December 16, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:01] All right, we've started our recording, so we can go ahead and begin when you're ready. >> Thank you, Thomas. Uh, good evening everybody. Today is December 16th and I'd like to call this meeting of the planning board for the city of Boulder, Colorado to order. I am Laura Kaplan sitting in tonight for Chair Mark McIntyre who could not be with us. And tonight we have uh six members of the planning board present. Everybody except for Chair McIntyre. So, on our agenda tonight, uh we don't have any minutes. We will have two call-up items and then the main item on our agenda tonight is uh our year end letter to city council from the planning board about potential priorities for their work plan for the next year. Before we get to that, our first order of business is to do public participation. We do not have any public hearings on the agenda tonight, so members of the public can comment on basically anything they want that might be before the planning board or of interest to you. That is a planning matter. So, I would ask um I don't know

[1:02] if we have Vivian with us tonight or Thomas if you're going to be doing our rules of public participation. >> Yeah, we um Vivian is taking the night off, so I can read our advisory board protocol slides. Um just give me just one minute to get those pulled up. >> Sure. Thank you, Tom. All right. So, first of all, we would like everyone to know that 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 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 process involved, please visit our website here. And the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Advice Code and other guidelines that support

[2:00] this vision. These will all 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. Obscinity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are. And 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. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. When it is your turn to speak, you can let us know that you'd like to speak by um using the raise hand icon here and then you'll be added to the list of folks for us to call on. And if you happen to be calling into the meeting, you can press star in line to do the same function as raising your hand. If you don't see that raise hand icon, you might need to click the reactions button and expand it. And then you'll see the raise hand icon here. And with that being said, we are moving into open comments. So if anybody would like to

[3:00] speak, this is your opportunity and please go ahead and raise your hand. >> And I will note that we are entirely virtual tonight. So nobody in the room including us. So just virtual comment tonight. >> And we have one hand raised. Uh we have Lynn Seagull. Lynn, give me just a moment to get this timer pulled up for you and then we can go ahead and begin. You can go ahead and begin. >> Um, it's Lynn Seagull. Um, yeah, I hardly know where to start. I always

[4:00] like to start at free Palestine and Gaza because everything that you do Oh, Thomas, could I see the group, please? I just see your face. >> This is the only way that we can have the timer displayed virtually, unfortunately. >> Oh, no. Actually, you can you can put it all in the in the gallery and then your your video image will have the timer on it. Uh, I'm using an app within Zoom and this is how this app functions unfortunately. Lyn, I don't want you to to kill any more of your time. >> Yeah, but I really want to talk to the board. I mean, I like you, Thomas. >> I can I can remove the spotlight. Yay. >> And then you can see the timer very small. >> Oh, no. I can see it fine. >> Okay. Yay. >> Um, could I give get back my time, please? If that's all right with the chair, we can add another minute to your time. >> That's fine. >> Yay. Thank you, Laura. Merry Christmas

[5:01] to you, too. Except that I don't celebrate any holidays or birthdays or weekends or even Fridays because it seems like nobody works on Fridays either. But, >> all right. Thank you, Lynn. We're going 54 if you want to go ahead. >> Oh, sure. That's fine. Yes. Thank you. >> Uh um but what I do celebrate is every breath that I take, every single breath. And I think we all do that and and we all know that. Um and um I have a real dilemma now with regards to an energy retrofit. And I know within the planning board there's plenty of projects that you do that involve the community benefit of climate change and um energy use in any structures. And I'm just going through a

[6:02] very very challenging situation with the city with a retrofit that took a year for me to just be eligible for and then it's been a year and one month that I've been challenging every single thing that they did to my house and I really want geothermal and I want and this has come up like in lately like even with Darkhorse I think um it was a matter public and private easements. So I can relate that to the city too because once this geo gets scaled up um then we can do districts geothermal districts and stuff and maybe it's somehow better that I'm somehow delayed but I am 72 years old. That's my age is still on the screen but I'm not shy. Um, it's just that two

[7:00] years is a lot of time for a 72 year old and for me to wait be waiting and to be really heartbroken that my chances for doing geo thermal now are are very very reduced because of everything that was done to my house. Um, and it's it's very important to me, but because the county 10 years ago I was doing a retrofit and it wasn't free and I interviewed one of the vendors that was offered and really liked them and called the county back and they said, "Oh, we dropped them." And I asked them why and they wouldn't tell me. So, I called the vendor and they said they dropped them because they were doing a solar install. This Stellar, this company was consigned to do the solar install, but it was under adverse conditions, maybe too cold or too hot or something at the time, and the county forced them to do it anyway, and so they

[8:01] declined to do the job. So, the county retaliated by dropping them from the vendor list. And I I was just stunned that that could happen and that I couldn't trust my county. So, it's the last 10 years. >> It's the last 10 years that since this happened that now I couldn't be involved in my own retrofit. So, sorry. >> Thank Thank you very much. That's three minutes. >> Yeah. Thanks for >> Thank you for being with us. Excellent. Uh, if there's anybody else that would like to speak for open comment, this is the opportunity to go ahead and raise your hands. And seeing no further raised hands, I'm going to go ahead and pass it back to you, chair. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Thomas, and thank you, Lynn. So, that concludes the public participation part of our agenda. We do not have any minutes to approve tonight. We do have two callup items. So, I'm

[9:01] going to read them one by one and then if planning board members have questions for staff or any desire to call these up, we will discuss. So, uh item 4A is a use to allow for a 3,678 ft sales of vehicles use in the BR1 zone located at 180529th Street, unit 1124. This application is subject to potential call up on or before December 19th, 2025. Anyone on the board have questions or potentially a desire to call it up? I I had I had one question for staff just so I can understand um sort of uh why this is an exception and wouldn't just be allowed by right as a retail use. Could you talk to us about why that is and if we're looking at anything to change that? I I understand a dealership

[10:01] with cars parked outside is one thing, but this is a only an interior retail use as I read it. So, I'd just be curiously just curious. >> Yeah. And good evening board members. My name is Adam Olinger. I'm a planner here on staff with the city. Um, we determined that the use of the proposed user here was more in line with our sales of vehicles use as defined in the land use code. Uh, just because they are selling vehicles. I know the use review process for this is intended more for, you know, your more typical car dealerships, but with the way that it's defined in the BRC, we felt that it more closely aligned with sales of vehicles use than the retail sales use. >> Got it. So, even though it's just interior because it's just interior space, right? They're not displaying vehicles outside of the outside of the facility. interior space and in the parking spaces beneath the

[11:00] >> Okay. >> Uh in underground parking garage. >> Got it. Okay. Just I was just mostly curious. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, Adam and George. Any other questions for Adam? Anyone desire to call this up? >> Okay. See one. >> I have a question. Uh not a question. Um, at one point in time way back when, um, I don't know if anybody remembers, but we had a Tesla showroom on Pearl Street Mall. So, there is precedent in the city for, um, that kind of a use in a retail uh, situation. So, anyway, all good on my end. Thank you, ML. Going once, going twice. Any desire to call this up? Looks like none. So, congratulations to the Rivian dealership that will be joining the 29th Street Mall. Next item 4B is a callup of a site review amendment and use review to redevelop

[12:02] the existing structure at 4760 Baseline Road to construct two new commercial buildings in two phases. The existing bank will relocate to one building and the second building will be a multi-tenant space for retail and restaurant use. The project will amend the existing PUD, which is P-85-70, to allow for two structures on the property and requires a use review to allow for a bank on the ground floor. These applications are subject to potential call up on or before December 19th, 2025. Any questions about this site review amendment and use review that is in the Meadows Shopping Center? No questions. any desire to call it up? Seeing none, congratulations to this applicant as well. All right, we're going to move on. We have no public hearing items tonight and we have just one more item standing between us and our recess for the rest of the year. So,

[13:01] this is a working session under matters from the planning board and that is our council letter discussion. So, it falls to me to try to organize this and try to get us through efficiently. So, I'm going to do the best job that I can. >> So, Thomas, could you please go ahead and pull up a version of our letter that you have? >> I'm muted. Um, >> yeah, >> sure. Yeah. And I wasn't sure if you got my message with that version. I wasn't entirely sure if you would prefer to do the editing on the drafting or if you would like me to. Um, but you do have the latest version of the doc. So, it's up to you. >> Um, I'm happy if folks are okay if it's okay with staff for me to share my screen and to edit in real time. And if that's okay with the board members, you'll be able to see all of the edits and it will all be done during the meeting. So, is that okay with folks? >> Okay, that works. And then >> and then if you want to just send the doc back to me once we get it finalized

[14:00] at the end of the meeting, I'll take care of sending it um to the appropriate location. Um, let me make one qu I have a document in front of me that has all of the text copied into it, but let me um reorder a couple things because I was thinking that Thomas would be doing the edit edit thing, but that's fine. I'm happy to do it. I just didn't know what the protocol was with the city around letting board members screen share. I I think we're okay with that unless there's any objections from anybody else on staff. >> And aren't we running wild because we don't have any legal here anyway. >> Exactly. [laughter] Okay. Let me I'm going to try to do this uh as efficiently as possible. All right. So, um let me see if I can share my screen. Sharing is not turned on. So, I'm going to send a request to Thomas.

