry not the chair. Remove a board member in ordinance, and there has to be certain parameters met. If that happens. Okay. Hearing no objection. Section 3.1. Kurt had asked to have this removed for jurisdiction, and I will make sure to remove the jurisdiction in the chapter heading as well. So if if you all agree with removing this to Kurt's point, he said in his email, feel free to interrupt me, Kurt, if I mischaracterize you. But, he said in his email, you know, this is decided by charter by code. Do we need to have it in our rules? And no, the answer is, no, it's kind of a traditional thing to have in rules, but we don't need to have it. So I removed it.

[198:01] Unless anyone has any objections, we'll keep going. Okay. So the regular meeting and special meeting section. So a few of you had some comments on this. and I'm just going to speak to one little piece from the code perspective. So under the city charter, and under our code it says we have to have one regular meeting every month. and then we can call special meetings with 2 or more members. so the way that we've been doing that in practice is, we have more than one meeting a month. Obviously we meet more than once a month. but we still have this special meeting section to kind of align with code and practice, but it creates kind of an awkward process. So I'll go through some of these comments just really quickly. One thing that Kurt recommended was just to say, we shall have regular meetings at a time designated by the board to remove the 1st and 3, rd because we kind of do, sometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes we move it for example, during the election we moved to the second Tuesday, because the 1st Tuesday it was election day. So he suggested removing that

[199:11] And then Ml. Suggested adding a 4th Tuesday as a regular meeting. or add 4th Tuesday as an optional meeting scheduled at least one month in advance. So there's just kind of this scheduling, do we? Do we put the specific dates into the regular meeting, or do we just cross it out and say that the board will designate it with the chair and the planning director, and we'll designate a time. I mean, I kind of like the the rhythm of the 1st and 3rd and it's been the way it's been done for a long time. I I'm not not terribly passionate about it, but I don't see the reason to remove it necessarily. Yeah. Yeah, and I don't think it was to remove the actual dates. I think it was just to remove it from code. Sorry I interrupted you. Ml. Oh, no, I was. Gonna say, I'm I'm in agreement with that, I think. Keeping in the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays again, it adds some regularity to our

[200:01] our personal planning to know that we absolutely have meetings on those days, and the 4th the you know, whatever the the 3rd meeting of a month is always flexible, but we know to plan for those 2. Well, it's all staff, right. It's not only the board in this case, it's all staff that supports all this stuff. But then. I think, can I interrupt because I think the intent? Certainly my intent was not to change when our meetings happen at all. It was just to take it out of the board procedures, because I can't imagine anybody if they're wondering when the Planning Board meeting it. Next planning board meeting is they're not going to go to the board procedures and the it just gets out of sync when you know something changes. And so it just it didn't feel useful, and it felt potentially confusing to have it in this particular place. I have 0 intent to actually change when our meetings are.

[201:00] And and I I would also add, it wasn't that long ago that our meetings were on Thursday night, and so. Cool. On the 1st and 3rd Thursday and Council wanted to switch with us. So that would have taken actually amending our procedures versus saying clerically, Okay, guys, we're gonna meet on Tuesdays. Now, here's your new calendar, and we go forward. So I I'm with Kurt on this, that it's we don't want to change it from Tuesday, but it's it shouldn't be in our procedures. It was a big deal. It was a big deal for us to change that those meetings, though I mean that was a the the the last sort of like you know, who cares about it is like changing this and the rules right? I mean, it was a it was a. It was a task to change that from Tuesday to Thursday. That's why I think having it memorialize is not necessarily a bad thing. But like I said, I'm not terribly passionate about it either way. I just I just I don't see the reason to remove something that's not causing an issue.

[202:08] I I, personally don't see the need to have it in the the the board procedures because it is, you know, it's 1st and 3rd Tuesdays, plus sometimes 4th Tuesdays, plus sometimes things move around. So you know I'm I'm with Kurt and Mark that I don't see the need to have the specificity about the calendar in the procedures. I think it's enough for me to know that we're going to have. I'll cut you off. I'm a 4. Let's just move on and and take it out. It's fine. We'll take it out. Okay. so we're not going to do Ml, suggestion. Then, because she was talking about a 4, if that's okay, ml, just remove it. We won't talk about the 4.th Okay, cool sounds. Good. Okay. So special meetings. This is the one that has a little bit of confusion around it. So, just as a reminder. Section 76 in the Code says, the Board shall have regular meetings once a month, and special meetings may be called anytime by the chair and 2 members, and then an ordinance says it's very similar thing.

[203:11] so Mark was talking about. You know, this is like, I appreciate the clarification of special meetings. Why do we have it in here? This is why it's only because it's required in the code and the charter we could take it out, and if somebody wants to call a special meeting, it's still in our code and charter. It's not not not in there. We could leave it in there kind of up to you guys on what what you would want to do. I will say if somebody. If you know, if a few of you want to have a special meeting, you can email about setting up a special meeting, just can't email about the content. What that is. So that wouldn't by violate open meetings. Law! That was something you would ask Mark. Does it violate open meetings, law to start talking about having another meeting. It doesn't. As long as you're just talking about scheduling a meeting, not talking about the content, though I recognize that's a little bit confusing. Because why would you say, Hey, I want a special meeting, and not be able to say the reason, of course, but.

