April 1, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Am ready. Okay. it is 6 o'clock on April first.st Welcome to the city of Boulder planning board meeting tonight. This is a hybrid meeting. We have 6 members of the Planning board in attendance with George Boone being absent. and our 1st order of business, according to our agenda, is the swearing in of our new planning board member. Mason Roberts. So I believe that's done by Hella, the city attorney, and if if you already executed an oath and filed it with Amanda. Then then that's already taken care of. Okay, okay, great. So Mason is sworn in. Welcome. Mason.

[1:01] Okay? The next item one B is nominations and elections of new planning board, chair and vice chair. So we'll open the floor to nominations for chair. Okay. I would like to nominate Mark Mcintyre as chair for this year, and I'm happy to speak to my nomination at the appropriate time. Okay, thank you. Any other nominations for chair. Think hard. Okay. There are no other nominations for chair, Laura. Would you like to speak to your nomination? I would. So, Mark, you've been our vice chair for the past year, and I think you have served us admirably. I think you you care quite a bit about process about Robert's rules, and you also care about making sure that every planning board member is heard, and a wise person once said that the 2 main jobs of the planning board chair are to make sure that we conduct efficient meetings.

[2:12] and that we effectively express the will of the planning board after a good fair discussion, and I believe, Mark, that you have the capacity to lead us this year in doing exactly that. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other comments. And in the procedural steps there's supposed to be a motion to close nominations, and it's a proper motion to close nominations seconded and then voted upon. And then, after that, there would be a separate vote on the chair. Thank you, Hela. So we're looking for a motion to close nominations. I move to close nominations for chair. I'll second okay, any discussion on the motion?

[3:02] If not, we'll take a vote and I'll go. Oh, who seconded Mason? Mason did. Second. No, no, the motion. Well, right now we're just moving to. We're voting to close nominations voting to close nominations. There we go. Thank you. You got me confused there. Okay, all right. So we're going to vote on the motion to close nominations. Laura. Yes, Kurt. Yes. Ml, yes, Claudia, yes, Mason, yes, and I'm a yes, okay. The the nomination have been closed. and now we are on to vote. We have one candidate that's Mark Mcintyre for chair. So we'll vote. Take a vote on that. Laura. Yes, Kurt. Yes. Ml, yes. Claudia. Yes, Mason. Yes. Okay, all right. Did you vote, Mark?

[4:05] Did you vote? Oh, I'm a yes, congratulations. The the nomination for chair. That's the noviation. The only motion you have to make is to close the nominations. Okay? But then you just vote, okay, all right. Okay. great. We want to do this right? So first, st thank you for the confidence, Laura. Thank you for the nomination, and I will try to uphold your. I agree with the goals that you laid out, and I will try to fulfill those, and I want to emphasize that I will also be perpetually open to critique and suggestions and ways of improving. So the next, the next item of business is Nominations for

[5:01] Vice Chair. I'd like to nominate Laura for vice chair of the planning board. I will second that. Okay. Would you like to speak to your motion? Sure, I think we've seen Laura throughout this these 3 years? She's been on planning board. Take a leadership in keeping us organized and on task. She comes to the board with amazing skills to facilitate, and I think that we will be well served with her as a vice chair. I look forward to a successful year for you, Laura. and since I seconded I'll speak to that as well, and just simply say that Laura's presence I find to be a calming and thoughtful presence that just brings people around to being their better selves, so I am really appreciative of her presence here on our board and welcome her as vice chair. So

[6:09] I will entertain a motion. Oh, I'm sorry there are any other nominations for Vice Chair. Okay, I will entertain a motion to close the Nominations for Vice Chair. I move to close the nominations for vice. Chair. Second. Okay, all right. Then we'll I'm going to Now I'm going. We're going to vote on Laura as the nominee for vice chair on the motion. Right? Sorry. God, boy, okay, all right, I'm failing procedurally already tonight. But you're taking feedback. So well, really, really, Joy, that's like, wow! You guys want to take that one back. Okay, anyway.

[7:02] this is a vote to close the nominations. Mason. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kurt, yes, Laura, yes, and I'm a yes. okay. The nominations have been formally closed. Now, does anyone want to add anything in addition to what's been already been said about our nominee for vice chair. Okay, we will now vote for our nominee for vice. Chair. Mason. Yes, Claudia. Yes. Ml, yes, Kirk, yes, Laura, yes, and I'm a. Yes, so all right, we now have order and structure for the next year. Okay, the next item is public participation regarding any anything other than item 4 on our agenda, which is the public hearing. So

[8:10] we will check and see if there's anyone online. There's no one in the room. Yes, we do have a couple of folks online, and I'll read the rules of decorum real quick, too great. Thank you for public participation. I can share my screen. Hmm, oops. Sorry. Okay, thank you for joining us this evening. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. 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. For more information about this vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website listed on the screen.

[9:07] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and 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. Participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. You're in the Zoom Webinar format. So at this time, if you'd like to raise your hand to participate in this portion of the meeting. You may do so by clicking on the raise hand icon in the lower toolbar.

[10:00] I don't see anybody on the phone. And then when we get to the public hearing item, we'll go through this again, and you'll have 3 min to speak, and I will allow you to do so. You can also find the raise hand button in the reactions icon in zoom. And that's it. So we'll open it up for oops. Sorry what happened to my zoom? Just one moment. Sorry. Oh, sorry about that. Let's see. Okay. So if anybody is online that would like to speak about anything that's not on the agenda tonight. Now is your time to do so. I'm not seeing any hands raised.

[11:11] I guess we don't have any hands raised at the moment. Thank you, Amanda. And so that will end. Item number 2, public participation. Item number 3 is discussion of dispositions. Planning board call ups and continuations. I believe there are none. And so, unless I hear otherwise, we're going to move on from that to item number 4 for a a public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed ordinance. 86, 94, amending title, 4, chapter 20, fees, title, 8, chapter 6, public right of Way and Easement Encroachments. Revocable Permits, Leases and Vacations. Title Ix. Chapter 6, use Standards and title Ix. Chapter 16, definitions. Boulder revised Code, 1981 to amend the standards for wireless communications, facilities, and small cell facilities and setting forth

[12:19] related details. So that's the agenda item, we'll begin with a staff presentation, followed by clarifying questions from the board. then a and a second public hearing for comment on item 4. A. Followed by board deliberations, and a motion and recommendation to council. So take it away. staff. Great. Well, good evening. Planning board. Charles Farrell, planning and development services. Excuse me before we get started tonight. I wanted to introduce Jeff Solomonson tonight is his maiden voyage before the planning Board. Jeff is a newer planner in our office, and is working directly with Carl and his team on processing code changes. Jeff brings a wealth of experience from both the public and private sector, so we're very happy to have him aboard. You'll be seeing a lot more of him in the coming days. So that said he'll be presenting Staff's analysis tonight. So take it away, Jeff. Welcome.

[13:24] Alright. Thank you, I like, I said. My name is Jeff Solomonson City Planner, with planning and development services. I'm here to to speak on the proposed ordinance for small cell wireless code cleanup. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend title 4, title 8, chapter 6, title 9, chapter 6, title ix. Chapter 16, to amend the standards for wireless communication facilities and small cell facilities. This ordinance has been drafted in response to rulings and interpretations by the Federal Communications Commission Fcc.

[14:01] The reasons for this ordinance are due to recent rulings from the 9th circuit in response to the previous fcc rulings and interpretations that I spoke of due to the streetlight transfer from excel energy to the city of Boulder, and then to be consistent with the Pnds's department goal of operational excellence. And so the question is, what is a wireless communication? Facility? It's many things a wireless communication. Facility, as the definition there says, includes antennas, antennas. It's the towers, the structures that they're located on supporting equipment, all kind of encompass there, and it can include concealment on existing buildings, small cells, either within a property or in the public right of way, eligible facilities, requests which are either co-locating, removal, or swapping out of equipment that doesn't creates a substantial change. Equipment changes that do have a substantial change, and then towers, which you know, are included in the definition of wireless communication facility, but are limited in our code, and are not part of the scope of this code change project.

[15:06] So the reasons for some of this is, the Fcc. Came out with a ruling in September of 2018, with the intent to provide service to new areas, the ruling included adjusting maximum application fees, new infrastructure fees, yearly recurring fees. It provided some clarity on aesthetics for wireless, specifically small cell facilities. The big thing was that it introduced a shot clock for co-location, application, and new structures, and introduced the deemed approval if it. if a application was not acted upon within the designated shot clock time frame. So then the Fcc. Came out with a subsequent ruling. In April of 2019, clarified some more of the Shot clock review time, the tolling period, which is the pausing period when a application is deemed incomplete when that restarts, resumes, and runs, and then kind of clarified when you failed to act upon an application.

[16:06] Then to add more, the Fcc. Added another ruling in June of 2020, further clarifying the shot clock beginning interpreted height, substantial increase to existing proposed antennas. Basically the distance between antennas that are proposed there and then clarified that concealment remains from the time of the original application. Approval. Then another last, ruling in November of 2020, determined a substantial change in excavation or deployment of a wireless facility, basically saying that any equipment on the ground is allowed 30 feet in any direction, whether it's in the right of way or any other public property, and it is not a substantial change as long as it's related to that wireless communication, facility. and then kind of revise the definition of site and the treatment of a facility site in the event of a zoning change. So State of Colorado had Hb. 1711, 93 that came out in April of 2017. This was in preemption of that 2018 ruling that they knew was coming.