[15:06] Okay. Um, hopefully this will do what I want it to do. I haven't used Zoom in a while. All right. Are you all seeing my whole screen that has the letter for city council open? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to blow that up. >> And this is uh Laura, is this the same version that was in our packet so far? >> Correct. This is this is the version that is in the packet. I do want to acknowledge that I sent some potential text around formbbased code and so did uh chair McIntyre. So we have two potential versions of that. If we decide to include that in the letter, then we can decide do do some word smithing and editing and decide how to reconcile the text. Um but uh I thought a little bit about how to organize this. And I'm going to take that tab and move it off screen for my own notes. Um, so I do want to acknowledge that this idea of

[16:00] the form-based code being an item for our letter was not in our original vote that we took two meetings ago. Um, but it does seem like that rose to the top after our last meeting for at least a few members. So I think there was enough attention to it to at least propose it tonight to see if the group wants to include that in the letter or not. Um, and so I think maybe the most efficient way to handle this is first to ask just for a general sense. Um, and let me see if I can get a gallery with everybody. Thumbs up or thumbs down. Well, let me walk you through all the steps of the process so you can see kind of where we're going with this one. The first decision is, do we want to include the formbbased code item in the letter? Yes or no? If we do, then we have a list of seven potential items for the letter. Then I would ask, are there any items we want to drop from the letter? Uh recognizing that city council has limited attention to give us. The fewer things that we put before them, probably the more attention those things will

[17:01] get. Although there also could be benefit to including more things so that council knows it's on our mind even if it doesn't make it into their work plan. So it's really up to this group how many items do we want to include in the letter and do we want to drop any of them? And then when we have a final list of all the items we want to include in the letter, then we can try to condense it down if we would like to remove text. Again, recognizing that city council has asked us to keep it to two pages if we can. But if we send more than two pages, then it's up to them how they want to use that information and whether they skim it or read it or what. So there's no there's no hard rule that they're going to throw it out if it's over two pages. So does that make sense to first decide, do we want to include the formbased code item at all? Second, do we want to drop any items? Oh, and I forgot. We can also reorder the items and prioritize them. And then Wordsmith. Does that make sense as a plan? I saw a couple of hands up. So, ML and then I think Claudia might have had a hand up. ML.

[18:00] >> Um, so what I'm wondering is in the process of deciding um I I agree that the formbbased code, you know, let's just say it's either in or out at the beginning. I think that's a good strategy. But um on the rest of them, I'm wondering whether we just go down the list and say, do we want to keep this and is this, you know, number one, number two, whatever, rather than just saying, okay, do are there any we want to take in or out? I I'm almost thinking that going item by item and deciding if it should be in or out would be more um I want to use the word precise, but I'm not sure that that's the right word. I think it would it would help us focus more on the value of the thing that we're looking at rather than just saying it generally in or out. >> Right. >> Yeah. I I'm open to process suggestions. Um you know, one way that we could do this in terms of prioritizing is

[19:01] everybody discusses their top two and why those are their top two and we also discuss are there does anybody actively want to get rid of one and if so why. Um, I think it would have to take a decision of this group to actively kick an item out to get it off of our letter because we have already said these are items that are um, at least high to medium priority for us. So, I think I would suggest it would take a majority vote, you know, at least three or four of us to say actively take it off the list. >> I agree. >> Other questions or thoughts about the process? Mason, >> I know you mentioned being concerned with the number of items. I'm more concerned with the length of the document itself than the number of items. Um, so you know, if we had like 30 items but it was two pages, I think that would be okay. But if it was, you know, five items but 30 pages, that would not. So I think there's maybe a balance. >> Yeah, I think if we get rid of nothing,

[20:02] our document will be about three pages and that's including about a half a page of header material and closing. So, we're just a little bit over the limit now. So, I think my suggestion is it would take an active decision that we really don't want to distract city council with a certain item to kick it off the list. >> Okay. >> Any other questions about the process or thoughts about the process? Okay. Then maybe let's start with um this form based code item because it's not currently on our list. Let me just review for folks and maybe maybe Thomas I can send this to you and you can put it up on the screen. Uh just to remind people what's already in the letter and what those six items that are already in the letter and then the one item that would be added potentially. Oh, I can't find my chat. How do I get

[21:03] back to that? Well, why don't I just I'll just put it on my screen since I'm the one screen sharing. How about that? [laughter] Okay. I don't know what just happened there. There we go. Okay. So, this is our list of seven items. Can everybody see that? Number one being ground floor retail site review, missing middle, pre-approved housing plan sets program, prioritizing area plans, landscaping for shade and cooling, and update to the form base code for East Boulder. So, first decision, do we want to even include the updates to the formbbased code for East Boulder as one of the items in this letter? Who feels strongly

[22:01] that it should be in? Let's do a thumbs up if you think it should be in. Okay, that is four. So, that's majority. So, we'll leave it on the list for now. >> I think I think that was I think that was five. I The only person I didn't see thumbs up was Kurt. >> Oh, I didn't see Claudia's thumb. Okay, thank you. I know Mark McIntyre was also um so into this item he was suggesting it should potentially be our only item. So, I know he would have been in favor, although he doesn't get a vote tonight. Okay, so it's on the list. Um next decision. Are there any of these that we want to kick off the list? And I'd like to start here. I see Claudia, you went off of mute with the landscape for shading and cooling. Do you want to talk about that one? Um, I don't have anything prepared to say about it other than I suggested at our last meeting that I would like to withdraw this in favor of other priorities. Um, I was not able to come up with anything concise in this area and I think there are other

[23:01] things on this list that deserve more attention. >> Okay. So, since Claudia is the person who suggested it, now she's suggesting withdrawing it. Um, let's again active decision. At least four people have to say kick it out. So, who would like to kick this one out? Thumbs up if you want to go ahead and kick it out. Okay, so I see five thumbs. Everybody but Kurt again. Okay, so we're going to go ahead and take this one off the list. Would anybody like to propose another one to kick out off the list? ML, >> can can we use a different term? Can we be kind and say remove rather than kick out? Yes, we can say we can say remove >> painful >> fun but kinder. >> So, um I was not here at the making of the list. I would have spoken up at the time because that you know this is I think the position holds and that's the number four pre-approved housing plan

[24:01] sets program. Um, in my experience, and I have seen uh jurisdictions do this for ADUs in particular, uh, Santa Cruz does it, the city of Seattle does it. Um, I have seen no advantage whatsoever uh to prevetting anything. What it basically does is it uh, you know, they call for uh, architects to submit options. They choose however many. There's an awful lot of them on many sites. And um all it does is give the people uh an opportunity to look at options. They still have to hire the architect to do the construction documents. The city still reviews the construction documents. The city can still, you know, change things or deny things. Each site's unique and that's where all the zoning hits the pavement. These are the

[25:00] things that um take time in the review process is a lot of are the zoning reviews. Um and that's unique. You can't prevet and pre-approve those kinds of things. I don't see any benefit. I've never seen a benefit in them in other cities. And I wouldn't um agree with using staff time to to set up that kind of a process here in here in Boulder. So that would be my thought about it and in um let's not use up our precious time in doing something that really I think sets up a false hope for the public thinking, oh I I can get this easily done. No, you still have to go through the whole permitting process. So anyway, I would say number four, uh there's not a lot of value. >> Okay, thank you. I want to give Mason an opportunity to speak to it since he was the author of this one and then anyone else who wants to speak either pro or con before we vote. So Mason,