[204:00] So I I would say that the way it's worded now, in spite of my earlier concerns, sounds just fine, that yeah. Anyway, I. I support the current word. Okay. Alright. Well, it's Mark's comment, and he supports it. So let's move on. Sounds good. Okay. The next one is in notice. So this was marks to cross out the last sentence of notice, which says, however, fail to give such notice, shall not invalidate any action taken by the board on these items. yeah. Brilliant. And I didn't write exactly why you had thought that, mark. But. I I think it was at the time. Didn't we have an instance where we had a meeting? And the meeting was potentially improperly noticed. But we had the meeting anyway, and as a consequence there, there was a potential that

[205:06] one could say that all all the actions in that meeting were invalidated. And so I wanted to. Well, let's see, okay. Shall not involve in it. Yeah, that. That's that's interesting. Okay? Yeah. I'm not sure why I I struck that other than to say it could be argued that if you if you don't properly notice a meeting, then is your meeting valid. But I don't know. I I don't feel super strongly about. I'm not sure why, but struck that. And one of the things I mentioned in my comments was, we have a 10 day rule, and then we have a cure period under the land use code. If we violate the 24 h and posting violate of the open meetings law, then we would be in a bigger trouble. That's the 24 h one. So, yeah, so do you want to leave it in? Then.

[206:01] I'm now changed my mind. Leave it there. Sounds good. Okay. One of the things that was added, this is for Laura's proposal. So this is for distribution of materials. The board is asking here for when to have materials spread out to everybody, and she suggested not having, but not less than 5 days prior to the meeting to be able to have all of those materials. One thing that I did want to note is that sometimes we have members of the public who want to have materials, and I'm not sure if you guys want to allow that or not. But if they do bring in materials, we try to give them like a 24 h rule. Just because members of the public we try to treat a little bit more leniently. But I'm open to your thoughts on that. I'm totally fine. With that I was more thinking about our packets. We should have at least 5 days to look at our packets. Yeah. And we have to give you guys well, 10 days notice, right? At least, that the meeting is happening and the packets have changed. I know. And agenda materials. But does that? Is that broad? I mean, does that? Does that cover like public comment that we got in in emails and stuff like that.

[207:06] We so the way, and Thomas could probably weigh in on this more than I can. But I think we add in those public comments, and like kind of batch them in up to like 24 h before the meeting. Right. Republic comments that are emailed. And yeah. But then, does that conflict this edition. I think we could add something that says, except for things from the public need to be given 24 h in advance. That makes sense. Yeah, that's kind of what my comment talks about. So that would include emails. Make sure it includes email. good email. Okay. Hey? I'm sorry, but I I hate to pull us backwards. But back on the topic of special meetings I'm sorry if I missed this my dog needed to go out. Did we talk about the idea that the chair has veto power over special meetings because it says that the chair has to agree to have a special meeting. No. Mark decided to pull his thoughts on this. Yeah. So right here, it says, special.

[208:04] But we didn't talk about that. That aspect of it right? I think Mark pulled his thoughts about like, is it illegal to talk about having a special meeting outside of the meeting, but the way that it's written it it sounds like the chair has to concur, and that if, like, there were 4 of us that wanted to hold a special meeting. And I'm not talking about you, George. I think this is not personal at all. But imagine that there's a chair and 4 members of the Board want to have a special meeting, and the chair disagrees, and the chair that you know effectively has veto power over a majority of the Board. And that language comes from our charter and our code. It says the Board shall have regular special meetings, and special meetings may be called by any time by the chair, and 2 members. But I I think Laura's point is just before that. where it says with approval from the chair. So if the chair denies approval. then potentially, the Chair could deny staff.

[209:03] The planning director or other board members request for a special meeting. Got it. So this 1st sentence we could delete with approval from the chair and have the planning director be able to add special meetings, and then have board members be able to come together and have special meetings. Yes. Okay. So that's in the code that a special meeting can only be called by the chair plus 2 board members or the plan director. So. Section 76 of our charter says the Board shall have regular meetings once a month, and special meetings may be called at any time by the chair, and 2 members. Yep, and then they were. To the to the point we had earlier. Right? Like, I don't know that we should be too concerned about it, because the Board members can remove the chair right? That's true, that's true, but that. One was really bad. I mean, I just can't imagine that happening. But if it was happening like people could just turn on him. That's true. That's true. Okay, you make a good point, George.

[210:02] Okay, what are we talking about that so excited about calling a special meeting share. You never know right. Don't anticipate that it could happen, but we have. There have been boards in the city that have had some pretty severe disruption about some of their members, etc. Yeah. Okay, so we're moving into order section 4.4 in red. We have Kurt saying the roll call. So there's roll call in there. I can roll call is mostly for the record to know that everybody's present or that there's at least a quorum present. So Kurt recommended saying, Roll, call by the chair is verbal accounting for each present member. I assume you mean that instead of like calling out each number member saying, Here, here to just have the chair say. Yeah. It was just an attempt to save a few seconds. Yeah, that sounds good unless anyone has any heartbreed about that. Okay. So the next one is the indigenous land acknowledgement. So you guys got

[211:03] a presentation earlier from Pam. There needs to be some discussion. Just so, you know, with the city attorney, just to make sure that it's okay, if you guys do want to move forward with this. But I want to hear if you want to add this or not. This was Ml suggestion. So I don't know what the best way that's yes, this is. I think that the way that it was that Pam presented the intent of the land acknowledgement is that it not become a kind of wrote acknowledgement, but rather it it. It adds substance and meaning to whatever matters at hand. So I am not sure how we would remind ourselves to consider. Is this appropriate for an indigenous land? Acknowledgement or not? I think that to me that's what the presentation came down to is that it's up to the planning board to determine when it might be appropriate to include the indigenous land acknowledgement.

[212:11] Yeah, could we just say something like the board is encouraged to include the indigenous land acknowledgement when it deems it appropriate, based on the docs being discussed, or I don't know something like that. As I agree, it shouldn't be a road thing where everybody just tunes out while we do the indigenous land acknowledgement. Right. Who would decide that if you did that. would you have like a vote at the beginning? Do you know what I mean like? How would you. Yeah, yeah. Oh, I didn't. I think I think the the Board would make that decision as to whether it would be the project the review at hand would warrant. I I would consider that we leave it.