[17:08] and what it did was it aligned the State regarding wireless communication, wireless communication facilities by adding legal definitions and kind of the process to align with what the Fcc. Was about to release in 2018. Another one related was just passed a couple weeks ago in March 2025. It defines a State legislated shot clock for eligible facilities, request, and macro cells, and prevents local jurisdictions from implementing permits for removal and equipment changes. I want to stress that this has not been signed by the Governor into legislation, and, if so, will not be active until January 1st of 2026 at the time, because this is a relatively really new bill that just came. We're focusing more on bringing the code into compliance from the existing rulings. And this is something we might have to revisit later on to see if there are further changes that might come from this ruling itself.

[18:08] So right now, the main majority of of what we're presenting to you in this ordinance is to change how wireless communication facilities are basically in our code. Right now, as it stands right now, you have a starting point of 2 different locations depending on what you're looking for. Sometimes they go back on each other. It's a convoluted route, depending on what type of wireless communication facility. And our code is not very clear on whether you're looking to do a concealment on an existing building, whether you're looking to do an equipment, change a small cell, whether it's in the right of way or on private property. Everything is kind of lumped together in one. and even though there are 2 code sections, they don't speak to each other right now. What we're planning in front of you right now is taking a starting point from 9 6 4 f. And then depending on your route. And, for example, if you're looking to do a tower, you'll find that only concealment is allowed. It'll bring you back down and then point you to your design standards and the review that you can do. And, for example, if it's a small cell in the right of way, you start at point.

[19:13] It'll tell you kind of what the standards of the design are. It'll loop you over to 8 6 6.5, which is specifically for small cells in the right of way, the design and the application standards, and then it'll bring you back to the section for the review. So that way. The 2 major code sections that have standards and design are speaking to each other back and forth, that you understand the root of where you're supposed to go. So breaking down kind of what the specific changes are. So in section 4, 2043, one of the main things we're looking at is clarifying the fees for wireless communication facility, because the Fcc. In 2018 ruled that there is a maximum that you can charge for small cells in the right of way and for vertical infrastructure to support them, as well as how many you can apply for, and the yearly fees you can charge for those small cells

[20:05] in 9, 6, 4 F. The process we're looking at is clarifying the standards for the type of wireless like, I said, kind of directing which one you're doing, whether it is a wireless communication, facility or otherwise referred to as a macro cell, the larger one. Or if you're doing a wireless communication, that's a small cell, which is the smaller one. It adds language for how to direct you to the application fees. That was one thing that was missing in 9, 6, 4 completely was, where do you pay? You know? Where are these fees located? There was existing language in 866.5, but that is specifically for small cell on the right of way. This clarifies the purview procedure for the different types, whether it's an eligible facility, request small cell facility or equipment change, and then it adds language to clarify what is a complete application, what the shot clock regulations are per type, the notification requirements for completeness, and then to direct you to 866.5. If it is a small cell in the right of way.

[21:05] going to 8 6.5. As I just mentioned, some of the changes is adding some of the definitions that are already existing in section in Title 9 to that section as they are mentioned in that section. So it's just having the sections communicate with each other. Another one is modifying the definition, because right now it lists its own definition of small cell facility, and adding that under the wireless communication, facility, umbrella which covers it. and then it removed some vague application process language in 8 6 6.5, and directed you to 9, 6, 4, which has the substantial talking about completeness of the application, the tolling of the shot clock. What type of shot clock you need everything like that. So with the Fcc rulings, the changes we're looking at in 9, 6, 4 F is updating the excavation and deployment, as I said, from the 2020 ruling that ruled how far out you can go without considering a substantial change. and then they also clarified a further substantial change definition, which we've done in our code to reflect that

[22:05] in 866.5 looked at modifying the small cell facilities. Definition for the mounting height per the Federal code definition. and then clarifies the maximum size is 28 cubic feet, which is allowed per the Federal code right now that one's a little bit of an interesting thing, because the State of Colorado Bill that came out in 2017 in preemption to the 2018 ruling now clarifies it as 17, which was at the time, however, the Fcc. Further ruled that they're allowed up to 28 cubic feet. So this would align us in line with Federal code, not necessarily with State code, which is already now outdated. So with these changes. we staff recommends that planning board recommend city council, adopt this or this ordinance because it will clarify the fees, application, and review process for wireless communication facilities, and small facilities, and it will align boulders, requirements with Federal rulings, interpretations, legislation, state legislation, and it will also unify us with other front range communities, such as Greeley and Fort Collins, who have updated their code to reflect these changes. And then it'll also

[23:14] have the applicable policies from the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. And so with that, I have the recommended motion for approval, and I'll answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Jeff. That was great and welcome to our staff, and we need more of that like straightening those crisscrossed lines. So so thank you very much. So we're we'll now open it up to questions from the board. All right. I'll start with a big context question that'll maybe help ground our discussion. Thanks for the presentation, Jeff. I was curious how many small cell facilities are currently in the city of Boulder. And are there any trends in when where they tend to be located?

[24:11] From my understanding from other staff members. I think there has been 2 permitted in the last 5 years. Total. So there, there's not very many right now, but the anticipation is that ones are coming due to the street light transfer over that. There was a lot of interest from those coming over that they could be placed in existing light poles. Okay? And so that becomes easier. Now, if the city is, if the city is the owner of those polls as opposed to these companies, having to deal with. Excel. Is that the correct? That was my understanding? Okay, thank you. So if there's only 2, so far, my second question is kind of moot, because that is, if we've had any notable issues with applications or construction so far. One other thing I'm curious about is, do we have any specific rules governing the placement of of poles.

[25:05] facilities, towers, etc, in the public right of way. So specifically, I'm thinking about with regard to city sidewalks and the like. So if somebody wants to come in and install a new one of these poles that we've seen in some of the staff presentation materials, where are they allowed to put those in the public right of way? Well, currently, the code was updated in preemption of the 2018 ruling back then, right now there is a 600 foot separation between small cells that is existing in the code. So if there was a location where it wasn't, where there was 600 feet away, and there wasn't existing infrastructure, because our code really preempts people to use existing vertical infrastructure. Whether that is a existing street light or a traffic light, some sort of existing. If they can find an area where they're 600 feet away from another small cell where there is no other infrastructure that can be used. They would be allowed to put up a new monopole like I said, this is all coming from our existing code, but then they have height restrictions depending on

[26:10] how far they are from different residential zones, and then commercial zones. They all have a tiered height approach of how high they can. Yeah, I mean, I think I was mostly curious, like, if they were going to be putting in a new pole, for example, like, does that have to follow the same rules of placement as, say, a streetlight pole, or any other utility pole like? Yes, if they build, put it down in the middle of a sidewalk, for example, or do you have to put it? You know, a certain distance from a from a passageway? Yeah, if there were no other options available for them to co-locate on an existing structure. Yeah, they could be allowed to put it up, but it does have to meet the same color and design standards as existing streetlights and traffic lights and stuff like that. Okay, thank you. Other questions. Sure, I have a few questions and welcome, Jeff, and the 1st one, I think, is a follow up to. Well, they're sort of both. Follow ups to Claudia's questions, just so that I'm clear. If there are only 2, I'm aware of 2 things that I think of as like 5G. Towers. One is on Iris at 25th or something, and one is on balsam by the Alpine balsam site. Those are the 2

[27:26] that exist, as as far as you know. I'm not sure, because the 2 that I was like that I was that Staff had informed me about were were actual small cells located in the right of way. So if those are particular ones that are in the right of way. There are existing macro cells that are larger than 3 cubic feet, as the small cell definition is that are located throughout the city, but most of them are concealed onto existing structures or existing infrastructure. and and I know that on Iris there is a Monopole. That is just a small cell facility. Right? Okay?