[26:03] >> uh, Emil, I really appreciate your perspective on this. Um, I'm not as in the weeds as it sounds like you are. Uh, but I've looked at South Bend's program in particular and it seems to have been rather successful in speeding along certain type of developments. I think that one thing that we've we can expect in the future, you know, I I hate trying to predict what's going to happen in the future. You never quite know, but it seems like we're moving towards more of a gentle infill. And if we want to do this, um if we want to reduce some barriers to gentle infill, I think pre-approved housing could do that if done correctly. And it sounds like there's some examples for incorrect and correct and maybe some a way of doing this maybe a better way if that makes sense. >> Thank you, Mason. Other board members want to comment on this either for or against the idea of removing this from

[27:00] the list? Kirk has a hand up. Kurt, your hand is hard to see because it's kind of yellow on a yellow background. So, if I miss you, just speak up. Oh, >> okay. Sorry. Um, I'll repaint the room. >> [laughter] >> in order to make it stand out better. Um, I agree with removing it. I think it's a it's a good thing in concept. Uh, Portland did this with ADUs and it actually would have been a good program except that the ADUs, the pre-approved ADU designs that were approved were too fancy. Basically, they ended up being expensive to construct and so people didn't use them. But um but the concept I think was good. In this case, I feel like it may just be premature because at least as it's described in the memo, it refers to designs for narrow lot houses, duplexes, and small plexes, none of which are really allowed

[28:02] in most parts of the city anyhow. And so it feels like it it may be something to revisit in the future, but it's the time is not there yet. >> Anyone else want to speak, pro or con? >> I'll call on myself and say I'm really excited by this idea. I don't know a whole lot about it in terms of um solid on the ground examples. I would argue for not having it in our letter this year just because this is a one-year work plan for this council. I don't think that this will rise to the top in terms of what they will direct staff to do. Um, and so I would prefer to save it for uh a more ripe time would be my preference. Okay, any other thoughts before we vote on this one? All in favor of taking it off the list, raise your hand. So that's five. Okay, so we're going to take this one off the list, but Mason,

[29:00] great idea. And I hope it um bubbles back up at another time. Okay, so now we are down to what is this? Five items. Does anyone else have one they would like to take off the list for this one-year work plan for council? Claudia, >> I would like to propose taking off the area plans number currently number four on the list. Um, and that's for a couple of reasons. >> You finding it there on the screen? Okay, there we are. Prioritizing area plans. Um, in this year in particular with the city completing work on the BBCP update, this feels like an item that is getting ahead of that potentially and also very likely competing for some of the same staff time um in terms of where folks work in the planning department. So my proposal would be to remove that one. also

[30:00] strategically thinking that um fewer items are better and going to get more attention in this letter. >> I see ML's hand. Um but I would like to before we go to you, ML, let George have a chance to respond since he was the author of this item and then we'll go to any other comments. Proto >> Yeah, absolutely. I you know um this was on a prior letter to council too um I think two years ago um and we really haven't seen I I almost think of this as as as more of an education process for for council and for planning board in that um I I feel like area plans have been a little lost over the last few years because there's been a such a push for urgent sort of crisis language. Um, and I take Diagonal Plaza as an example. Um,

[31:04] love it or hate it, what's happened there. Uh, we have an a surrounding area which hasn't had the attention and and potential for a cohesive plan around that. Um, and I take that as an example only because we passed an urgent ordinance, but there wasn't really followup yet to say, hey, what should we be doing? H how should we address this whole area? So, it it starts to be a cohesive plan sort of long term. And that's where I see planning board's role really being impactful is reminding the city that that there's an opportunity for long-term planning and that and that long-term planning is what has positioned Boulder so well in the past. Um, and I don't want that to be forgotten. I I completely agree with you that the BBC update BBCP update um is is critical, right? And that's part of that long-term planning process.

[32:01] But the next layer down is sort of this component. Um, and whether or not the city gets to an area plan, um, the idea that they're thinking about it and putting some things in place so that we can get there, um, is really what this is about, um, more so than, hey, let's do an area plan in the next year. Um, so that's that's my thought process behind it. I think it's I think it's critical from a planning perspective, but obviously I'm open to um I also want to make sure the letter is impactful um and and tight. >> Thank you, George. Emil, you had your hand up. So, I I would um concur with George's thoughts on this and I would add that I think that this is that this having it on our on our plan suggestion um would make it coincidental to the BBCP work and and timely because one of the um

[33:03] things we've come again come up against in our review process has been the role of area plans plans um not just for future development but for uh area plans that already exist and and how they are used. Um so I think to bring a little more weight to it um would I think uh give it a significance in the BBCP and the um updates that trickle down into actual um you know code and zoning language. I I think it's timely. It it would it would work out well with what's going on with the BBCP. And for that reason, I I would say let's let's have this in our plan um just to add weight to that component of the BBC

[34:00] update. >> Thank you, ML. Any other comments either for leaving it in or taking it out? Kurt? >> Yeah. Uh I agree with um that that it makes sense to take it out for now. Um, I agree with what Claudia was saying about the the BBCPB really needs to come first. I understand what MLA is saying. There is some synergy there, but it really is an order um thing. It's it's it's they should not happen contemporaneously. They should they should happen sequentially. Um, I also agree with what ML said that in a lot of ways the first priority as I view it, the first priority in terms of area plans is actually fixing some of the older area plans that are have become not no longer consistent with especially a future comp plan or in other words this comp plan when it's adopted. And so

[35:00] I think that when we get a new comp plan, we can really see what's going on there. Then um the first priority for me will be uh amending the existing area plans to bring them into consistency with that and then potentially creating new area plans. So I'll be supporting taking this off. >> Any other thoughts? I'll call on myself briefly and say you all know I love a good area plan and I think that they're extremely important for the city. Um and I would be supportive of taking this out just because of the timing with the BBCP update which is the long range planning staff who also do the area plans. So they're not going to have any time for this until the BBCP is adapt adopted. The earliest that the BBCP will be adopted is July of next year. And if there's any reconciling that needs to happen between any of those four bodies, that will go longer. And then also with area three, if we decide to keep uh keep

[36:01] moving ahead with the area 3 planning reserve process, that will be the next priority is starting a basically an area plan for that area. And staff have basically told us as much. So, I feel like um this is not going to be at the top of anybody's list and uh it it doesn't reflect well upon us to to not recognize that the BBCP and the area 3 process are probably going to take priority here. Um so, I would be I would be supportive of taking this out for now. Although, if we get to July and we adopt the BBCP and the area 3 planning process does not go forward, I would be completely supportive of us sending our own separate letter to council saying, "Hey, now's a great time to be thinking about area plans and here we have some great language for you." So, I'm going to be supporting taking this out as well. Any other thoughts before we go to a vote? Okay. All in favor of taking this one out of this letter? Okay, that is four. So, that's a majority. So, this one is not going to

[37:01] go in this letter, although again, I think we all recognize that area plans are such an important and critical tool for the city. Just a question of focus and timing for this letter. Okay, so we're taking this one out. Any others that we would like to drop? Anybody else have a proposal for taking one of these four out? >> Can we look closely at the missing middle housing, please? >> Yes. And you want me to move it so it's not split across two screens? Let me do that. There we go. Anyone want to speak to this one in favor of taking it out or leaving it in? Well, first, does anybody propose taking it out? >> Um, who suggested this? I'd like to hear

[38:01] their This one was Mark. >> Oh, >> but many but many of us voted for it. So, nothing made it onto this list unless it got um pretty broad support from the board. Well, I I have a question sort of in general because I I don't disagree with anything it's saying, but the the question is sort of when you're talking about like BBCP, >> isn't that all being discussed in there already? Or am I am I wrong? I mean, is there anything in here that's that's revoly or that's going to change the outcome of what people are doing right now? >> All right, it's a great question. And I see Brad has popped online. Brad Mueller, planning director for the city of Boulder. >> Yes, Brad Mueller, director of planning and development services. We also have Christopher Johnson who senior manager for >> comprehensive planning. So, he might be able to give you a quick update on where the current uh policy discussion is on missing middle at least relative to the

[39:00] comp plan here. >> Thank you, Brad. Good evening, planning board members. uh as was introduced Christopher Johnson I think you know who I am. Uh the uh George makes a good point. Um certainly middle housing is absolutely a topic of very um very important conversation for the comprehensive plan. There's a number of as I think you're already are aware of you know a number of different policy um new new policy direction that we are establishing. the new land use framework is very supportive of broadening different housing types in more areas of the city. So I I do think that there will be significant policy um progress made on middle housing types and and uh opening the door to a lot of different um options for that through the comp plan process. Certainly the the implementation of those policies then is is where I think