[213:02] It's kind of like our new call up procedures that a board member would say tonight's topic, I think, warrants a land acknowledgement, and I, I would, you know, seek a second on this. And and if 2 board members say Yes, I tonight warrants a land acknowledgement. And we, you know, I have the version we'd like to read, or that that planning board has approved. Then then we go forward with it. But I think something along that lines. I don't. I don't want it to come down to, you know, a majority vote or whatever. But anyway, that I would say something along those lines of at least the person promoting it would have a have a second, and then we proceed. I really like that idea. I think that

[214:00] that process allows us to take time to thoughtfully. Maybe craft the language to be specific to what we're addressing in that meeting. But I also don't want it to be something that adds another hour and a half onto our calls. So hold on. So maybe have, like some draft, but you can amend it if you need to a little bit. Is that right now? I wouldn't. I mean. I thought about this a lot, and and I'll say that you know one of the projects that I worked on, probably about a decade ago, was tribal consultation with 3 forests in California, Sierra Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests in the Sierras, and I really take to heart that it shouldn't. Speaking about indigenous issues should not be something that's done lightly or by routine, and that it's it's offensive to have a land acknowledgement that is not tied to action. Right? But it's not tied to something that you intend to do at that meeting.

[215:03] I think that's something that's very difficult to determine at the outset of a meeting before we even have public comment. Right? Like roll call. Okay, let's think about the indigenous land acknowledgement. So I would take it out of this section entirely, which is about the order of the agenda, and not not make it like a check the box. Are we going to do this or not? And make it more of something that either staff can bring forward in their memo to say, Hey, here's an here's an issue that touches upon indigenous land issues, and maybe our our treaties or agreements, or mous with tribes. And it could also be something that individual board members want to bring forward in our comments or our questions to staff. I think it's probably rarely going to be something that we consider with a Site Review or a concept review, because those are criteria based decisions and we don't have a criterion that's about indigenous. You know. How we relate to our indigenous history and the current and past indigenous peoples of our land

[216:06] that that feels inappropriate for a quasi judicial criterion based decision when we don't have any criteria that we can actually use to do something about this right. But I think it could have something to do with our legislative issues. and I think it would be up to individual board members to to bring it forward, and I think any of us could bring it forward if we are so moved because we think it's going to impact how we speak about and think about that legislative issue. So, Laura, do you have a thought on how? That if it becomes something that okay, we do it. If we so deem it to be so. Where? Where do people know that that's a something to consider, especially thinking about new people coming on? How? How? How is that?

[217:03] how is that option? And I can think of one project so that I've seen and that was the civic right, the civic plan where we were trying to memorialize some of the history. The indigenous history of that of that locale. That would have been appropriate for that project. so you know it might not be very often, but when it does come up, how would how would we remember that that this tool I like that she called it a tool. That this tool is available. So I would think that it's something that Staff could flag for us, that if they ever were bringing forward a memo about an item like the civic. I think that's a great example of the civic, proposed civic park historical designation that we could flag a land acknowledgement in that memo, and I also think that it could be part of our board training that this is something that we should be thinking about

[218:05] in terms of our role as planning board members and thinking about how we represent the needs of the city and the values of the city and all of the people of the city in our decision making and if if it's not something that's flagged by staff, but one of us picks up on it. I think we could just Add that to our comments right? And I think that that's something that staff can flag for us. That that is available to us is this city's indigenous land. Acknowledgement, statement. Land here somewhere. Does it land in this document somewhere. That's a great question that would make. Consider. Sorry. Okay, do you mind if I comment? I I I 1st off. I appreciate the the land acknowledgement and Ml. Bringing it up. I'm supportive of what Laura is saying here, because actually, the civic center is an interesting one to discuss for a moment, which wasn't there an acknowledgement when we were talking about that about the and I forget the the name of the group that was displaced from the civic area

[219:14] as part of some, some things that had happened in the past in Boulder. Jungle. Yeah, they clean. Okay. Erin. So jungle. That's kind of my general concern, is. There was a place, and I don't know who flagged that or what how that was part of the presentation, but it was in there, and I think there were people informed about that. And so that's an example of a of another group that deserved an acknowledgement. And so my question is sort of how do you? How do you parse that where you put this in, but not that. and leaving it a little bit. I mean, the great thing about being board members is that we're all 7 opinionated individuals that are coming at things at different lenses. And I do appreciate. You know, I think there's a role right where we're in trainings and things like that, where, as we acclimate to being board members. We get indoctrinated in a lot of this stuff.

[220:10] Because that's helpful. And and education for a lot of us, myself, for sure. So I that because I didn't when you, when you mentioned the jungle within the civic center, that that's exactly my concern is that you have other other things that we also should be acknowledging. And how do you? How do you record something in our rules? Document. for one thing, but not others. And how do you bring it up? And and can't we, as board members who are opinionated individuals and and get trainings, you know, bring them up on our own without having to put it in this document. We could. Just as a proposal we could. If you want to keep it in this document, we could keep it as just like an option and later in the meeting minutes I could come up with something that says like. this is an option that Board members can take dumb.

[221:01] I don't want to direct Staff too much in the planning board rules, because it's really about your meetings and your roles. But, we could put something in there as well. If you still want to keep it in the rules. or we could take it out of the rules and figure out another better place for it. I think that there's benefit to having it in the rules in the way that you just reference, not in a particular place, not tied to a particular thing, but as a reminder that this is something that we should be thinking about. On really, every project. Is this an appropriate time to have an a land acknowledgement? If so, what sort of land acknowledgement? So I would. I would be supportive of having it in there, but not in this location. Yeah. And just to echo what Laura, Laura said, we have to be careful with quasi-judicial because of the criterion. Yeah. Ml, did you? Very sorry. Of seeing what laurel comes up with, and then we can have another discussion about it.