[28:04] Great. That's interesting. That those are apparently the only 2 that Going to our packet on page 13, there's a definition of telecommunications provider, and it seems very broad. and it seems like it might include, for instance. an Internet cafe or some other place where you have paid Wi-fi. for example, because it just says it provides wireless connectivity, wireless communication service, or something like that for payment. So I'm just trying to understand what what the real legal breadth of that is. And are we covering

[29:01] more than we really want to be covering with that? It's page 13 of 19 of the packet. Okay. it's the in red, the definition of no. Oh, sorry, no. It's the definition in black of telecommunications, provider telecommunications communications provider shall mean a person that provides telecommunications, service, or services. with the exception of cable services and aggregators of telecommunications, services as those terms are defined by Federal law telecommunications. Provider does not mean a person or or business using antennas. support towers, equipment, and or buildings

[30:00] used to transmit high power over the air broadcast of Am. And FM. Radio, etc. And then telecommunications services shall mean the offering of of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. So that's why I was. I was just trying to think, Well, what does that cover? And it seems like again, an Internet cafe, for example, would be covered. Carl Geylor, senior policy advisor, I mean, I've always read this like this was just a traditional like cell phone company operator that, you know, puts up those antenna on buildings that get the cell service to work. I think in this case we're focusing more on on the 5G type. I don't know if I'm saying that correctly, but on those kind of providers that are covered by the State legislation. So I don't know that we looked at these definitions as something that we needed to update. But

[31:13] take a closer look at that. Okay, maybe something to think about whether that could be narrowed to be more focused, more focused on what we're really trying to address here. Yeah, great. A lot of the definitions are based on Federal law and in particular telecommunication services and so forth. Those terms have been in the code for a long time, and we haven't seen any issues with that. And maybe also because I suspect that Federal law, although I can't tell you off the top of my head limits it in that way, but also the other requirements that apply will make it very clear that we're not talking about an Internet cafe. Then can I keep going? Yeah, I was unclear on this 30 foot rule which I saw in the code, but I wasn't exactly sure how it applied. Can you describe that about the excavation up to 30 feet out

[32:15] for for construction of towers and such? So the excavation deployment is part of a base station. It's another term I'm throwing out there, too. But a base station is essentially the area on the ground or transmission equipment services. The antennas, whether it be in a small cell on a monopole, or located on a building, or, you know, in in other jurisdictional instances on a tower. And so what that excavation deployment is that saying is that if a person needs to go out 30 feet with, you know, to connect to a line, to, to essentially to provide service. You know whether it's electrical or some sort of utilities to that site. It's not considered a substantial change to the site. So basically allowing a 30 foot

[33:05] footprint around the tower to provide service to without it, considering a substantial change. Really, I guess my question, then, is, would, can can can telecommunications, service provider, or whatever can. They just sort of start digging out to a 30 foot radius with impunity, then, or is there some kind of. Is there still some sort of permit that they need to get well? This would be with them, getting all the applicable permits that they would need. You know, if it's in the right of way, it would be a revocable right of way. Permit. It would be an electrical permit to dig there. There's an assortment of 5 different permits that they would need to go through in the regulatory process to put a small cell on the right of way. Okay, they can't just start digging up the street for no, no reason. Okay. Good.

[34:02] Sounds good. Then. Sorry. Does he have his hand up on page 12 of the packet. There's a definition of small cell facility. And we it looks like we updated that. And it just the wording is a little confusing to me, because it says small cell facility means any of the following, and then there's a paragraph, and then it says. a wireless communications facility that meets both of the following qualifications. And then there are 3 things. There are actually 4 things and 2 of the they're linked. There's an and and there's an or I just. I can't figure out how to parse this and what the both refers to.

[35:11] Are you referring to the section 4 A and B that delineate between new wireless communication facilities and the eligible facilities and small cell requests this. This is a change to 8 6 6.5 section B definitions. And it's the definition of small cell facility. And it's really it's just about the wording, I think, before the both kind of made sense, because but then we added, another thing in there. I just. I don't understand how to connect these things. We actually, yeah, we actually have a consultant online who is an attorney who specializes in telecommunications. Law. Brandon Dipman.

[36:07] He raised his hand to help answer this question, and, Brennan, I don't know if you're able to unmute yourself, or if Amanda has to help with that. there he is. Hi, can you hear me? Okay. Yes, yes. Okay. So my name is Brandon Dipman again. From Wilson Williams, Fellowman Dipman. I help consult on the code. You know I can help answer a number of questions about definitions. And you know, interaction with the Federal laws, and I will say the small cell facility. Definition is unwieldy as it is, is again an artifact of the Fcc's regulations, and what they say a small cell is. And so some of the weirdness of this we can attribute directly to the Fcc. And how they've described a small cell. I do think that the the red editions you know, for the facilities, or mount on structures, and so on and so forth, that may have actually been intended for a substantial change rather than a small cell. But all the rest of that is

[37:07] what the Federal Communications Commission deems as a small cell, as unwieldy as that definition may be. Okay? Well, maybe you can just check that over then and make sure that that really reads the way it's supposed to. Kurt, can I just clarify is your question about the use of the word. Both meets both of the following qualifications, and then it has 4 separate paragraphs that follow the word both qualifications. That was what prompted my confusion initially. Yes, so maybe the word both should be all rather than both, but because it seems like there's more than 2 things there. Is that what you're saying? Right? But in addition. there's there's a paragraph, and then there's another or a section. And then there's another section that ends with an and and then the next section ends with an or and like, it does seem to go. Yeah.

[38:04] So. It's a great question. The way to think about this is, there's really 2 different ways to become a small cell. The 1st one is, you know, each intent is located in closure for no more than 3 cubic foot, and the primary equipment closure is no larger than 20 cubic feet. That's 1 way you become a small cell. The other way is your micro wireless facilities that one really is an or between those 3 things. and I think you know just maybe the way it was said in the way it's laid out more so it creates the confusion. And so. and it also has to be, you know, a personal wireless Communications. Facility as that is defined by the Telecommunications Act. And so I think really more. I think the formatting may lead to the confusion more so than anything else. But what it's saying is, there's basically 2 different ways to become a small cell, but you in all cases, must be also a personal wireless communications, facility

[39:03] Gotcha. Okay? Well, yeah, if there's a way to clarify that, that would be great. I'm I'm a strong believer in the code Being. Clear enough that someone who, you know is thinking about it hard, at least can read it and understand it without having to go and ask, you know, bother, staff, and figure out what the heck this means, and so on. So great. Okay, can I ask one more question, please? I think these are. These are fascinating catches you've found here. So go ahead. So the last question really is another, follow up on what? What Claudio was raising, and so I think, about the interaction between our small cell siting. practices, I guess, and the design construction standards, and our code, especially regarding sidewalks as Claudia raised. So if we think about that.

[40:08] the tower by Alpine balsam, which that is so, there's a a 4 foot attached sidewalk. and then there's about a 4 foot spacing inside the sidewalk, and then there's the tower. Well, my understanding is that when Alpine balsam is redeveloped, that that sidewalk is going to get rebuilt. It's in bad shape, anyhow, and our standards say we should have a detached sidewalk with an 8 foot tree lawn. so that will put the sidewalk going exactly where that tower is which is unfortunate. Obviously, when we build the sidewalk, we're not going to move the tower. That would be super expensive, and so the the sidewalk will have to be routed around it. So really, the question is.

[41:02] especially in cases like that, where we have a noncompliant sidewalk. Is there a way to? And I know that this gets beyond the exact intent of the changes that we've got here. But I'm just wondering if there's a way to require that these towers and other facilities be sited in such a way that when the sidewalks especially are brought up to our current standards that the the, whatever facility it is not, interfere with the sidewalk in that location. Does that make sense? Yeah, maybe we'll defer to Brandon on that. Firstly. Yeah, thank you. for the question. So I think there's a couple of things that to think about. There, you know, number one. You mentioned that. and that facility can't be relocated, and I wouldn't give up on that just yet, because if that facility is indeed in the public right away. It's, you know, the provider's responsibility to relocate that facility at their cost. And so it may make sense to relocate that facility. If a public project, such as a sideway, sidewalk, expansion or roadway expansion requires it. So that's 1 thing. But secondly, in the broader point about, you know, how how are these facilities interacting with.

[42:27] You know our designs for sidewalks and our standards for sidewalks and and other types of landscaping standards, and so on and so forth. That's all part of the review process. You know, one of the things we're going to have in addition, that's, you know, not in the code is a operational design standard, which include things like Ada. Compliance, you know, setbacks from curb lines kind of those kind of those details which staff is reviewing. These applications, you know, will be judging these against. And so there is the ability to regulate that, and making sure that it does comply

[43:02] with whatever the city standards are, and the one I think we see most frequently as being an issue, or at least we did originally when these facilities 1st are getting deployed, was Ada. Compliance there wouldn't be clearance, you know, with if it was being put on an existing sidewalk. Essentially. But the providers have gotten better about that. We've also gotten better at reviewing applications for that issue specifically. And so we can certainly, you know, build some of that into the review process. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you very much. And just trying to think about not creating future conflicts. Because, yeah, some of our other policies do make it difficult to really bring things up to our current, especially design construction standards. So I would appreciate that very much. Thank you. Okay, any other questions.

[44:04] Okay, great. Go ahead, Mason. So you started talking about the review process. Is that something that's coming down the road for us to to opine on the the review process is in the ordinance. So right now any wireless facility is reviewed as a conditional use which is an administrative review. So that's a staff level review. So it sets it up for the public right of way and private property. But the standards that are used in those reviews, I guess that's what I'm asking about. Yeah. The the ordinance includes those standards for each. And if you look at the ordinance, it doesn't actually contain the all of the standards. Some of it is is left out. It mostly shows the changes that we're making. But but there are standards in the code already, and we do actually have a sidewalk standard, too, for how far it should be clear, and that there should not be unreasonable obstruction of pedestrian way

[45:10] just to follow up on that. yeah, I guess my concern is we. We avoid obstruction of the current sidewalk. but if the current sidewalk is not in the right place, according to the Dcs. Then we're we're not always really thinking about where the sidewalk will be in the future, or you know, the sidewalk width, or whatever the standard may be. That's that's primarily my concern. Yeah, thanks for for clarifying that. I think there's some authority for the city to move or to ask for it, to be moved to make sure that there's continuing passageway. Claudia, I have another question in the vein of what Kurt has been asking.