[40:00] the rubber hits the road and maybe that's what Mark was um you know alluding to or is interested in. But um I would I would agree with George that I think the comp plan update is going to really establish um some new direction particularly as it relates to the overarching uh you know policy for for middle housing. And then it will be yet to be determined how that ultimately gets implemented through a variety of different methods as we move forward. >> Thank you, Christopher. Commentary on this one. Kurt, you got your hand up. >> Yeah. Uh, thanks Christopher for that input. I think yeah, we can we can all read the tea leaves pretty well and see pretty clearly that there's going to be some significant policy changes in the the B BBC around missing middle housing. Um, I see this as what what Christopher referred to as the policy implementation part and trying to kind of skate to

[41:02] where the puck's going to be. Uh, in terms of starting the work, anticipating those highlevel changes and and beginning to work on the details of okay, what do we already know? That's the Kaiser Marston study. And um and what are the possible um implementation details that could work to in uh in order to get more missing middle housing created in the city. So I I support this. I think it's one of the missing middle housing generally is one of the highest priorities not just of city council but of the community generally as we saw from the this the community survey. And so this is a way to get the implementation going as quickly as possible rather than sort of waiting for the the BBCP to be finished and then

[42:03] saying okay now let's start on it. So getting a little jump on the implementation is what I see this is doing. >> Other thoughts? Emma, >> I really appreciated what um Christopher brought to the table that um this has got a lot of uh attention and work um integrated into the BBCP plan. And um I'm I'm not necessarily seeing the value in trying to jump ahead and get some specificity going before we have the BBCP fleshed out. So I am going to be supporting removing this um on that basis that uh the again the sequencing um makes sense for the BBCP to proceed uh to give direction to where this might

[43:00] um how this might uh be implemented at the uh ground level. >> Thank you George. Yeah, I I asked I appreciate what Christopher said because I was just mostly asking the question. To me, I think it goes back to sort of what are we trying to accomplish with this letter? Um, and I appreciate what Kurt was saying, but I think it's going to be I think all this stuff is is is right in the mix of getting addressed. And to me, I would rather focus our efforts and surface items that are important to that we're seeing at planning board that um maybe people aren't seeing and missile mill is not one of those. To that point, we have a lot of community support. There's a lot of stuff happening in BBCP. Council's focused on it. Staff is focused on it. Um, I I I think um I'd like to see this letter really focus on the things that we're seeing at Planning Board that maybe others aren't and bring that to the surface as sort of priorities for

[44:01] people to pay attention to. Um, that that's my perspective. I but I don't disagree with middle missing middle housing. I just think it's already going to be taken care of with or without this. >> Thank you, George Mason. Uh, George, I completely understand your your point of view there and I think that that it makes a whole lot of sense. I have a slightly different take on the purpose of this document, which is to to bring to attention what the planning board thinks are the top priorities. And if they align with what council or the BBCP is doing, that's neither here nor there. And it might be benefit to even just show some solidarity in that sort of direction. So, I I completely get where you're coming from, George. I just have a slightly different take. >> Any other comments before we vote on this one? I'd like to just scroll up to our um list of items. So, if we leave this one in, we will have four, which is

[45:01] ground floor retail, site review, evaluation, missing middle, and form based code, unless we decide to take another out. Um, so I'll call on myself and say I would probably take this one out for the reasons that that George um discussed, which is it's happening. Council knows it's happening. Staff is working on it. I don't think that this will change anything. I do think council already knows the planning board agrees that this is a priority. If we were going to leave this in, I would want to make it like one line that says we just want to emphasize and underline that missing middle um continues to be a priority for planning board as well as for the community and we are excited to see what the BBCP will accomplish in that regard. So, uh if we leave it in, I would maybe suggest some rewrites to make it smaller. Um, we have in past letters said here's our top priorities and then we also want to emphasize these items that are already underway that we agree with and support and would not want to see discontinued. So that that's an option for us as well. Okay. So with

[46:02] that said, who would support removing this missing middle item from the letter? Three. So that fails to be majority. So, this stays in in some capacity and we can get to the um word snipping later. All right, jumping back up. We are at we have three more items that we have not discussed. Does anybody want to remove any of these other items or are we going to have a four item letter? Okay, hearing no more proposals for removal, let's talk about prioritization and then we'll leave the word smithing for last. Okay. [clears throat] Um, so I'm going to propose moving this missing middle housing to the bottom in a section like I described to say we know this is underway and happening. We're excited about it. Um, it's not one of our top three priorities in terms of a new work plan item, but we want to applaud this and support it.

[47:01] Does it make sense to move missing middle housing to the bottom of the letter, >> Kurt? Uh, >> I'm fine with moving it to the bottom. I don't have any problem with that. I do think that there's important detail in what is currently there in terms of talking not just about supporting missing middle housing generally, which I agree. If if that's really all we're saying, then there's not a lot of benefit to it. But I think it goes into specifics about how it should be approached and uh I think that that is beneficial. And so not to say that maybe it couldn't be shortened a little bit, but just to to to significantly change it the way you suggested, Laura, uh and make it just a a very general statement of support is something that I am not in favor of. You would want to keep these lines about use the work done in 2023 and 24

[48:01] including the Kaiser Marston study, the ordinance, etc., etc., and then based on those results, you know, talk with stakeholders and then modify the code. You'd like to keep this last section here. >> Yes, that's particularly what I'd like to keep. Yeah. And I have some suggested uh minor suggested word changes to that. >> Okay. Okay. So, moving it to the bottom doesn't preclude keeping this language, but we could. It sounds like I think I saw pretty much everybody's thumb up for moving this to kind of a separate end of the letter section and we can still retain some of that language. Does that work for everybody? Thumbs up if you if that works for you. I'm seeing nods. Thumbs up. Okay. All right. So, we'll do that. So, now we have these top three and we need to prioritize them. And so, my suggestion for how to do this and over three, we have three items. Everybody gets one vote and you can and I propose that we do this very thoughtfully and everybody say what is your number one item and why

[49:03] and then we can see from there where the votes fall and whether that leads us to a natural order of these top three. Does that make sense? Okay. All right. You get one pick and if we need to if everybody decides the same one is the top priority we can do it again. Okay. Who would like to go first and say what is your number one item? >> Oh, I'll go. Um, mine is mine is definitely formbbased code. I I think um I think what we experienced in planning board was nearly dissatisfaction across all board members regardless of where they their votes landed of um what picture was painted by the applicant verse what one might have thought could have been an outcome based on sort of that intent document that we had also pulled up during the during the um during the presentation. So that

[50:01] would be why it would be my vote. >> Thank you, George. And I um I do want to cautious us a little bit. Just let's just keep in mind that we have concluded our process on the project that we heard of last week. It could still be called up by council. So um we should be a little bit cautious about speaking about specific projects. Um different board members will have different levels of comfort with that. We all have to make our own decisions, but it is still a quasi judicial item that could get called up. Okay. Thank you, George. Who'd like to go next in talking about their number one? Emma. >> Um, yeah, I I agree that formbbased code um should be our number one item and uh I don't see it being um captured or focused on in any other arena. So, it makes sense that we put it uh front and center for council to consider. I uh

[51:00] think that the first run of this in the East Boulder sub community plan, I mean, there were a lot of firsts going on there and you know, the TOD area, etc., etc. Um, and the whole point of um of continuing to look at things once they're rolled out is so that we have the opportunity to make them better as we go along. So, I would I would agree that this is a number one I guess with George at this point. There's only two of us said our agreements yet. I but I think it should be the number one um just on that basis. >> Thank you. Who's next? Curt. Thanks. I would suggest the site review item be number one. To me, that's my highest priority. Um, there's been a lot of discussion again both in the community and by pretty much all city council members in favor of streamlining and and clarifying and simplifying our

[52:02] city processes. And that's something that was sort of intended. I guess it was stated as an intent of the last major site review uh process revision and unfortunately that kind of got derailed. Uh again staff did an amazing job uh navigating very conflicting inputs and pressures. Um, but I think that the stated maybe the stated intents and the real intents were somewhat not completely aligned at that time. And I think that there's a lot of room for simplifying, clarifying, streamlining the site review criteria and the site review process as it currently stands. I think that it's something that would get a lot of traction um both with council and with the community more more broadly and so

[53:02] that's why I'm supporting that as my number one. >> Thank you Kurt Mason or Claudia. >> Claudia. >> So I would support either of formbbased code or site review going first. >> You only get one. I'm sorry. first >> I'm gonna my logic and I'm gonna land on one but I just want to say like where I'm coming from which is to have um one of the larger scale kind of systemic things that applies to large areas of the city um be one of our top priorities sort of overarching things I think amongst these two I would prioritize the formbbased code item going first simply because that is not coming up in other forums it is incredibly timely and I think there is a urgency to get ahead of potential additional submissions in that area. So, I would go with that first.