[222:01] Yeah. Yes, yes, I got my thumb up to that, Claudia. Oh, thank you for volunteering. Yeah, of course. Yeah, we'll get. We'll get through this document. And that's important to add. okay. So in the order, the next thing that was added. If it's okay, if we move forward, Laura suggested, adding an agenda review into our order of things. So I don't know, Laura, if you want to touch on that tonight might have been a good example of a rearrangement of agendas. But. Yeah, I think it's just good to when you start the meeting. Just say, here's what we're gonna cover tonight. There's gonna be a you know, a call up on this. You know, we're gonna have one call up and and one you know, public hearing on this item. And then we're gonna have a matters on this item, just a couple of sentences to give people a sense of, what are we covering tonight? Because a lot of people. It's a good reminder to us. And then, if there are members of the public who are sitting in, and they kind of know where we're going. It's just a good role roadmap. It's just kind of a standard procedure.

[223:02] Great hearing, no objection. I'm going to continue to scroll down. Okay. So one of the things that was brought up by Mark was public participation and citizen engagement. So he asked about, you know. participation regarding size and flag and size of the flag and blocking cameras. I know that's part of it. There's also I don't know if you guys know, but there's also going to be a discussion about when we need to move virtually because of disruptions and things like that that's happening this week at council. So I think this is kind of an ongoing discussion at council. So one thing I wanted to ask you all is, if you wanted to add some of this to our rules. Or if it's something that we can add later, or how you feel about adding more rules around public participation. I, if if Council still going through this and sort of figuring it out, we have not had real disturbances, so my suggestion would be. Let's wait till they sort of sort that out. And then, if it's something that we feel like needs to be added, then then maybe that's the opportunity. Once you know, some other people think about it a little bit more depth than maybe we are, because we haven't had those same types of disruptions yet.

[224:22] I agree with that. I mean, I would be okay with just incorporating it by reference and saying, You know, planning board will follow councils. You know, rules of decorum, unless otherwise specified, or something like that in that way. Whatever Council does, we're mirroring it, and we haven't had. We have not had the kind of disruptions that they have had, but. I think that's a good. I think that's a good thought, Laura. I think that makes sense. And I'll go through and just make sure there's nothing conflicting, too, if that's what you guys decide. Sorry. Appreciate Laura's approach to this as well, because I think

[225:02] I think, in general, unless there's something egregious coming out of city council in their rules. There's actually some benefits to consistency across the boards for members of the public. And if they change it this week, then it'll automatically get added. Then, so okay. I'm going to keep scrolling. There was one change in 5.3 which, said the secretary of their designee, shall explain the hearing procedure. Oh, and I missed one in 5.2. So just some wordsmithing ones that that slide should be submitted to the Board secretary at least 24 h in advance. So some stuff around that from Laura. So thank you for that. The next one, where there was a few changes was in the use of chat function. So on, Zoom, there's a little chat function as we're dealing with tonight. Laura wanted to make sure it talked about that it was during the board meeting. That we include question and answer and it doesn't include like providing motion language. So if which we have done before as well, somebody will provide for motion language to Thomas to put on the screen. That doesn't count as

[226:07] this kind of prohibition blanket prohibition on chats. Not seeing any changes. I'm gonna go to 5.7. Okay, so Laura, suggestion here. So she's in green 5.7. I think this is meant to be specific to members of the public. The chair, for example, can call a meeting break or recess, which is a delay. I said in there that there may be circumstances which a board Member staff member is causing the delay or interference. I can't imagine any of you would do that, but if in the future there is somebody who's causing delay or interference, I suggested adding activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited unless permitted by the chair was kind of my way of allowing the chair to decide if that was okay or not. But I'm open to your suggestions. I actually have a slightly different suggestion, because again, we could have a troublemaker chair which we don't. George, you're wonderful. But we could have a you know, a chair that is leading the charge of this meeting shall not stand, or or something like that. So I I would probably say, activities that disrupt delay, or otherwise interfere with the normal and orderly conduct of board business are prohibited.

[227:16] I would not give the chair the option to disrupt or display delay. The meeting. When contacted business. Can you say that one more time for me. Activities that disrupted sorry late at night, and I'm tripping over my tongue activities that disrupt delay or otherwise interfere with the normal and orderly conduct of board business are prohibited. And taking a break doesn't interfere with the normal conduct of board business. Okay. I don't see any objections to that, so I will continue on quorum this was added in by Mark in the orange. So, if quorum is not established, the board cannot convene the meeting. If a quorum is not maintained during the meeting, the board must suspend the meeting until a quorum is established, or until next regularly scheduled meeting. I think that's been practiced. That's also what Robert's rules say. I'm pretty sure. So it seems to align. That which I think is what you were going for. Mark. Okay.

[228:20] great. I did change the next section to be 2 members instead of one member. So that's why there's some yellow highlighting that's just my commentary. There was a little bit of change from Mark in this one. So if you want to change your decision. So say, during a meeting, you're gonna call up an item. Kurt agrees with me. We're gonna call up this item. And then I later decide in writing via email to the Planning board that I don't want to call this up anymore. I can make that announcement to the board via email, or in a public meeting and then another staff member could decide to call it up, and then it would be 2 again. So it's kind of clarifying that process that email is allowed, is it?

[229:02] If there's any questions on that, I'll keep going. I know this is small. Okay? So the one suggestion Mark had in public hearing guidelines was to add the question, do you have any expert contacts before quasi additional hearing staff believes this is covered under matters to disclose language provided here. So there is some language there, but we could phrase it to say, instead of the chair shall ask each member of the board if they have any matters to disclose, we could give a specific question, but it seems like that's already been addressed there. because it says the chair shall ask each member of the board if they have any matters to disclose. Am I making. Shouldn't we? Instead of the chair asking that shouldn't, shouldn't that? Because because if that's right, we we should be doing that at every public hearing. And the I guess the question is, shouldn't that just be like a a procedure like Forget about the board asking each individual member? But just if we add, if we have a public procedure around that

[230:07] that's just built into the agenda. You mean. So it's just people that volunteer that because that's a requirement of a board member to disclose those things at a public hearing. If you're asking me, I I think it could either be the chair asking or it could be a board member presenting it. Either way, we need to make space for. I like the idea of it being incumbent upon a board member to say that they have an ex parte interaction, because then it takes personal responsibility for that person right where in the alternative which I've forgotten, multiple, including this evening? Right? I mean, like I would have to go through or like whatever chair would have to ask people. It just seems like that should be the the personal responsibility of the Board member and it should be incumbent upon them, and in their training. I think either way it works. Either the Board member says it or the chairs ask the question, so whichever one you prefer.