[46:00] and that is for some permitted projects, including a lot of the larger ones that we review here as a board. The city requires applicants to bring the right of way up to current code or into compliance with applicable plans. For example, by adding missing links to sidewalks. Do we have any such requirements when these small cell poles or other utility poles are installed or maintained. and is, do we have an an ability to add such requirements? If we don't have them. I mean, with any application. We route the applications to a number of different reviewers, including the engineers, so they would have to look at it, for whether a sidewalk clearance issue exists, or whether the sidewalk has to be updated so they might identify it as part of that administrative review, and they would have to. You know, there might be a right of way requirement, a right of way, permit to make those updates. But it really depends on the scope of the project, you know. Is it something that requires site review, or, you know, a building permit? But the engineers have their eyes on it to know what updates would need to be made.

[47:12] Mason. Sorry. Just one more clarifying question. Just want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly. Those applications that are not in the public right away. Follow the same application process and review. Correct? Correct? Okay? Any other questions. Okay. Great. I think we'll go to our public hearing. Now. sure, you can check online and see if we have no one in the room and see if anyone has been with us other than Brandon online.

[48:01] Yes. if you're joining us online this evening, and you'd like to speak about this item. Now is the time to go ahead and raise your hand. Okay, not seeing any hands raised. Okay, great so I'm going to close the public hearing. and we're going to move on to board deliberations, and eventually a motion so as far as board deliberations go. Does anyone before we get into the motion? Does anyone have any feelings, thoughts, or concerns? They want to express. Okay, Kurt. yeah, just to confirm. So I raised a few sort of detailed points about the wording and so on. And

[49:00] so you'll have a chance to look at this before it goes to council. Great. Thank you. Okay, great. All right. We don't seem to have a lot of deliberation, so would the the chair will entertain a motion by anyone. I will make the motion. I move that Planning board recommend that City council adopt the proposed Ordinance, amending title, 4. Chapter 20, fees. Title, 8. Chapter 6. Public Right of Way and Easement, Encroachments, revocable Permits, Leases and Vacations. Title 9. Chapter 6. Use standards and title. 9, chapter 16. Definitions. Brc. 1981. To amend the standards for wireless communications, facilities and small cell facilities and setting forth related details. I'll second great. So we have a motion made, and a second now, would anyone

[50:01] care to speak to the motion? I'll just say briefly that this seems like a pretty straightforward although complicated code cleanup, and I want to give my thanks to Staff for doing the heavy lifting to make sure that we are in compliance with these recent rulings, state legislation and in alignment with our other front range communities. So thank you so much to Staff, who have done this important, and I'm sure fairly tedious job. So thank you so much. Okay, anyone else. Okay. And and I'll give a little bit of kudos to the board, and in particular, Kurt, for a careful reading of some tough going here. So that's appreciated. So okay, we'll move to a vote. And I'll begin with Laura. Yes, Kurt. Yes. Ml, yes. Claudia. Yes, Mason. Yes, and I'm a yes, okay. So it's a 6. 0, vote congratulations on your

[51:02] 1st city of Boulder hearing. And you know that went smoothly. So yeah, it'll never be that way ever. Don't underestimate us, Charles. Thank you, Jeff, and it's it's 6. It's before 7. So that's also maybe a record. So yeah, yeah, it's all downhill from here. So okay, thank you to staff for that. And now we are going to move on to matters, and we'll I'm going to save matters from the planning board until we'll we'll 1st ask for matters from the planning director or representative and city attorney. Any matters from

[52:01] I have a matter, and it's it's to respond of some questions that you Mark send out to us related to when an applicant, knowingly or inadvertently provides information or testimony during a quasi-judicial public hearing that influences your decision. and I already asked you for a little clarification during the agenda meeting, and you were particularly interested in false information or incorrect information is provided. and the consequences or enforcement options are there in title 5 of the Boulder revised Code title 5 sets forth violations and general offenses, and one of the offenses set forth. There is to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly make a false statement in an application or in support thereof. So that would include making such a statement during a public hearing. It doesn't include inadvertently providing such information, and then

[53:08] for it to be prohibited, it has to be material to the application or disposition thereof. So if it's just some side fact that doesn't really relate to the review criteria. Then that also wouldn't be a violation. I'm sorry you said if it if it was just some kind of background. Fact that doesn't really relate to the review criteria. Let's say there was a statement about when the building was 1st constructed that's proposed to be modified in an application, and the year it was constructed was wrong. That doesn't really matter for your review of the review criteria. So if that was provided incorrectly. That wouldn't be a violation of the code. It really relates to facts that are material to your decision. and this is enforced through the city's enforcement officers, and could be through the police or another Enforcement officer of the city, and it would be pursued in the municipal court as a criminal violation.

[54:11] So it sounds like, from what you said. What I got from that is that the statement, whether it's made by someone participating in a public hearing or an applicant that makes a statement that is material to the review criteria. That is something that could be investigated and could be an offense correct. If it's something of interest to the Board, but is not directly related to the review criteria. even if it influenced our decision. That would not be. It shouldn't influence your decision if it's not related to the criteria. Right? Thank you.

[55:03] Right? Yeah. Okay. And yeah, and because it's it would be prosecuted, it would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in other criminal cases, I have to tell you that I don't recall any case ever going forward. but but it is. It is a violation under our code. Kurt, go go ahead. And so the only remedy. Well, there is no remedy in terms of, for instance, the Site Review right. If someone makes a false statement to us, an applicant, for example. and that can be proven in a court of law, then they can be. you know, get charged and and penalized that way. But there's no mechanism for sort of doing the Site Review again, or something like that. Yeah, thanks for asking that clarifying question in that particular code section that sets forth the violation also says, if there's a conviction

[56:06] well, actually, it doesn't say if there's a convergement, it says that actually, what does it say? Exactly. Let me look at it. It! Says the city manager may deem any approval of such application void, and my interpretation of that is that there has to be a conviction. Otherwise we're lacking due process, that there's a right to rehearing and so forth, to where somebody may want to defend themselves. Okay, thank you, Laura. Yeah. If there were a conviction, what kind of penalties would there be? I'm assuming this? We're not talking about putting people in jail we're talking about, maybe a fine or like what kind of criminal, what kind of remedies would there be if there were in general in Municipal Court. I think the maximum fine is

[57:04] around $2,600. There could be jail time. That is a potential penalty. But yeah, that's the maximum fun. Other other questions I have a few more. But oh, Kirk. so we're we're talking about 5, 5, 19. Is that was that the section? Yep, that's correct. Okay. And so it talks about reckless. No person shall recklessly make any false statement legally. What what is the difference between making a false statement and recklessly making a false statement. Well, it's defined. and it's it's a little bit difficult, you know. Those are the mens Rea in a criminal offense. There is.

[58:02] I guess, the mental states that may have to be proven in a criminal case, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently so. Each of those terms are defined, and for recklessly, it states, means consciously means consciously to disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur, or that a circumstance exists so essentially, consciously disregarding a substantial or unjustifiable risk that the fact might be false. You're presenting okay? Great. Thank you. It's a mouthful. So so. Even though we've modified our call up criteria. Someone from the public can still call up an item. That that comes before the planning board. Yes, for review. Can someone from the public who? I guess this might require standing? And my question is, can someone from the public bring make a complaint

[59:06] that, based on a land use decision that they felt was had had a falsehood somewhere within it. Okay, reckless or or not, would. So the the planning board or the staff decides not to act. But can someone from the public and file a complaint? And would that be a civil complaint, or would that actually begin this? Yeah. So the court someone from the public could file a complaint with the city and the city would then investigate whether they thought that was probable cause to to actually. you know, start a criminal case and and file charges. And so it's probably a bad idea to refer to anything specific in this in this discussion.

[60:01] Is it a bad idea to refer to specifics members from the public that have come before us recently with a complaint about, you know, sheds being built, or what was presented to us for an approval of a land use decision? Can I ask questions about that or is, should I not? I would avoid bringing anything up that has a pending application that has a pending application. Okay, great. So we actually have some things that might be pending. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. all right, that that's that's helpful to me. And from a clarification standpoint the one other thing I think, I asked later in my email is. if an applicant has presented us

[61:04] staff or the Planning board With information that is subsequently proven to be incorrect. Can we take that into account in a future decision from regarding a different application from the same applicant? So generally, the future decision has to be based on the review criteria and and the evidence that's in front of you and part of the record for that particular decision. Past actions and past applications are likely not going to be relevant to that. I don't want to, you know, exclude that. Maybe there is some circumstance where it might be relevant. But really, what you're doing at the second hearing is looking at the application that's in front of you then.