[54:00] It's also more understandable. I think um site review gets quite into the weeds and um is maybe not the best way to get attention. >> Thank you, Claudia. Mason >> meaning I'm I'm kind of with Claudia. Uh but I have no nothing new to say. I'm just going to vote for based code. >> Okay. And I'm also form based code. So I think that gives us formbbased code as our number one is pretty clear. Shall we do it again amongst the remaining two to decide between site review and ground floor retail as our number two? So I'm going to go ahead and move this one up. All right. So now between number two and number three, you get to pick one. Should we do it as a vote or do you guys want to discuss one by one? Again, what's what do you prefer as a process? I'm going to I'm going to assume that for both Claudia and for um Kurt that

[55:02] site review is going to come up as their next number one, right? So that leaves George Mason in the mail. I think a I think a vote would be maybe the most efficient way um at least just because we've heard you know that it could have been a number one as well. I think most of us are inclined at cyber view is pretty important anyway but >> well I think easy >> okay let me just suggest does anybody want to advocate for ground ground flooror retail as being should be the next highest priority rather than site review. Does anybody want to advocate for that? >> Yeah, I'll advocate for it just because it it happens to be a a particular thing that I've been focused on. I I know we're going to see as a planning board, as a city over the next five years, a lot of um

[56:00] uh focused on uh specifically shopping centers and other things, turning them into mixeduse projects. a lot more pressure from student housing, etc. Um, which is all fine and good. Uh but I whatever whatever retail or commercial we're we're we're putting into those I I think it would benefit the city to have a deeper understanding of um h how that functions why if and why it is necessary and then how to make sure whatever um commercial is put in there is activated. did. Um, and right now we have a few existing projects who have uh failed to activate their retail. Um, if you hear from the development community, it's one reason. Um, if you hear from the people that are actually marketing

[57:00] those properties, it's quite a bit different of a reason. Um, and there might be another reason out there. Uh, but we're going to see this over and over again. Um and I would want the city to get ahead of it irrespective of of what and how it's built out that we should have complete projects when they when they occupy. Um and I don't think people are understanding it. I don't think uh retail is quite a bit different beast than the rest of commercial. Uh and so um I think some focus on that area because a lot of people just I I don't think there's a good understanding of it. um would be helpful. Um so that's why I'm advocating for it. Site review is obviously really important too. Um but that's that would be why I'd advocate for it, but I think everyone else is going to vote for site review, which is fine, too. >> Emil and Claudia, you're in the queue as well. Um you know the thing I will remind us in support of ground floor

[58:01] retail's importance is um the uh community the public input that we reviewed at the joint meeting with city council last week. Um to my surprise, uh mixed use was one of the priorities that came up from the public that they wanted to see um activity on the ground floor. So, um, in in that sense, I think that George has a good point to make that it we're seeing, um, a a resistance in the projects to actually provide that retail on the ground floor. And then on the other hand, as I said recently from the public, we're hearing no, we like the idea of of activating the ground floor and creating um interest for the public. Um so I think it might be a a less

[59:06] studied and less understood topic that could benefit from some uh from some staff focus. So, um I'm inclined to begin thinking that it might uh be above the site review uh however we uh evaluation. Um I don't know how often we do the site review evaluation. That's an ongoing thing. But um I don't know that we've ever really specifically proposed, hey, let's talk about this ground floor activation because that's what makes or breaks the I think the um experiential and livability component of these uh projects. So I'm I'm beginning to be inclined to think that it it might supersede the site. Uh, >> I see Mason, you have your hand up and I

[60:00] think Claudia, you also might have raised your hand physically. Were you first? Okay, we'll go to Claudia and then Mason. >> I'll be brief. I agree with George and ML on this. I think that we are already quite behind on this particular issue and the more projects that we lock in without addressing it somehow um creates space that is underutilized. it doesn't meet our goals and we're locking in those land use citizen approvals for a long period of time. So, I think we need to get ahead on this one. >> Thank you, Claudia Mason. >> Uh, yeah, that's Claudia. Just to expand a little bit on what Claudia is saying, I think I think we're our minds are somewhat in the same spot in that um I think that this if we don't address this issue, it puts at risk our desire to have mixed uses going forward. Um you know, I I don't pretend to be able to read tea leaves, but I definitely know that there's a

[61:01] it's the problem is obvious. The problem is very visual and I think that we're going to find it hard to approve or say no to projects that are looking for exemptions to having commercial onsite if this issue isn't addressed. Site review is super important. So I am torn on this on what's going to have the biggest impact in the medium term, but for retail starting to feel like it's going to get my second vote. Thank you, Mason Curts. Uh, >> thanks. I actually agree with everything that everybody said. I I I totally feel that um ground flooror retail is an important thing to try to figure out. I mean, mixed use generally really uh it's it goes beyond although in practice we don't have any non ground flooror retail. Um, my main reason, so I I don't feel like it makes a huge difference which one comes first. My my main reason

[62:02] for putting the site review, evaluation, and refinement item first is because I think it the ground floor retail question is actually a little easier to understand. And so as council is reading this and their eyes are starting to close, as they get late further into the letter, I'd rather have something that is easier towards the end uh rather than the site review evaluation, which is a little abstrous. >> Thank you. Any other comments? I'll call on myself briefly and say my votes going to go for ground flooror retail as well for all the reasons that that folks have cited. I think whether you think that we should be having more ground floor retail or less of it, I really appreciate this line in the letter that says, you know, we have no baseline data to evaluate requests for exemptions and the city would benefit from an unbiased study that evaluates whether commercial requirements are feasible and

[63:00] appropriate and then identifies how to make sure those spaces are activated. I I think it is a a big deal for the city and um and I I quite frankly think that our if we suggest uh site review, evaluation, refinement, some council members are going to be like, "Didn't we just do that?" And they're not going to read any further. So, I I would like to get ground floor retail some some eyeballs. So, I'm going to vote for that one to be our second priority. All right. So, uh let's just take it from the top here. Who thinks that ground floor retail should be priority number two? Okay, that's four or five out of six. All right, so this is our order. Formbbased code is one, ground floor retail is two, site review and evaluation, site review, evaluation, refinement is number three, and then we will have also a section on missing middle housing. How are folks doing? You ready to lock in for the word smithing? >> Okay. Um, >> I I just Sorry. I just have a question.

[64:01] Yeah, >> we for the missing middle housing, we don't have it as a numbered thing. I I wasn't clear why we I guess you separated that off not as numbered. Okay, >> great. >> We can put it as number four. I was just thinking that in previous letters we have said here's our proposal for new work plan items and then also here's something that we know that is already on staff's work plan, but we have some thoughts about that. But if we just want to make this one, two, three, four, I think that's fine. That would be my preference personally. >> Any objections to just making it 1 2 3 4 >> hearing? None. Let's go with that. Okay. So, I'm leaving this up here just for our reference. That's not how the letter is going to start. So, the letter is going to start, you know, with dear city council planning board offers the following suggestions for the staff work plan for 2526. We recognize that each of these suggestions may take more than one year to complete, whereas this council is

[65:01] creating a one-year work plan. We also recognize that the planning department has a very full plate with a 10-year update of the BBCP. Therefore, please take these suggestions in the spirit of getting the ball rolling on big big picture priorities, though the pieces that can be reasonably accomplished in one year may only be initial steps for some items. That is our introductory text. Any thoughts or edits that you'd like to have to that introductory text? that was written before we knew what our items were. So, totally open to any suggestions or edits. Then I suggest moving this list to give them just a real quick. Here's our four items. And we can just say our four priority our four suggestions in priority order

[66:04] and then we can elaborate on each one. So I would like to give them a quick list. I think that's useful and then elaborate. Okay. Um so I'm going to move in. Well, I'm gonna suggest, do you guys want to tackle this one first? This is going to be the hardest because we had two competing versions, my version and Mark's version. >> I I almost think we should tackle some of I almost think we should tackle some of the other ones first. I I I don't pretend that there might not be edits on the ground floor retail one, but both Claudia and I kind of felt comfortable after going back and forth that that kind of is a neutral and you know sort of try we tried we tried hard to to to make that um concise and neutral. Um so I might suggest trying to knock off some easy ones and then get to the harder one afterwards. >> I love it. I love it. That works for me unless anybody feels strongly otherwise.