[231:01] That would go. As long as it gets addressed. Anyone feels. I I just I just think people need to take personal responsibility. Conversely, I I would say, I think that in all of us, if we are, ask a question. it prompts thinking, and it prompts a response. So I don't think you should go down the line and say, Mark, did you have any expectation, Kurt, ex parte communication? But more just. Does any board member have any ex parte communication or conflict of interest? Hearing none. we'll proceed. But I think it. It is a prompt that if there's something that is questionable, or you know, a board members unsure about it, it gives them an opening and an opportunity to default that stuff and makes them think about it. But

[232:03] that's what I thought. I'm just. The record. I agree with that. Oh, sorry! Go ahead. Yes. sorry. I was just gonna say for the record. That's the way it's done in landmarks for. Is the chair asks, or the chair. Yeah? Asked, does anyone have any ex parte context to do divulge. I would just say, as a matter of facilitation, if the chair does not ask that question, then it's upon the Board members to interrupt the chair between when they read the title of the Public Hearing item, and then they ask Staff to give the presentation. I just think it for facilitation. It flows better, and is more practical for the chair just to ask, and then we move on rather than people having to make an introduction. What is. Yeah, I think it's also important for transparency and public accountability that someone actually asks the question. It shows that the quest that that responsibility is always there, whereas, if nobody has matters to disclose on a particular measure, the moment passes, and there's not that moment of visibility to the public. So I think it's important that the question be asked.

[233:08] And I guess the thing that I would wonder is, the chair shall ask each member of the board versus, just, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the way the way market you framed it. That's great. Okay. Great. Okay. And I'm gonna leave it a little bit broader if that's okay with Chapter 7 entitled to, because it is ex parte. But it's also, if there's anything else that's come up like you have a financial interest. That's the moment you need to reveal it. Okay. great I added, in this witnesses shall not be required to testify under oath or affirmation. That's something that's in the council procedures, and it's not something that we do so just wanted to clarify for anyone who's coming that they know they don't have to give oath or affirmation. Okay. So the next one this was something that

[234:02] that we kind of added. It's something that's been mentioned off and on. We're not saying we have to have this in here, but there's a section that, says, the Board requests that, prior to speaking during the hearing that members of the public disclose any financial or business relationship or membership or affiliation related to the applicant project or neighbors, specifically including any paid compensation. I, it's something that we have had in the past, been added, Mark suggested, providing more specific language. I'm not sure if you want it in there at all. And if you do, do you does this sound good? Do you want something different? I I like it the way we're not. I like it. And I took this from a previous meeting. I didn't. This wasn't my magic. So it sounds like, it looks good. Okay, preach. What? Yep, I wanna clarify. So we're adding, what's in yellow there? No, I'm sorry. In purple. We're adding this whole section right here.

[235:01] starting with the board, request that yep. sorry I didn't highlight the whole thing when I commented so. So As a matter of procedure, a a public, a person from the public commenting needs to say. are they a neighbor to the project. So it's just a request they don't have to say anything right. Yes, the board requests that, because I don't think we can compel that kind of speech from somebody. Okay. Okay. So, okay, so this would be a case where the chair prior to public comment would elaborate on this, or I mean not not speak at length. But you're going to basically state this language. Okay. Yeah. And one of the one of the things I did wonder if you want it to be just business interest or any sort of financial interest, because there could be other kinds of financial interest. Not something we have to answer right now, but something to think about.

[236:10] Well, it says it disclose any financial or business relationship. Right does not cover. Yeah, so do you want it to be that broad? Or do you want it to just be business related. I think financial, because there have been rumors in the past where that people are actually hiring some people for public comment, for instance. So the fact that it's just whether whether or not that's true. Who knows? But like. I think, financial interest is important one way or the other, it's like the paid compensation at the end. Okay, we can leave it as is. I don't know. I I just I feel like it's very complicated to try to determine like, what is a financial or business relationship? What is an you know, who really is affected financially by a project?

[237:04] I mean, I I think if we just required every, if we could require everyone to somehow state it, that that would be better. But I it just feels very fuzzy to me and potentially inequitable. So I have some concerns about it. I'm okay with the Fuzzy, because it's not a required thing. It's up for interpretation, so they can decide. Kurt, can you clarify what your equity concern would be? I'm not sure I understand that part. My equity concern is just that some people take this kind of thing as a requirement, you know, when they're encouraged to make this kind of a disclosure. They interpret it as a requirement, and other people don't

[238:02] in in the, in the exact same situation, but because of, you know, their background of their personality, or whatever they don't consider it a requirement. And and they would say, Oh, no, that I don't need to do that, or that doesn't apply to me, or that sort of thing. So to me, that feels begins to feel inequitable. We can chew on it, too. We don't have to have an answer right now. Well do we need to chew on it? Because who? Who doesn't want it in there? That's the question. So I have concerns, as I said, but it it sounds like no one else does, and or it's not clear to me that anyone else does, in which case we should probably. Okay, hearing none. I'll keep scrolling. Yeah. Okay, so on. Materials for public hearing.

[239:04] Mark added this clarifying clause, any documentary evidence or materials for hearing, including any documentation for public comment on the hearing must be submitted 24 h in advance. So, again getting the secretary materials that are going to be presented 24 h in advance from the public. The next section was changed by Laura. A member shall generally relinquish the floor if they have addressed the pending issue, and upon request of the chair, the chair may permit speaking time for each member before providing another chance to speak for any other member. I think this is kind of going with practice. Is that what you were doing like kind of aligned with how we do things? Okay, yeah. And this is the idea that if somebody has got a lot to say, they might say a little bit and then yield the floor, and we'll come back to you after everybody's had a turn. And maybe I didn't say that very elegantly. But that's the concept. Great. No, no! Monopolizing the floor for too long, that other people have a chance.