[62:01] and whether the review criteria are met for that particular application. Okay, all right. Thank you. That's very helpful. Okay, yeah. Just as a follow up. what about in the extremely rare instance where staff perhaps made a factual error in an application. and that impacted our decision, and it is later determined to be that staff were the ones who made the error. Is there any remedy for that rehearing or reopening an application? Only, if the appeal process is still ongoing. and under those circumstances so call up call up decision, or an you know, a 3rd party could file a rule 106 review action in court. But but that's really limited to once a decision is final

[63:02] in the city. Then you have to file that action within 30 days. Think so. It's not a very long time period. Okay, thank you. Okay, all right. Great. Anything else from the our city attorney under matters. No, that's it. Okay. Great Charles. Anything from you. We just wanted to check in on the draft retreat agenda and make sure everybody had an opportunity to review it. Make sure everybody was okay with it. We were going to cover the item that we just covered with Hella as part of the retreat. But we can go ahead and take that off. Give ourselves a little bit more breathing room in the agenda, but other than that, just wanted to check in on and make sure everybody was okay with the subject matter. Ml. hi, Charles, I do have a question under the area plans. So there's not a lot of specificity. So history and purpose of area plans will we have the planners that worked on those plans there, so that we can

[64:06] more carefully understand the intent of the plans to get a sense of, okay, how, how are these intended to be used? You'll have Brad myself and Kj there. So I think, between the 3 of us we should be able to speak intelligently. Perfect area plans perfect. That's my question. and will there be, did I see that legal input into how we use the area plan and what its weight is under area plans on the agenda. The 3rd bullet is really the Site Review criterion that talks about the applicability of area plans and the site review process and the legal context. So we'll have a legal person there to flesh that out, thinking it's going to be Hella. Hella, we're going to have such a good time. Yes. Then I think both Laurel and I will probably be there. Okay.

[65:01] yeah, that just has created such complexity for us that I'm really looking forward to having knowing where's the line in the sand? Because it seems like we don't really know where that is. So excellent. Thank you so much. Laura. First.st Thank you, Charles and Brad, in absentia for putting together this retreat agenda. Excellent job trying to get everything in there that we had asked about. My question is about the last item. You know, we had wanted to talk about how that we have these trends for retail and office space in the city. And this 15 min item looks to me like an overview of what data exists and where to find it like on Boulder today. and how that data was gathered which is super useful. I am hoping that if we can't, if we don't have time in this retreat that we could actually have a staff presentation about what those trends are, so that we can, as a board, have a discussion about what it means for us to understand. You know, we get different input from people saying

[66:06] we are way overbuilt on retail. And then other people say, Well, it's not that we're overbuilt on the amount of retail. It's the type of retail spaces and what they are being the cost of them and that type of thing. Or are there some types of retail that do well, and some types of retail that don't. So I'm hoping we can do a deeper dive at some point, even if it doesn't fit into this agenda because I think that that would really help inform our discussions about mixed use. Would the Board like to talk less about plan plan implementation, cip that kind of thing, and and maybe a little bit more about demographics. Or are we feeling like that's kind of a separate item for a separate night. I think they're both really important. And in fact, I think, while we have more control over

[67:02] site review criteria, and how we fulfill that in terms of mixed use, etc. On the other hand, the cip is a an area that we actually don't approve or disapprove, but is really big, and where big changes are are made. So I think they're both important. I'm not ready to shortchange one or the other. I'm wondering if we would all be willing to consider starting the program earlier. keeping the 5 o'clock gather dinner time. but maybe having half an hour of sort of free form time, and then starting the program at 5 30, just to give us a little more time. Because. boy, this is a lot to cover. I will say that when Mark and I drew up this list of proposed topics, the intent wasn't necessarily to cover all of them in in the retreat, it was a list of ideas, and I really appreciate that you

[68:17] are trying to fit them all in, because they are all important, and luckily we just took care of one. But I think if we could manage to eat and think at the same time, or something that might be helpful, so start the actual proceedings at 5 30. That's just a suggestion from me. That's great. We'd be happy to show thumbs up, and then that might give us a little bit more time on the back end then? And can I just ask just a question about the timing on cip and budget? When when does city council consider that? When does that come to us and then go to city council summertime, summertime? So if we had to move something for me, I feel more urgency to understand the retail situation because that may impact any site review coming before us between now and summer. So I would prefer to move up the discussion about retail. And then, if something has to get compressed or moved to later in the year, I would say cip and budget discussion, if that is amenable to the rest of the board.

[69:25] So then would it make sense to do the last item boulder today? Review fair the Cip. I mean, we could just say we're not gonna try to deal with the cip tonight and give quite a bit more space, because. even like half an hour on the area plans, I'm just worried that that's not going to be enough. Or we could at least put the cip thing at the end and kind of feel. Get a feel for how things are going and postpone it, if need be.

[70:04] Yeah, I would be fine with either. I mean, if it gives Staff more time to prepare on area plans and fewer things to juggle. I'd be fine with moving the cip and budget agenda item to a future meeting, or we could just put it at the end of the agenda, knowing that it could get extended into a future meeting. That sounds good. And, Laura, just so, I'm clear. So you'd like information just on retail trends. Right now for me. That's the big one, the the retail, and maybe also the office space that you know, we we've had so much pushback on mixed use from from different applicants, both developers of housing who don't want to include retail or office space and also developers of industrial who don't want to include different kinds of mixed use in their development. So just understanding the economics of you know where some of that pushback is coming from. And then this whole idea that we hear over and over again of people arguing about whether we are overbuilt on retail, especially in the post covid era, and with the changing nature of work.

[71:04] retail and office space may look different in the future. And are we asking for too much of that to be built, and how much of it is going unused? Or is it just? We're building the wrong types. So it's not. It's not exactly clear to me how much of that space is vacant, how that compares to past trends? And is it just certain types of that those components that are going vacant. Is that helpful, Charles? It is. Thank you very much. Sorry I was taking notes. Yeah. Ml, on the boulder today. Review. You know, one of the things that I think comes to mind, and especially from the public perspective, is. how are we doing with our housing goals? Because we approve these big housing, adding floors, adding density. and we don't know whether it's hit. What targets it's hitting.

[72:00] So it would be. I think it would be nice to have an understanding that. Okay, we talk about inclusionary housing. Money is going to go over here to provide affordable housing. But what about the housing that's actually getting built. What demographic is that serving? Because I don't. I don't think I think there's a disconnect between what the public anticipates or or sees. They think more housing is great, there'll be more affordability. But we don't know what demographic these projects are hitting. Is there a way to get that kind of information? I would have to check with our partners in housing as to what the availability of that is. Something tells me all that data exists on the housing and human services dashboard on their website, which every time I look at it, I'm really surprised at how much information is on there, but I can look into it. That might be more conversation than we have time for.

[73:00] So the boulder today. Review. where is that data coming from? The that was sort of 500 participants across the community. Okay? So it's a particular survey. Exactly. And that was just done recently for the comprehensive plan. Okay? So you were asking, I think, at the beginning to Laura, whether the mixed use interests were the only one. What other options are there? What other data is in there that that we are we might want to include. If how housing isn't in that it's everything from school enrollment, education, diversifying population, typical. you know breakouts in the community by gender age groups things like that. But I could see if maybe there's just some stats we could at least pull down for the conversation.

[74:05] Is there information on on vacancy of apartments? Yeah, not in the boulder future, not in that boulder. Future boulder. Today. Review. It just seems that there seems to be a a a black hole, right? That statements are made about housing, and I've never seen any data to validate. Are we creating the right kind of housing. And where are we in our housing goals? So, Amel, would it be useful to think about it in terms of you know we have set some goals for how much affordable housing we want to have, like what percentage of our housing we want to have affordable by. I think it's 2035. And what percentage of that should be middle income versus low income. And maybe just get an update on those trends. It might be harder to think about it in terms of you know what's been built during a certain time period, but

[75:07] but that affordable housing dashboard that Charles talked about. It would be nice to kind of pull out and put in front of us for us to all look at at the same time and discuss. How are we doing at meeting our affordable housing goals? And where is how is that money being broken out? You know the money that goes into the inclusionary housing program. How's it being spent? And what's being built? And would that would we have information on how much of the affordable housing was added due to heights variances, in other words, not by right, but that were we're trying to get more inclusionary housing by making these changes at the Site review process. I'm just curious what the relationship is between the housing that is getting built, and and how

[76:03] are the modifications that are being granted impacting our affordability coffers. Is it a big number? Is there a big amount of affordable housing that is coming out of out of this added density that we're putting into the city, or is it a relatively small number? I wouldn't have a a sense of that. But I wonder if we would know, because these are the things we have to think about right when we're granting height, modification, or or changing the far or removing setbacks, making things more dense is, what are we getting? This is on the other end? Cash in lieu? No, I know. But how does that relate to how much housing is being provided in that? So it's really more the relationship between the cash in lieu dollars and where that's going. Yes.

[77:02] thank you for putting it in a line item. And Charles, no problem. Okay, I'll see what we can do. Yeah. I've always been impressed when asked when, whether it's Kurt Fernhaber or someone. I'm sorry I can't remember her name right now. who administers our inclusionary housing funds? What's that? Sloan Sloan? Right, thank you, or someone from Bhp in the past? But in the midst of a meeting. And so to Ml's Point. this is this is all really interesting questions, and versus anecdotally well, a hundred $1,000 in the Inclusionary Housing fund yields, you know. a leveraged unit on the ground of low income housing, etc. So anyway, I think those are really interesting questions. And and I I think we have a lot of good resources.