[67:01] Let's do it. Okay. Ground floor retail. Do folks want to take like a minute just read it to yourself. Okay. And then just like lean back or look up when you're done and we'll go to Kurt your comment first. >> Are people ready? >> Some people are still reading. So let's give it another [clears throat] minute. Okay.

[68:08] Okay. Are we ready to to discuss? You had suggestions. >> Yeah. Thanks. And sorry, I can only see the screen or people at a time and not both. Um, so I just had a minor suggested change to the very last sentence. The last sentence says, "Such a study would help the city strengthen the performance of new mixeduse projects and ensure the continued vitality of neighborhood centers." And it seemed like that sort of it skips a step a little bit because the study per se doesn't directly help the city strengthen the performance of new mixeduse uh projects. It's got to inform potential code changes. And so I was suggesting changing that to such a study could inform city code and area

[69:02] plans so as to help the city strengthen the performance of new mixed use projects blah blah blah. >> I'm seeing nodding heads. Okay. Okay. So, such a study could help inform >> inform city code and area plans >> so as to help uh >> how about in order to strengthen how just in order to strengthen >> such a study could inform city code and area plans so as to help the Did he strengthen the performance? Yeah. >> How about just in order to strengthen the performance? I think that's a shorter way to say the same thing. Such a study could help inform city code and area plans in order to strengthen the performance. I'm also I'd also like to make a

[70:00] suggestion here to strike the word new because it could also be applied to existing mixed use projects potentially if it's a way to activate space. Folks okay with striking new? I'm seeing nodding heads. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh ML, you got a hand up. >> My question is on the sentence before that. >> Um I'm unclear as to what is being said in the second half after the comma. So if >> Okay. So the sentence reads, "The city would benefit from an unbiased study that evaluates whether current commercial requirements are feasible and appropriate and which identifies policy options to ensure that commercial spaces are activated in a timely and consistent manner." And you're you're asking about that second clause identifies policy options to ensure that commercial spaces are activated. No, I'm I'm there's just a grammatical complexity right there are feasible and appropriate and which identifies um so I'm just

[71:02] thinking it's just language I don't have a problem with the uh which identifies policy blah blah blah but I think moving from the one thought to the next thought it's um >> this the grammar >> yeah it's not flowing I mean it it it's hard to understand what we're trying to say and I'm not okay. Okay. So, the city would benefit from an unbiased study that evaluates whether current commercial requirements are feasible and appropriate and maybe it's something that which also identifies >> or could we say maybe period the study should also identify policy options or something like that? >> Yeah. So it Yeah. >> I think we were on the same page. Kurt, does that work? Claudia and George as the authors. I see George nodding.

[72:00] Claudia nodding. Thumbs up. Okay. Any other words smithing on ground floor retail. Cool. >> Okay. Moving down. Site review, evaluation, and refinement. Kurt and I are responsible for this one. So any and all criticism we will take personally. Kidding. Kidding. We welcome any refinements from our fellow board members. >> Is this the whole paragraph on this one page? >> This is the whole paragraph. >> Um, and uh I have a suggestion to potentially shorten it, but let's give folks a minute to reread it.

[73:51] any suggestions for improvement? George has a hand up and Kurt as well. >> I I just have a more for a question for the authors first, which is I'm I'm just

[74:01] trying to understand what we're trying to accomplish. Like have you do you have to help me understand it and maybe to help speak to other council members to understand this? Do you have um specific examples of where the the the remake in 2023 did not achieve what you wanted and and what you might suggest to change in this 2026 thing? I'm just trying to understand what you're after. >> Um Kurt, do you want to respond to that? I have thoughts, but I'll give you the first bite at the apple here. >> Sure. Yeah. Uh, I mean, I feel like there were just a awful lot. My my personal concern is there were an awful lot of new requirements that were added um that to me didn't necessarily make sense. For example, there are significant requirements for sound mitigation for buildings that are close

[75:00] to uh highways and rail roads or something like that. And to me, that feels like something that is appropriate for a a developer to decide whether that's something that they want to implement or not. If it's an industrial building and it's happens to be close to the railroad and it's going to be loud inside uh because of processes inside then a lot of sound mitigation doesn't seem like it's required or um you know or if in other ways the uses the intended uses are not going to uh be impeded by any sound coming in from the outside. So that's just one very detailed example, but I feel like there was a lot of stuff that was thrown in that um just it it feels like it's over trying to be overly

[76:03] to overengineer sort of the development process. So that's part of my concern. And I will say when Kurt and I were writing this, we we had different concerns, right? And so that's why we kind of landed on we suggest that the city design and implement an evaluation um including gathering input from stakeholders in the development community, staff and planning board members about what are the points where people are seeing confusion or ambiguity or things that don't belong. Right? It's like th this has been adopted now for a couple of years and we do every time we have a a site review case we have some disagreements amongst ourselves about what things mean or what's important. I personally have a concern that large sections of the code that were meant to be more prescriptive and more predictable and remove subjectivity have now been watered down to be subjective again by saying for like for example the

[77:01] whole site design section now says the um the following factors shall be considered and then there's like a whole two pages of factors to meet a very vague goal statement above the following factors shall be considered. And that's there's like three whole big chunks of the code now that are like that that make almost everything in it subjective which is completely counter to what was supposed to happen in the site review criteria update. That's a different concern than what Kurt has raised but I think that a lot of us are seeing concerns and so the I it's hard to give too many specific examples because they do get very very in the weeds and council is not going to understand them without looking at the code. But I think just our intention here was just to acknowledge we've been doing this for a few years. There's still some some um unhappiness with some of the outcomes and some ambiguity around the application and a lot of these projects are getting called up and ideally they wouldn't be there wouldn't be a lot of pressure to call it up and there wouldn't be a lot of disagreement about

[78:00] how to apply the code because that was part of the point was to take some of that subjectivity out. And if I can just follow up quickly, uh yeah, I I agree with all that too. And really, you know, site review is our most important process for largecale projects. And even if we felt like it was working pretty well, um it would make sense after four years or whatever after the update um to evaluate and see, hey, what else could be tweaked? And that to me that just feels like good process to to learn from what we did and figure out what could be changed. [clears throat] And so just on general principles, I think that that's important, but also even more so given that we've seen some significant difficulties um a and um disagreements about how things are interpreted and the

[79:00] fact that it doesn't seem like site review has gotten easier for people. you know, we don't have any more than the usual handful of suspects that come through and and bring site reviews to us. Um, it's almost always the same the the same people, either developers or developer kind of um whisperers who uh are bringing these things through. And to me that feels like an inequitable and overly burdensome process. >> Thank you, Kurt. ML. >> Um, yeah, I I think that this is um a a great uh explanation. I would suggest that the most powerful part of it is um this evaluation that you're suggesting and the people you're uh intending to be

[80:02] involved in that the development community, the staff and the planning board members. I would put that first um you know up there somehow. It's like it's not just a general site review. We're asking for a very specific um way to kind of unpack what's been happening here and then you can put all of the history and whatnot secondarily. But I think for this for the city to get a sense of um okay, what are they asking for right away? I think uh and I and I it's a great suggestion, you know, the way you guys have framed um an an evaluation. >> Thank you. >> Because I don't think we know all the issues and so an evaluation would flesh everything out. >> Right. Right. Um so maybe taking So you're suggesting perhaps taking like

[81:01] for example these sentences and either deleting them or moving them. So that it just starts with we've done an overhaul, but there's still differences in interpret interpretation and we need to conduct an evaluation. >> I would even start with we need to conduct an evaluation and here's why. You know, that might be two, but it's like don't beat around the bush. It's like, hey, this needs to be attended to and here's a way to get it all out there. I think we lose people when there's a whole bunch of information and they're like, "Okay, yeah, we did it before and yeah, it's hard." But if we just say it um and then you know if they continue to read okay and here's all the backup for why >> this this stuff higher moving this >> that's where I'm coming from because I think that that's the power of what you're saying is that hey we need we need and this mechanism of re-evaluating isn't you know go away staff somewhere