[240:02] Or you might be saying the same thing as somebody else is. Gonna say, yeah. Right, and I'm definitely guilty. The next one is parliamentary procedures for motion. So Mark had some changes in here. So the 1st thing that is kind of changed at the very beginning, is allowing the chair to do a round of discussion or kind of a straw poll, which I know Mark has used frequently in some of his when he's led. So you guys have seen how this operates, and this is kind of allowing the chair to do that and feel free to mark, to interrupt me if I again mischaracterize, or you want to add more. Okay, great. And then the next one after a second is given. He's saying that all motions and amendments must follow Robert's rules. Board members are encouraged to prepare motions in advance and writing and in writing. If in a different form or amendments to stop proposed motion, language. So I'm I'm strongly opposed to that suggestion because I I feel like It's our job to listen to the public and the applicant and staff.

[241:05] and not come in with fixed ideas. And the idea! I think it's I think it's counter to I think it would would sow some distrust in the public potentially, that we would be coming in with motions prepared. Without listening to them. So I would be. I'd be opposed to that. For that reason I think we get more information in our meetings, and need to be able to be malleable. I'm sure agreement with that. My dissent to that is that many times, if we're if we are having a quasi judicial hearing. we are basing our decision on. Does the application meet the criteria, as stated in the code?

[242:02] And it is, and people coming in and saying it's gonna block my view. The too many cars, etc. may influence us, but in fact. we get a packet in advance. We should be studying the packet, and there's certainly nothing wrong with anticipating. that, I'm going to make a motion, and I'm going to carefully word my motion language so that if I want to carry on with making a motion. It's ready. I can email it to Thomas, and we can in an expeditious way. get on with debating that that motion. And I think there, we've gotten into trouble at times, trying to craft motions and conditions very late in the evening.

[243:05] where and and doing so we haven't. We haven't really thought things through. And so what I'm saying here is that if you think you're going to make a motion, then think about it in advance craft it, you can always edit it. You can always decline to include it or make it. But think about it in advance. Enough that we don't flounder around asking Staff to try to draft motions for us. I think that's very bad practice. Can I just suggest, I think, that there's a middle ground here? I think we all agree with both of these principles, that, on the one hand, if you think you might be making a motion, you're pretty sure about it. Come prepared and do some thinking in advance, but, on the other hand, be flexible to listen to staff and the applicant, and what and the evidence of the hearing right? I think we can all agree with both of those things. So if I could suggest, maybe a couple of

[244:08] small language tweaks to say something like. where possible board members are encouraged to begin drafting motions in advance, etc. Etc. Right. I just don't know why you need. I just don't know why you need to tell people that like I mean, like, like, we're, we're all adults. I just that we're starting to get into like incur, you know, like, like. I don't really see the benefit of that. Like people are gonna people are going to do what they do anyways, right at the end of the day, like someone's gonna come, Mark's gonna come in with a prepared motion, because that's his style. Someone else is going to have a different style and say, I'm not going to do anything until I listen to the public, and I think that should be to a certain extent the discretion of the Board member right like, why are we? And like, what does that mean? Like, what is the what is the actionable item by quote, unquote, encouraging someone? What does that even mean? What's the what's what's the what's the recourse.

[245:07] Yeah, I I agree with George here. I do try to prepare motions in advance. Speak for exactly the reasons that mark outline to try to make it more efficient and make sure that I'm getting down what my thoughts are in advance. But I also come in with an open mind, and I'm prepared to change. But I don't. I don't think that it needs to be in our rules of procedure. I do think that Mark makes a good point that we are. We have access to staff to help us draft motions, and I think that's a good point to make that that is legit and allowed. And so so maybe it's something more like board members may work with staff to draft motion language in advance, or something like that, just so that it's explicit that that is allowed. The other thing I'll say here is that the my goal here maybe, could be fulfilled just with staff training of board members during during the training period that that staff provides for new board members, and and that it becomes culturally

[246:20] more of an expectation that you're prepared to make motions, and and you're not floundering about, but that it's it doesn't necessarily appear in our rules of procedure. It's like good practice versus rules of procedure. Yeah, I would support that. It's a it's a learning curve, you know. The 1st month or year of being on the board is like what make a motion, and you know you learn by being trained and by watching and by figuring out how to best incorporate

[247:05] the thinking that you feel needs to happen. But yeah, I I would be in agreement that it's not included in our procedures. I'm okay striking it. I I love staff to train us better on it, for all all new members. Great. I will write that down, and I'm sure Charles is listening. Okay. So the next paragraph. Mark makes a suggestion that while the Board members may discuss matters and key issues, debate should be reserved for debating motions and amendments to the motion. That's the 1st sentence I know it's kind of hard to read. There's a lot of changes in this section. If I don't hear any objections. I'll keep moving.

[248:01] Kurt suggested, striking the next little strike out there, and Laura supports this, and that is only the member who made the motion must vote in favor of the motion unless the motion has been substantively amended. I assume this is just if they change their minds during debate, that they're allowed to to vote against it. But please feel free to speak to that. If you have different thoughts. Right. My, my feeling was that it? It prevented people from yeah being open minded in debate. Great. Okay? And then the next section. Mark added this. when conditioning or commenting on a quasi-judicial matter, amendments may be proposed to the main motion or additional motions may be made depending on the intent of the motion maker and the board. Additional motions may be advantageous when the board is divided over a condition, ie. The board supports the project as a whole, but is divided on a proposed condition. This is kind of going back to motions, drafting, trying to get the motion to, or any conditions to reflect the criteria so that it could

[249:04] meet our site. Review criteria, I assume, Mark, but please feel free to to correct my stumbling. If you'd like. No, I I think I think you've explained it, and and I still support this. This change. Okay, I did recommend striking the last sentence, because we already say that Robert's rules applies. That's fine! Just so we're not repeating ourselves, but. Yes. Everyone. Okay with that. Okay, I'm moving on to effective votes. I added in this last sentence, just to reflect some code language. If a member of the Board is present in a meeting and refuses to vote, the members vote shall be recorded in the affirmative, just to put everybody on notice that that's required by a code I thought it'd be good to have in our rules. Laurel is. Is that the same for Council? I thought Council was. If a Board member refused to vote, it's a no vote. Let me look at the.