[78:06] and whether or not it gets done in a 15 or 20 min segment in our retreat is a it may be another question. So that's my concern is, I feel like that. Could that could be a 3 h conversation right? And and maybe that's something that we can. If we have a light agenda, we can bring somebody in from housing. These are all things that they can speak fluently in. It would take me and my staff time to do that research right? Yeah. but that's certainly something that we could tee up for a light agenda. And I think just having, as you said, some bullets around here is, you know, we've in the last. However, you know the conglomerate of years ago. The height modifications have resulted in X number of affordable units. Because I think that those

[79:02] that's the reason we that's 1 of the primary reasons we give height modifications. So it'd be nice to know the consequence where it lands. Okay? So we're still in matters. And does anyone from the board have any additional matters? I'm about to bring one up. But does anyone want to give anyone else an opportunity? First? st Okay. as as chair I would. I want to take a moment for us to discuss. What I think is has been neglected, and not in a bad way, but just I don't think we've addressed the opportunity that

[80:00] the matter section allows us, and and also our our scheduled debrief at every meeting. We have time for matters from the board. and I think they're almost most meetings. The Board doesn't have much of of a of a matter to discuss. Sometimes Staff brings things to us and I want. I would like us to make potentially better use of both of those agenda segments, and I've talked with some of you about things that we can do procedurally to improve our meetings, and I'd like the debrief time to be a time that we actually debrief a little bit and feel comfortable in saying, wow! That was really that felt really great tonight. Or you know, I thought

[81:00] this didn't go real well, or whatever it might be, and it doesn't have to be tears and touchy-feely, but I do want us to be able to have a debrief and be able to comment or bring up concerns that maybe weren't directly related to an applicant or an application, but something that you know concerns us, or we need clarification on, or whatever. So I have a couple things, but I would like to offer the opportunity now under matters for anyone to. If you've been had something you've been thinking about about ways we should. We could improve process procedure, our relationship, our relationship to the staff or to the applicant now would be a good time, and if anyone has has things they'd like to put forth. I'd I'd I'd sure love to hear them, Mason.

[82:01] This might be be more a question for Staff. But can we get presentations before the meeting. I know you guys are probably working up to the last minute on them, which is totally fine. I can. I can understandable that they won't necessarily always match. you know, in in most cases we we, the day of we have a pretty firm idea of like the presentation being in in final draft form. That's that's something that we could consider getting. If that's helpful for the board getting presentations out earlier. Yeah, it would be helpful for me. I mean reading through the packet is great. There's a lot of awesome detail included in our packets, but often it's just more efficient for me to like. Go through a presentation and then focus on areas as long as there's an understanding that they are a work in progress until we kind of hit the dais so. and I want to caution that if it's a quasi-judicial item, you do need to go through the actual memo and be sure that you know all of the facts.

[83:06] Kirk, just to follow up on that. If it is quasi-judicial, and there's a difference between the presentation that was given to us and the presentation that is made in the meeting is that problematic? Because we could have been technically, we could have been studying materials that are not presented in the meeting. Yeah, I think if if Staff's going to go ahead and share presentations ahead of time then, and I'm assuming we're talking about staff presentations, because we do also have applicant presentations and so forth, but that it would also be shared on on the board, on the city website, where other things are shared that are submitted great. So that makes me a little bit more nervous, because then we're not sharing the final. And I think we've had these conversations in the past that, you know, we're going to be posting something that might not be the final version. And then there's version control issues for the record. But

[84:03] so that gives me a little bit of pause, and it so, having been on tab and and other boards many times, those other boards do send their presentations in advance. But it's not a quasi-judicial hearing. And I think that that is a yeah, that's that's a logistical item. Yep, needs to be taken into account. We can certainly give it some, thought Laura. I have a few, but but 1st I want to say mark for me tonight there were not enough tears. So I'll look to you to lead the way on that in the future. Okay. okay. So a few things I've been thinking about in terms of just solidifying our process. And partially, this is coming from. you know, thinking about it as a facilitator. So one thing that I think would be really helpful for anybody who's chairing a meeting is to have a facilitation plan in front of you as chair to check off, you know. Not just the agenda. But there may be things that don't appear on the agenda that you want to make sure you do like a check in for a quasi-judicial hearing.

[85:14] asking for ex parte communications or disclosure of conflict, of interest, to make sure that we go through that step every time for public transparency. So that's 1 thing I would want to see happen every time consistently for site reviews. You know. The last couple that we've done have been pretty complicated in terms of thinking about the criteria. and I think it would be very helpful if, for every quasi-judicial hearing staff are prepared to pull up our criteria on the screen for us to look at while we're discussing. Does this project meet this particular criterion or not? So if we, as a board, are prepared to cite the specific criterion, and we can look at it on the screen in front of us while we're talking about it. I think that'd be very helpful. Same thing with an area plan. If we're talking about something from an area plan, let's get that area plan. Language pulled up on the screen, not just for us.

[86:06] but also for the public and for the applicants. Because I was really, I took to heart the comments that we got that our process was. I forget what the word was. It wasn't Byzantine, but it was some similar term. Kafkaesque. Yes, and I used the word Orwellian right like. Let's let's not have it be opaque. Let's not have it sound like we're just spouting a bunch of confusing Mumbo Jumbo. But let's be able to show this is the code section we're talking about and have a clear discussion about it. So that's another process step that I would recommend regardless of what side I'm on in any particular substantive matter. I love the idea of having a debrief at the end of every meeting, and really using that, and saying as a way for us to grow as a board together. Right to say something didn't really work for me is not, is not meant to be a character assassination, or to be a complaint more so. Just a this is our opportunity to improve together and do it better next time, so I'll try to do that and be more open about if I if something didn't really work for me, and I hope that we all will do the same.

[87:15] And then the last thing I wanted to mention is an idea from Macon Coles. He said that when he was on planning board they always had a show and tell opportunity for matters where, if a board member was reading something or had seen something particularly interesting, or there was something on your mind, you could bring it up and say, Hey, I watched this video. And I thought, this perfectly encapsulates a dynamic that we're experiencing here in Boulder or this other jurisdiction is doing this really wild fun thing that I think could be really applicable or not, you know. And let's think about do we do it the same or differently, and have a little discussion around that. and I think that in our 1st couple of years, when 3 of us who are sitting here tonight, Ml. And Mark and I were appointed. Our agendas were so full that we didn't have time to breathe like. Sometimes we were journeying at one in the morning, and so nobody wanted to do any kind of extra stuff.

[88:10] but our agendas have been a little bit lighter lately, so especially when we have a light meeting. I think it'd be great to do show and tell. Those are my thoughts. Those are great. Thank you very much. Anyone else with thoughts correct. This is less about the board process, and maybe it really runs into City Council territory. But I was the landmarks board liaison, which was a great experience, but it also felt not the best use of everybody's time, and I I strongly supported the proposal to eliminate that position. but I do feel, and it occurred to me, when Mark brought up tab, I do feel that there would be significant benefit to having a liaison to tab, especially when they're

[89:08] do reviewing concept, doing concept reviews, because I feel like the board, the the tab board. They they don't have experience with land, use matters with what is possible, what is not possible, what the process is, and so on, and I think it could be really beneficial to have a a liaison to tab, so I don't know what the process would be for trying to make that happen. Maybe it's just try collaring city Council members or something. I don't know if it's something that would have to go into the code. but I to me it feels like there's a big opportunity there. So I just want to bring that up. Kurt. Are you proposing that someone from planning board sit in on tab meetings when Tab is reviewing.

[90:08] doing a constant looking at looking at a land use issue? Or are you saying all the time, or or are you saying a tab member sit in with us? Or could you be a little more specific about what your thought is, no, I can't be more specific, because my thought is not more specific. But but I think probably the most benefit would be, for to have a liaison from planning board to tab for meetings when there is a concept review on the on the agenda. And yeah, for other times when you know they're talking about traffic signals or whatever. Then it's not so appropriate. But I'm I'm flexible. I just. I feel that there is potentially a lot of benefit there. Okay. Great. Oh, hella, yeah. A

[91:02] I guess I have. Did you ask? I don't know if that's possible. If that needs a code change. The Planning Board has sent for many years a liaison to dab, and that's also not in the code. It doesn't give you an official role like you. I think the planning board member on the landmarks board and on Hab is an ex officio board member for Deb. Deb. You might be there, and might not be able to say anything because you're not actually a board member. But you're there and are able to provide input. If that board desires it. So it could be something like that that you're that you appoint somebody from your board, and that person is just available to provide context or answer questions similar to how Dap works. Yeah. And for Landmark Board, I don't think that the liaison was an ex officio member because you didn't have voting rights.