[82:00] and come back to us with no just convene the people and get it out on the floor. I I think we're at that stage. >> If I can, I think ML's initial suggestion was to move the we suggest >> uh that the city design and implement >> which I think could work well. >> Uh we need to be specific about what kind of evaluation we're suggesting, but yeah, we could we could move that up. I I I think we if we start from here, this is an opportune time to conduct an evaluation of how well the new site review criteria achieve the city's goals and then we suggest that they design and implement this evaluation. >> Kurt, you're still you look dubious. >> I don't have strong feelings. I think if we want to really get cut to the chase immediately, it would be starting with we suggest that the city design and implement an evaluation of the site

[83:01] review criteria, the site review process in 2026, including gathering input blah blah blah blah blah, and then explain. But yeah, I I don't have strong feelings. >> Okay. It is there a reason in in that in that sentence why you haven't put the community members as a stakeholder in this process. >> Uh that's a good question. I think we because this is a code update and it's looking at the criteria. I think it's it's less about general community input and it's more about this process of these criteria and how it's working and the people who actually work with that are the developers, planning board members and um staff. >> Yeah. the most concern that this the

[84:00] community members are the ultimate people that have to live with this and if they're not involved, >> it feels exclusionary um in that the people ultimately living around what these people are, you know, the developers have a lot of input. I I I would just I would get concerned that that it might be viewed as as perhaps skewed as to what the outcomes of this uh process could be if you don't include uh the community. I know that's messy. Um but that would be my perspective is that I I would I would feel more comfortable adding in community members and then deciding how that process gets involved because I I believe that they're uh stakeholders. maybe they they're not in the weeds, but they're stakeholders with the realities of what's happening. >> Yeah, I mean that is a wonderful point. I think I don't I can't speak for Kurt, but I know that when I was thinking about it, I was thinking about this very complicated piece of code and

[85:01] identifying how the code either is or isn't helping the city meet its goals. Like where are we getting hung up in the site review process that things are ambiguous or, you know, not not serving our goals? And I think that we kind of know what those community serving goals are, but I think you're right that we don't want to give a weighted voice to developers in a way that moves us away from our community goals. Um, I'm okay with adding community members in here if other folks are as well, but it does make the evaluation component more extensive um and lengthier. Do we ever have community members involved in uh updating site review criteria or site review? Is that ever >> or >> how's that done? >> So in the last process actually there were a few community members who were involved >> and um

[86:00] >> I did. Thank you. >> Yeah. And um but you know they they were people who were kind of geeking out on this stuff already anyhow. It wasn't sort of oh let's throw an openhouse at East Boulder Wreck or something like that you know. >> So it was people who already had a certain level of understanding of the process. >> Thank you Kurt Brad. I see you have joined us. Yeah, I just wanted to assure the board that we always do a strategic outreach um plan for any policybased discussions. Uh we are all but required for example to use the uh racial equity instrument. Uh we work with our comms and outreach uh colleagues to develop a plan and sometimes that's targeted outreach. sometimes um you know it's broader than that but but we would always size that to

[87:01] whatever the nature of the policy discussion at hand was. >> Thank you Brad. So I feel like that supports the idea that we could just write in a sentence about including community members and you would be doing that anyway. So thank you for uh specifying there. So I have added including gathering input from stakeholders in the development community diverse community members staff and planning board members. Does that work for folks? Okay. Um, all right. Let me think about just the wording here since we've moved some things around. I think it works the way that it is with just the moving the text. I don't think other things need to be rewritten.

[88:00] But what do you folks think? Other suggested edits? >> I agree. It seems to work. >> I do think if we want to make this shorter and less redundant, we could just remove this last sentence. We could remove all of this and probably not lose a lot of meaning and make it a bit shorter. I'm seeing some thumbs up. Anybody object to removing this last sentence? Okay. All right. One last read through. Maybe we could say improve satisfaction with project outcomes

[89:04] or just improve project outcomes. No. Okay, I'm seeing no bad suggestion. Forget it. I never said it. You didn't hear it from me. Okay, ready to move on. All right, thumbs up. Scrolling, scrolling, scrolling, scrolling. Okay, missing middle housing.

[90:08] I have one suggestion which is to replace this is not a new topic for council to say we know that this topic is already on the minds of council and staff and we are excited to see it addressed in the BBCP update or something to that effect. I see a thumbs up from Claudia here. I'll I will type in my suggestion, but we can always reverse it. We can always unddelete. Um,

[91:07] our additional suggestion Hey, George, you have a hand up. >> Yes. Um, I would delete that sentence right after middle missing uh missing middle housing during the during the recently concluded city council campaigns. Middle was frequently a frequent topic. It just feels that feels political. Um, I I don't think it's I don't I don't think it gets anything really across. Um I would start with the maybe instead of starting with regardless I would say uh however uh um or how uh let's see however missing uh middle housing is defined. We are missing middlesized income you know missing typology and just start there and just remove that. >> What if we just start here? >> Yeah that's fine.

[92:08] that work for folks? I'm seeing some nodding heads. Kurt still reading. Kurt got a hand up. >> My one concern is when it says our suggestion. Is that still in there? Oh, you don't have our additional suggestion. Wait, why is that additional because there's nothing there's not a suggestion coming before that, right? >> Well, it says we're excited to see it be addressed in a BBCP update and our additional suggestion is to do this other work. >> Oh, I see. Okay. I missed the word. Um, so it my only >> my only concern is that the way it's framed, it sounds like the only suggestion

[93:00] for the immediate future is to use the work done in late 2023 and early 2024, including the Kaiser Marston study and ordinance 8601, um, and review what we've done to date. And so that it sort of sounds to me like we're saying, "Oh, we should staff or whoever should reread the Kaiser Marston study and this ordinance and then we'll have met what we're what we're trying to achieve here." Really to me it that is the first part of the process. Absolutely. But then what comes after is also part of the of what we're asking for. So I would just combine those statements and say something like our suggestion is to use the work done in late 2023 and early 2024 including the Kaiser Marson study blah blah blah and

[94:01] review what we've done to date revisit the prior recommendations and engage quickly with stakeholders to identify possible approaches to level the playing field. Oh, and I added that part. Sorry. Um but combine those so that it our suggestion is all of these things together. Does that make sense? >> Yes. And rather I I agree with you that our additional suggestion is awkward. How about just we suggest that staff? I have a question about all the specificity because I I I I'm not I I don't know I I don't know ordinance 8601 on the top of my head. I guess the question is >> um why not just tell them, hey, we want to

[95:00] prioritize missing middle housing, like just prioritize it, guys, and keep focused on it. I mean, isn't that what we're trying to say? um why why why go into the weeds on something when it just needs to be their one of their top priorities. >> And if I could suggest on that um that first so missing middle housing we are missing middleized blah blah that first sentence and the last sentence could be could cover it. >> So go straight from we are missing middle size, middle income and middle typology housing. We need to add or modify our code to provide further incentive for the building of more ownership based middle missing middle housing. >> Yeah. And this needs to be a top

[96:00] priority. a little better written, but I think that that that kind of gets at not um micromanaging >> the process of just states here's the problem >> and an outcome is we need to find we need to get a way to get there. [laughter and gasps] >> Yeah, I I do think I heard from Kurt earlier that he doesn't want to lose some of that detail, but Brad has a hand up and I want to let Brad speak and then Kurt I see your hand is up as well. Yeah, just a real quick clarification and maybe food for thought as you continue to refine this and think about it. Um, when you speak generally about prioritizing missing middle, I know it would be helpful for us as staff and also the HHS staff to know whether that means prioritizing it over affordable housing or prioritizing it equally with affordable housing. So just understanding kind of where in the pecking order that's envisioned to be. Um uh because we obviously have policy

[97:01] about affordable housing in a a couple decades old program that supports that. So >> thank you for that Brad. I know that has been a topic of discussion um and a sticking point for this discussion in the past. Well, I'm shocked that George doesn't have Ordinance 8601 memorized. Um, but I I think that his point is good and I would suggest maybe combining what he said and what ML said and get rid of that we suggest that staff use get rid of that sentence that I just amended. Um, and so it would just be the three sentences then, which is a little more than ML had in mind, but I think that that for for me that would be an improvement. Actually, >> you just say this.