[250:01] It's 2, 3, 1. That's what I recall, too. Mark. 2, 3, 1, yeah. An abstention is a no. It's refusing and abstaining the same thing. Essentially in in practical terms. Yes, that's my understanding. Yeah. So this section only applies to boards or commissions. So 2, 3, 1 f is the code reference. It says, if a member of a city board or commission is present in a meeting and refuses to vote. The members vote shall be recorded in the affirmative. Oh! So Council may do something different. They're not required to follow that interesting. That is interesting. But is not your counts again? Wait, I'm I'm very confused by that. So so because I've I've been at meetings where we've had people abstain, and that becomes a no. Where's that is present at the meeting and refuses to vote? I think that might be different than abstains. That was my question. Are they the same thing?

[251:03] Number 9. Tenure? No. So the rest of the paragraph says, no member is excused from voting, except on approving minutes of a meeting that the member did not attend or creating. Or if there's a conflict. or on consideration of such members, conduct in the business or board of Commission, the term present, as used in this section, means active participation either in person or remotely, if allowed by restricted Board of commission. Rules of Procedure. Interesting. So if you're present, you must vote. Yeah, it doesn't say anything about abstain. We could add, abstain in there if you would like to. I mean, that's the definition of abstain. Yeah. Decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion is to refuse to vote. I mean, that is what abstaining means. Yeah, interesting. According to, Webster. Interesting. Yeah, interesting that it's in our code. I found it and realized it wasn't referenced in our rule. So I added it on this roundabout? Yeah. Good to know. Yeah.

[252:06] Okay. So I asked for just a quick discussion on on Kurt and Laura's comments related to withdrawals to clarify the section. The sentence from Kurt's question has been highlighted in green, and Laura's suggestion, or has been highlighted. Laura's suggestions are added in green. So Laura's says, here the app can unilaterally withdraw their application. and 4 more board members must approve the withdrawal request in order for it to be a valid withdrawal. Kurt. Suggestion is. or Kurt's question apologies, jumping around a little bit. It's getting a little late. Kurt's question. In the event, an applicant is not present at the regularly scheduled hearing of the item, the applicant has not communicated the request to withdraw. The board shall dispose of the agenda item in such a manner that seems deemed fair.

[253:00] This seems broad and vague to me. Is it only referring to the case of an application that would otherwise be denied? In any case, can we be more specific about the manners that would be appropriate. So I highlighted what he means by manners. So it's in this last sentence. It says, in the event that an applicant is not present at the regularly with scheduled hearing item, and they've not communicated the requested draw the board shall dispose of the agenda item in such a manner as it may deem fair, so I think there was some confusion about what exactly that means. I mean, yeah, does that mean we can approve the project as submitted? We can deny the project. We can put a condition on it like. We can do anything as long as if the applicants not there. Is it fair? That's strange. Hmm. yeah. And I think this is copied over from the original 1987 rule. So even though language is a little bit odd. yeah. I mean. It seems to me that if an applicant doesn't show up to their own hearing, then then we should not have the hearing.

[254:00] Maybe postpone until a date certain or something. Well, on the other hand, if the applicant has been properly noticed and fails to appear, then suddenly, if we just say, Well, we're gonna have to continue this to some other time. Then it could be to an applicants advantage to just not show. And a lot, you know, we've scheduled a hearing staffs on their work. And and the applicant says, Yeah, I don't feel like doing it now, or I see an advantage. George is gonna be out of town next week, and I'm gonna I'll I'll resubmit later. I I think it's if the applicant fails to appear. Then the then the board goes ahead with whatever their business is. And staff. The staff's recommendation, and the evidence that we've been submitted. Is that a due process concern.

[255:02] Since they haven't been heard, I think. Well, if you deny the application, it could be right if they haven't had a chance to respond to your. Envision, it. Edition it. If you approve it right out, then I don't. There probably wouldn't be a due process concern, but. So. But that's a problem, if our only option is to approve it. In that case. To approve it or postpone it, so maybe. I can't imagine you go ahead with it hearing, not knowing if we're going to approve it. And then we spend all that time on the hearing and the applicants not there and then. Our only our only option is either approve it or defer it. We're just going to defer it. I would never take that risk. Yeah, I'm gonna waste 2 h of my time and. So maybe we can change it to continuous continuance. I'm thinking that that makes the most sense that way.

[256:01] It just automatically continued, rather than us, trying to figure out. What we can do with it. Yeah, I think. Well, I suppose at some point. I understand. We could just dismiss it right? Because if the applicant continually doesn't show, we shouldn't have to keep continuing it, because that's the only option that we have, we could just dismiss it and say. we're not going to hear this until the applicant shows. It's like a decision tree, like, if we're going to approve it, then we may. If we're trick 1, 2, if it's like the second continuation, then we have an option to dismiss? Or do we need to be that specific. Or or we continue it once upon a second. No show. The agenda item shall be disposed of. The agenda item in such a manner as it deems fair and equitable. That sentence on the second. If they don't show twice, then we're we're we're we're moving.