[92:06] So it was really just a liaison. But sitting up at the dais. Yeah. But it was in the code that a planning board member, right? That's true, was supposed to be an ex officio member. But no voting rights. That's right. Okay, the dab liaison is not in the code. Correct. That's a tradition versus a code item interesting. Well, I would propose a new tradition, and and maybe that, you know, depending upon if it if it's nothing more than a new tradition. Then maybe there's not a lot to be done other than just do it. Yeah, you wouldn't appointed one of you guys. Yeah. would we need to check with Tab. Whether they would like that. I mean, we could just assume that they would. They would be honored by our presence. But yeah, and there was actually a while where the Board did appoint a liaison

[93:06] to, I think, a tab, and I think David Ensign went for a while, and then at some point, he came back and said, I'm not sure this is time worth spending. But it was also before there were regular referrals of concept plans, and so on, and only council can refer any title Ix items to tab, and that didn't used to be a practice. But it's become a practice now. Okay, Laura. Thank you. Where have we landed with planning board group assignments? Because I know we were rejiggering some of that and saying, maybe we don't need a liaison to landmarks. I'm not sure that we made an official decision, or where that has landed. I think every year we usually we get a list of here are all the appointments we need to fill for different groups.

[94:01] Are we going to get one of those this year? Yes, and so, maybe with. So I was on tab when David Ensign was the liaison, and as I recall this is, you know, 4 years ago now, as I recall. There was some some somebody somewhere kind of pulled him back from that. It wasn't it so? And he was coming to every meeting which I think would be unnecessary. It wasn't just on on nights that we were doing concept reviews and and we. And during my tenure on tab, we did that very rarely, and it was only a particular council that started to up the level of involvement because of the prohibition on tab to weigh in on land use decisions that's written into the code.

[95:01] So But I think that now that tab seems to be getting more referrals on land use issues, that when they're referred than the liaison. A presence of the liaison I would think Tab would both appreciate and would allow, and it might be helpful in those instances. So it sounds like the people who have commented are basically in alignment that we should have, or at least offer to have, a liaison to tab for those meetings where they cross with land use. I think I'm seeing nodding heads that people think that's a good idea, at least, most folks. So maybe that's something to propose to tab. I don't. I don't know what the process would be. One of us could go to a Tab meeting and speak up at the public participation for you.

[96:01] But I would not advocate for a code change, and the process required for code change that if if simply, if if what goes on with Dab could go on with Tab. I think that might be completely appropriate. Given tabs, desire or agreement. Yeah, one thing to be a little bit careful about is that that's an interaction about an application outside of the actual hearing in front of the planning board for the item. So Hello, would it if the person who is the liaison understood their role strictly as answering land use questions, not commenting on the application. Would that be okay, or are we waiting into territory that we should be very, very cautious about.

[97:01] I think it would not be within your purview to give an opinion, because you would not be there as a member of the Tab Board. It would really be more about answering general questions about how a Site review process the Oaks, which I guess staff could provide that information as well, and maybe how the Board reviews, applications and the standards that apply. But legally it would be safest to not attend a meeting that's not the hearing in front, and we really don't get that. Many applications referred to tab by council. I mean, I think we've had a handful in the last couple of years. Yeah. And concept review is not an approval. It's not a vote. So is it really problematic to have to be expressing opinions. I think sometimes it kind of differs how the different applications are being brought forward. Sometimes a concept plan goes to tab, but sometimes a referral is made by council, and

[98:10] the review happens when the site review comes in. Hmm. well, this, this may have to continue to another night, and as you guys as as staff prepares the list of liaisons. Maybe you guys can noodle on that. Okay, okay, Any other items from the board? If not, then I'll I'll I have a couple and this one I'm going to direct to Staff. The 1st one is, I would really like to have our rules of procedure adopted and and in place to help. I think your idea of kind of the

[99:01] checklist a format that we follow that is helpful to whoever's chairing to make sure we go through everything. but the basis of that would be our adopted rules of procedure, and I know we have adopted rules of procedure now, but I'm really anxious to have the new ones completed and adopted. I think Laurel's almost done with them, because we went over them line by line with the board. So I think it's just another turn at the crank. Yeah. And yeah, and identifying a spot on the on the calendar. Yeah, we've we're a little bit short staffed in our office right now, which has made things difficult overall. It feels like they're really close. And I think that's right. Yeah, yeah, okay, so we are also eager for them to be updated. Okay. the other item, 2 items that as I've thought about projects we've reviewed as of late.

[100:05] And and that is the 1st one is. I think, we need to refer more projects to Dab. I think we for a while we were, and then we haven't in a long time, and and for me I've forgotten at times. And and now I look back at certain concept reviews and designs, and I think this is one that I think you know. I wish Dab could have looked at and helped with. So anyway, I think it's something that we need to keep in mind as we do concept reviews, and to not be shy about that, because there, there, you know, Dab might go sometimes 4 or 6 months without a project to review, and I think it's a resource that that we haven't been taking advantage of

[101:00] Kurt to clarify. We don't refer projects to Deb. Right? We are you talking about recommending that Council? Refer to Deb. I thought we did. You have the authority to refer things to to Deb, yes, I learned something. Yeah, today, it's tab that Council has the authority to refer things to. The Council also sometimes refers things to Deb, yeah, but we can do it. Oh, you sure can. Yeah. And a lot of applicants frankly appreciate their review from Deb. They do it electively. They're usually planning on doing it, anyway. So okay. yeah. But it adds a lot of value. Frankly, yeah. And and there are times where you know. we had some discussion at recent meetings about doing architecture on the fly and everything, and and I think it got me thinking about gee, we have this resource. Let's make better use of it. So and then the the thing that kind of coincides with that is. and coincides with show. And tell I got a I got a piece in my email from

[102:03] one of the many you know, planning emails that I get. And it was just it was just a piece about good design and beauty and the built environment. and what that means to us. And I think that and our code has some subjective areas in it that refer to good design materials, etc. And I think we have, and many times we're caught up in the exact number of feet the length of a wall, or the height, or whatever it might be, the number of square feet of open space, and we lose sight of something that that may fulfill the criteria, but is terribly ugly, or may not fulfill every piece of the criteria which I know we have to have. It fulfill the criteria. But some of our criteria subjective. And it's actually, really quite.

[103:06] quite beautiful. And I and I think, especially concept review. But insight review as well. We have not talked about design and beauty as as much as we might. and I would I would encourage us to to think about that as we review projects. That's my 2 bets. So I appreciate you bringing this up because there have been some projects that don't align with my personal aesthetic, and I have purposefully avoided commenting on it because it isn't in the criteria, and because that is something that's pretty impossible to legislate right, that everybody has a different opinion about what is ugly and what is cool, right? And so I don't know how we have that conversation, especially in a site review where we're supposed to be applying criteria fairly and consistently. I don't know how we talk about beauty, and whether the project is beautiful or not.

[104:05] Yeah. You know, being the only architect on the board here. I I absolutely refrain from talking about design and and beauty. because I don't think it is in this board's purview to be putting forth either an aesthetic or a a direction. That sole implication is related to something as really undefinable as beauty. So I I would I would not bring it into the board conversation or the board of. unless we're just saying, Hey, this is a cool thing. Let's look at it under matters fine. There's a lot of amazing stuff going on out there in the world, but I think to try to bring it into our deliberations on projects.

[105:11] I completely disagree that this board has any really right? Because these are architects. These are professionals we're dealing with out there, and you know, a lot of attention, and time goes into the projects, and it really isn't up to us to give direction about how something looks, or how something might look that isn't bound back into the criteria that the plans, or the zoning, or in any of the criteria that we are truly accountable to. that that seems pretty clear to me for Site Review for concept review. I was under the assumption which could be totally wrong that we were. It was completely within our purview to say things like

[106:06] maybe reconsider this, or consider like the the pedestrian experience here, or consider the materials that you're thinking about there like. And then maybe if it's something beyond that, it's the debt sort of referral. But in Site review I totally agree is that the right understanding and I'm in, am I in about the right ballpark. Charles is not. No, it is. Yeah. I think. Concept plan. You have a lot more. The criteria and concept plan are designed to be more broad, so that you can have those sorts of conversations that are, you know, really more at the conceptual level. I would just caution this, you know that again, I'm the only architect on the board. So that isn't the background of this board. And it just to remember that when even when we're having the conversation that, in my personal opinion, becomes, I think, a very important sort of disclaimer to put on it, because, as Laura pointed out, you know whether we like something or not, or whether something appeals to our visual sense

[107:05] is is debatable. I mean, there is not a black and white deal. It's subjective, you know. We just always ask that you have those sorts of conversations about building design under the the criteria that exist in the Site Review standards. Excellent thanks, Charles Laura. So just just 2 more points on that one is, I'm just always struck by. There are a lot of buildings in the world that were extremely controversial when they were built, and they are now iconic, like the gaudy buildings which is where we get our word gaudy from. But they are world famous, right? And they were hue and cry. People hated them when they were built, or at least some people did. And then the second thing, and I often find my taste changing over time where something I thought that was really hideous. I'm like, actually, I'm kind of used to that now, and I feel like I like it, you know, so, or vice versa. I really love something, and now I'm like, And then the last point I wanted to make is that I will sometimes, in a site review, ask applicants about a particular feature, and whether it is responsive to our criteria like, did you do that because there was something in our criteria that that forced you to, or that was a response to something in our criteria, because I think it does behoove us. If we're seeing outcomes, we don't like to think are our criteria driving those outcomes, and we want to rethink those criteria right? I think that's perfectly appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate to say

[108:26] it. And you know, when we're in a site review, I've been pretty clear. I think that my perspective is, we have to enforce the criteria that we've got. But if we're not getting the outcomes we want, we should change the criteria for the future. Okay? Sorry, a little. A little off topic. But there's a concept of music where it's the ugly that sticks. So every time we've moved past something like tape that ends up being the thing that gets emulated further down the road. So I don't know something to look into if you're interested.

[109:01] and if I've just from a legal perspective, even if it's just concept review, I would encourage you to stick to the criteria that you would be applying, or what the concept plan review standards. It's not a standard for approval, but it expects you to address certain things to stay within those parameters, because if you start talking about what you like or not, like somebody might perceive that as bias towards a project or against a project that might be brought up against later, so it's really best to just stick with in your purview. And it's also good for time management. Yeah. And but those criteria are very broad, though much much more broad than you would see in in Site Review. So I think it affords us the opportunity to have bigger conversations about building design. Yeah. But within within what's described there, right, and not not about personal feelings, about building design. So I before before making these comments, I sat down

[110:05] and I read 9, dash, 2, dash 14, a the purpose of site review. And before I before I go on and cite just a couple sentences. there are a lot of criteria in the Site Review that are subjective, the entire. Our current entire Tdm requirements are subjective. It is to promote you know, the dissuade single occupancy trips, etc. We and we have a paragraph in there, and it is not numerical. It is entirely subjective. And yet we require a Tdm plan, and it's up to this board to decide is that Tdm plan subjectively fulfill the criteria. So we deal with subjectivity in our site reviews frequently.

[111:02] and when you read. The purpose is to allow flexibility in design, encourage innovation and land use development. To enduring human scale building design buildings that exemplify high quality, enduring architecture with facades that are simple and human, scaled. Just the the under the purpose. The whole purpose, as defined in our code. is a whole bunch of subjective criteria, and I think that when we latch on to the numerical things, to the neglect of some of the subjective things, we

[112:00] do a disservice to the applicants and to the community as a whole. If if our sole criteria is, is this numerical criteria. and we don't acknowledge that our criteria has many subjective areas in it. Oh, you know, the the thing that I would bring up is we use the Bbcpa in that regard as well. It holds a lot of lofty visionary desired. But we can't. We can't quantify it. We can't qualify it. We can't. It doesn't land in a in a way that says we have to do this in order to get be in this zone, or be in this use, or or any of those sort of trickle down to a requirement.

[113:00] I I used to often read that sort of purpose. and and then I started to recognize that It wants to. It wants to put us in a kind of in a state of mind. That bottom line. We want a good city. you know. We want a good city. I don't. I don't think we have translated those desires as carefully as they might have been into the numerical end of the day. The numerical is what we are accountable to, but I think it could be our as we work our way through, and maybe in the debriefing we could say. You know, it would be really nice if if this criteria could be tweaked in this way. It help us better accommodate. you know the purpose, because we don't refer to the purpose

[114:03] much in our in our process. and you know I was very excited about the purpose when I 1st got on the board. And then I realized we don't use it because we don't have a means to use it. So I think it becomes our task to say, how can we create ways in our actual numerical accountability to get some of these other qualities that might not be showing up currently, Laura. So I just want to bring us back to. Maybe Charles remembers. Carl would probably remember also, what year was it that we updated the Site Review criteria was that 2 years ago. 21 or 2222, 22. I think it was our for the 3 of us who are the oldest serving members. It was like our second year on the board. Kurt, were you there for that? No, I thought it was one of the first.st We started the We.

[115:07] One of the 1st meetings was one of our virtual meetings that went till one in the morning, where we were going through the Site Review criteria, line by line by line, and it was, I think it was. It was an intense I'm not going to say traumatic, but it was an intense experience for those of us who were there, and my understanding was that one of the purposes of why we were updating the Site Review criteria is because applicants and staff felt that there was too much subjectivity and not enough predictability. Because, you know, applicants are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through this site review process, and they want to know if I follow the rules. If I do what you've asked me to, will you approve my project? And so I feel very strongly that we updated those criteria to remove some of the subjectivity and to say, Here's what you got to do. Here's the deal. If you do these things you will get an approval, and if you don't do these things you will not get an approval so that they can predict that. And that's 1 of the reasons why those criteria have been dialed down the way they have. Now, there is still some subjectivity about things like Tdm. Plans which, as I understand it, Staff is currently trying to work on narrowing down or potentially removing.

[116:16] You know, I don't think it's our job to be the 7 arbiters of what code means. any more than we have to right to the extent that there is ambiguity in the code, then we have to do it, but we should not be deliberately trying to introduce more flexibility or more ambiguity into a process that should be predictable, and it should be consistent, and it should be that an applicant knows. If they do these things they'll get an approval right? I don't want to go back on that that promise that we have made and the whole purpose of why we updated our code. And I remember looking at that purpose section and saying, this isn't what this code does. We need to update the purpose of site review because our purpose is not to promote artistic creativity and flexibility. Our purpose is to say, here's what it takes to get modifications to your your buy right zoning right predictably, and that's my view, and maybe not. Everybody on the board shares that view. But that's that's where I'm coming from. And I just wanted to introduce that bit of history for people who weren't there.

[117:12] Kirk, just to add to the history, at least as I understand it, and people can maybe correct me. But my understanding is originally there were planned unit developments, right? And that was sort of a way to do a thing that wasn't in the code. And then the Site review process was introduced as a sort of a more formalized means of the Pud, and at that time it really was to promote the flexibility of design, the flexibility, right, flexibility of design to encourage innovation and land use development. Blah blah blah blah. And but then we started saying, Well, every this isn't a thing that is an optional process for people who want to do something that the current code doesn't allow. Now it's if you're over 40,000 square feet, or whatever the threshold is. Boom, you got to do this. And so the process or the sorry, the the

[118:16] the rationale for it really changed. And you're right. We didn't update the purpose. And I good thing Carl, is gone because I griped about this when I was on. I was on the committee when we were doing the update to the Site Review criteria, and I complained that these things didn't match. And yeah, yeah, it's it is still a problem. And we still have this sort of existential question. I think, of what should be the purpose of site Review. So I'm not trying to get the last word, but I think we're going to

[119:04] conclude here, but I'm I will simply say that I think that the purpose of a review by a board is because there is subjectivity in in in the process is designed to be partly subjective. Otherwise why have a board? Why have a review? You? You submit your CAD. If you submit your CAD drawings, and they fulfill every numerical criteria of a code. Then you've simply said, well, we don't need site review, because we have a build by right, we have an electronic build by right database that you submit your drawings. And the database says yes or no. and I think that would result in some really terrible designs, because you might be able to. You can't.

[120:02] Even with AI. I don't think you can create a design that fulfills the purpose and subjectivity of a review process. So review processes by their nature are required when you have subjectivity. so I'll my point is, and I for me, I will not just like I can't not see the numerical criteria. I cannot not see the purpose. As is stated here in the code. It's it's clear to me that the purpose of our review process is to adjudicate. Hence quasi-judicial is to adjudicate the subject. The subjective portions of the criteria. Can I mark respond quickly? I'm sorry I'm not trying to get the last word, either, just for on principle. But I do have. I do have a thought about why do we do this right? And for me, coming from a public policy facilitation background.

[121:09] Part of it is transparency with the public, and you know Boulder is a wonderful city and a model city in many, many respects, and I'm super glad to live here. and anytime you have a bureaucracy. People are going to suspect things are happening behind closed doors that shouldn't be. And so one of the purposes for, and that's not a comment on Boulder. That is universal. And so for me, one of the purposes of sitting on a board like this, and devoting all the countless hours that we do is that we are part of the citizen oversight to say. Staff, show us your work, and then we can comment on it and say, Do we agree because their staff is not going to bring us a project that they don't think meets the criteria every single project they bring us. They think it meets the criteria or wouldn't be here. And so we're not here to be a rubber stamp. But we're also not here to try to introduce things that don't exist in the code. Right? So yes, words on paper are always going to be subjective right, like Hella just had to define for us what does reckless mean in a legal sense? Right? So there's there is some of that interpretation. But I think the

[122:12] one of the main purposes that we serve is to fulfill the promise to the public that this is transparent. It's happening in public, and there is citizen oversight over the largest and most impactful developments in our city for this board in particular. anything else? Okay. well, okay. So I just want to conclude by saying, I really enjoyed having this, not just this particular discussion, but our little matters time, and I'd like to continue that. And people should feel free. To to bring matters up under matters. Okay. All right. Anything else. any any debrief. Here we are. Now we've gone from matters to debrief anyone want to, as if we haven't had enough debriefing anyone? Have any comments under debrief?

[123:11] I'll just say I think there were a lot of pent up things that we have needed to talk about, and a lot of that came out here and now, and I don't expect that every debrief will be long, or every matters item will be long. But I have really appreciated this opportunity to talk with everybody, and I hope we do more of it as well, but maybe not always an hour of it. Yeah, especially on what would have been an early meeting for staff. But anyway, we appreciate you guys staying and and hearing our thoughts. So. okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, I'll adjourn the meeting now.