[257:06] It would be, I I think we we just put the one deferral in front of this in front of this final sentence. Yeah, okay. So at the second time. Yeah. That should matter well and fair and equitable could also be good, because there may be a reason they didn't show up, and you know what that is, or there may be more. Okay. Great. Something that can be voted on. Let's see, to determine what fair is like is vague. Okay. let me determine what fair is. Yeah, I think. Well, it seems like the 2 options would really be to continue the item again or to dismiss it. Right? That's what it sounds like.

[258:00] If the person doesn't show up twice. In theory you could approve right. There's no risk in that. Yeah, in theory you could, though it would be a little bit weird to like, hear, or to approve an application without hearing. Yeah. Yeah. Getting your questions answered all of that. Yeah. Yeah. What does it mean to dismiss? Does that mean? The project is denied, and they have to resubmit a new package if they want, you know, go through the whole application process again, if they want to open it up again. like what does dismiss mean? Is that different than a denial? I think I could be wrong about this, so not to call on Charles at 1045 at night. But, Charles, please feel to weigh in. I think there's a way to pause it in intergov to like pause the whole thing, and then they could come back in and and redo it. I know we can do that on the staff level, but I don't know how we would do that on a board level. Sorry, Charles, that Laurel, you could do more research on and come back to us. Yeah. It's certainly something we can address on the intergal side. That's not an issue.

[259:01] Hmm! So I don't think they would have to reapply the whole. No, not at all. They would just have to give us a really good reason as to why they didn't show up twice. Exactly. Well, I would trust Laurel to rewrite this if needed, and bring it back to us. Okay. And I just want to point out that the the changes I made above reflect what I think this was trying to say. But I'm not sure this is actually right. So I just want to get verification from staff. I think this is trying to say that the applicant can unilaterally just withdraw their application as long as the hearing has not yet closed, so they could be in the middle of the hearing. Not like the way it's going and say, we want to withdraw our application. But if the Board is deliberating, the applicant can request to withdraw, but 4 or more board members must approve that request. Is that is that what this was supposed to say, or am I? Do I have this wrong. I believe that is what it's supposed to say. But if if it's alright with all of you, that that's what it's supposed to say we could change it, but

[260:06] that's what I understood it to say. Your clarifications helped me. What? What does it mean to say before the hearing is closed? Is that the whole meeting, or is that just the. That's when the chair says the public hearing is closed. Comment has gone out. Both sides have been heard. It's before your deliberation. Before deliberation. Okay? So before deliberation starts, they can just say, you know what we withdraw. But after we start deliberating, we have to agree to let them withdraw. 4 of us, too. Which maybe like, if it's going really badly. And all of you are saying how much you hate the project, or something they may want to try to withdraw at that moment when you're deliberating. That could be a moment where that would happen. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, we haven't seen this a lot. Okay, I'll keep going decisions, Kurt suggested.

[261:02] you know, we write out when we deny a decision we have to write out and give the reasons why. A lot of it has to do with for legal reasons. But he suggested removing approval, because we, I assume, because we have dispositions or other reasons or other ways, that we show approval. Kind of cleaning up the language. Yeah, I mean, generally, if in order to approve a site review application, for example, it needs to meet the Site Review criteria. So by definition. It meets the Site Review criteria. There's nothing more to really be said. If it if it doesn't meet the Site Review criteria, then it's appropriate to say it doesn't meet 9, 2, 14 h blah! Blah blah! But if it if it meets it, then it meets it, and there's nothing more to be said? Is my feeling. Yeah. And usually what we do when it doesn't meet it is, we'll say, can you continue this hearing while we write up what you guys have said, and then you'll go through. And yeah, for Mason and Claudia. I don't know if you've been to a denial yet, but we usually have some sort of postponement to the next hearing, so we can formally write it up and get everybody's approval on that.

[262:07] Okay, hearing no objections to that the next is adjournment. Speaking of, we're almost there to adjournment. And so Laura suggested adjournment of meeting must be done by motion, and a vote of the majority of members present. I also said we could have the chair do it kind of up to you guys. How you want to do that. I know that, Laura said. Well, what happens if there's an unruly chair, so maybe it's good to have a vote. I'm not sure. I think as long my goal is just that the chair obtains the permission of the majority of the board before we adjourn right, and so they can do that by a verbal check-in. And if nobody objects that I'm fine with that it doesn't have to be a formal roll call vote. I just think it needs to be. A majority of the Board agrees to a chair. Yeah, I like that better than a motion and a vote, just because only because it just takes more time. And like. like, right now, like I can't think about taking like a a motion and a vote on just trying to get out of here.

[263:01] Thank you. I mean, hab does it, and it takes 5 seconds like it's not. It's not a big deal used to it. But again. again, my, my goal is a majority agrees to adjourn because we we have had issues in the past where the chair wanted to leave, and the majority wanted to keep working. Okay, I can adjust that language to kind of reflect the the more informal approach. And that is all I have for for this. I make a motion to adjourn? No, I'm just kidding. Emotions will commend Laurel for her fine work on this, you know. Thank you, Laura. Bye, you really appreciate it. You'll work. 40 years too late! I will get you a clean well, it'll solve that. It's but a clean version of this. You guys can review it and let me know if you have additional changes. Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, I think that's all we had on matters. Do we have any other things, Charles? You're on the screen.

[264:02] Nothing from Steph this evening. Just wanted to wish everybody a Happy New Year and thank Thomas for the quick pivot to get us remote tonight. So shaping up to be another busy year. So. Yeah, thank you. It's. Briefly, we've we've talked again and again about are we gonna schedule a retreat? Can we just put something on the calendar? And then that will be our forcing function to figure out what we want to have a retreat about. Thomas and I spoke with that today. He's going to reach out to the Retreat Committee, and I think the 1st thing we have to do is decide whether or not we want to have it during a regular meeting, or whether or not the Board wants to have it during the regular workday, or on a weekend. That works. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, anyone have anything else before we adjourn? Do we have a majority? Thank you for asking.

[265:00] Here, everyone everybody. Have a good night. Thanks, bye. 2025.