[98:00] >> Yeah, that that would be my suggestion. >> Okay. uh we've rather than saying we would add or modify our code, I think we should frame that in terms of the city of Boulder or staff. So we should say um we'd like to see staff or we'd encourage staff to add or modify our code to provide further incentive for the building of more ownership based middle housing. or was yeah we'd encourage staff to study how to add or modify the code staff is not directly adding or modifying obviously so this doesn't address u Brad's point

[99:00] about prioritizing it relative to affordable housing And I honestly would like to stay away from that because I think that um that has been a sticking point in the past in terms of diverting funding from our current inclusionary housing program and using it to subsidize the building of middle housing because we are talking about I think the figure is $600,000 per family to subsidize a middle income ownership product through our current inclusionary housing program. And I think the intention here is not to be limited to, you know, how do we shift funds in the inclusionary housing program, but to think about are there other tools or mechanisms that we can use to encourage the incentive to build more of this stuff rather than just the city has to provide it at a cost of $600,000 per unit. >> Yeah. And I I I worry about trying to, you know, make a make a comparison or

[100:01] say, you know, this is as important as affordable housing or this is more important than affordable housing because that creates a maybe maybe a false binary choice. I mean, the city has a the city can can figure out what's important. If if it's a priority, maybe something else gets dep prioritized, too. It doesn't necessarily have to come at the expense of affordable housing. it might come at the expense of something else. Um, >> yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. Not not with that particular pool of money, but Yes. Right. So, we're encouraging them to think outside the box of just diverting funds from within that program. >> This doesn't this talks about encouraging the building of this stuff, not the city necessarily taking ownership of it. >> Right. Yeah. And I'm curious as to whether it's the word incentive that is implying that there's money on the table. >> This can come in other forms like removing of fees, taxes, that sort of

[101:01] thing. >> Right? We've already used encourage to encourage the building of more ownership based middle housing >> to enable the building of more ownership based middle housing facilitates >> I think to provide further incentive um might make things a little fuzzy in some people's minds and really all we're trying to do is let's get more of is built. >> How about um we'd encourage staff to study how to add or modify our code to result in the building of more ownership based middle housing. >> That's >> That sounds good to me. Yeah. Okay.

[102:01] Yeah. What do folks think? I'm pointing to my screen that you cannot see. [laughter] Any other edits on this one? Okay. We have >> Sorry. >> No, go ahead. >> Just one suggestion. I think ownership based middle housing is important but rental middle housing also would be beneficial. So I would suggest actually getting rid of the ownership based part even though that ownership based obviously is the hardest to create but we have we have a shortage of middle housing even for rental. Would you be would you be willing to put ownership base and rental middle housing because I think emphasizing the importance of both I think is is important and you know that would be maybe that maybe that reaches what you want to do and still we

[103:00] still keep ownership in there as a component. >> I'm fine with it. >> Yeah, I I I would agree. I think there was an issue with trying to do rent control to make rent be middle income. [laughter] Okay. So, we have one item left if folks are ready. I am going to suggest that we take a short bio break because I need one. So, do we want to come back? It is now 7:44. Maybe take 10 minutes. Come back at 7 7:55. 7:55. Take time to read if you would like. Um, so I'm going to put my version up on the screen, but you also received Mark's version in email and that's starting here at dear counselors. This is Mark's version starting here. Um, you have it in your email and we will also display it for the public as we work through this. Um, but feel free to read over it

[104:00] and have suggestions ready when we come back. I am open to either somehow merging these, choosing one or the other. Um, it's it's really up to this group. I have my preferences, but I'm one voice out of six tonight. Okay. See 55.

[114:28] 55 and we are reassembling one of those giant mega transformers or gobots or whatever where they all come together and form the big one. That's us tonight. >> Voltron. >> Voltron. We are Voltron. Who said that? Who had the answer? >> Thomas. >> Hey, Thomas.

[115:01] >> I see it's more at Power Power Power Rangers and Voltron, but you know, [laughter] >> the Megazoid. >> Did the Power Rangers come together? See, I miss the Power Rangers. I don't have kids. All right, I see six planning board members. So, we are and we are recording. So, we are reconvened um to finish up this letter to city council. We have one item to go and then we are on break for the rest of the year. Okay, I'm going to share my screen. Okay, are we back? Screen sharing. Okay, so this is our last item, the urgent update to formbbased code for East Boulder. I'm going to just scroll through all of the text that we have here so that it appears on the video for anybody who wants to know what material planning board was working with tonight because this was sent to us uh over

[116:00] email but was not put into the packet for tonight because it was a suggestion that was going to get brought forward tonight. So, we have two suggestions for text. This first paragraph here, uh, George and I worked on separately. Um, at Mark's, uh, with Mark's concurrence, he said, "Yeah, Laura, why don't you and George go off and write a paragraph here?" And then Mark thought about it some more and felt like he wanted to also say something, especially since he wasn't going to be here tonight. So, I'm going to scroll through. So starting here with dear counselors, this is Mark's uh text that he suggested and he suggested that we make this our only item, the formbbased code. So I'm just going to go ahead and scroll through that so that people who are watching the video after the fact can see the material that we all have access to. So this was the first bit of it. I'm g scroll down to the next bit and I'm just going to leave this on screen for a little while because people

[117:00] can pause the video and then I'm going to scroll down to the last bit of his text here. So, he has some specific suggestions about how to make the formbbased code better. So, I wanted to get this into the record. I think this is this is the end of Mark's text. And then I want to uh talk with all of you, my fellow board members. Would you like to start with a paragraph that George and I put together or would you like to start with the letter that Mark put together? Understanding that Mark's introductory text up here about how we're only doing one item is not what we decided tonight. So that of course would go. Where would you like to start with text? >> The one paragraph. I see Kurt nodding. Thumbs up. Mason, thumbs up. Okay. All right. So, starting here,

[118:00] folks want to reread it real quick, refamiliarize yourself. So, I think this captures at least some of what this group has discussed as our problems with form-based code. I think that Mark pointed to another one in particular that I want to suggest that we go ahead and add in here, which is uh Mark's number four. I'm going to scroll down to it. um requirements for project open space and resident benefits. I think that was a concern to several planning board members in terms of those interior courtyards and some other things from the project that we don't want to go into too much tonight, but we felt like the formbbased code did not include

[119:00] rigorous requirements for residents um amenities and open space. Okay, I'm seeing some thumbs up. So, folks are okay with that. I'm going to go ahead and move that up into the paragraph. I'm seeing everybody nodding or thumbs up, I think, except maybe Kurt, so I'm going to go ahead and do that. Um, yeah, sorry. I was just contemplating exactly what rigorous means here. >> How about we just say are inadequate? We also find that the form-based code requirements for project open space and resident benefits are inadequate. We want to say resident benefits or resident amenities. Yeah, amenities is probably clearer.

[120:06] Uh okay, we do have the issue that form-based code is not just for residential projects. It's also for commercial, for industrial, for anything that gets built in East Boulder. But hopefully it's clear enough that project open space could apply to any and resident amenities would apply to residential projects. Maybe you say residential amenities or we like resident amenities. I'll just say something overarching which is Laura Laura wrote almost the entirety of this and I think it's so I I didn't have any edits really because I thought it's so concisely put so much information in such a tight paragraph. Um so I I'm supportive of the language

[121:02] pretty much as is. I appreciated I will say something about Markx which is I appreciated the passion that he put forward around that. Um, but I think this gets the ball rolling, right? And I don't think we have to be project specific in this letter. And I don't I don't think it benefits us actually because this applicant's still in the process. Um, so I think having something that's general but underscores the urgency. Um, and I like the use of the word, you know, urgent update. Um, I I might even suggest the one thing I might suggest is say, you know, this is our this is our top priority. Um, and we'd like this to be addressed um, you know, urgently. um hopefully within weeks um rather than um you know hopefully within weeks or

[122:00] something to that effect because I I think I think we all recognize the potential of of letting this sit too long. >> Thank you, George. Curt, >> uh Kurt, you're on mute. >> Thank you, George. Yeah, I I have concerns about saying anything about weeks because that just seems completely unrealistic the way things actually work in the city. I just don't think that that is within the realm of possibility. Unfortunately, I was even concerned about saying we recommend a fast turnaround. We certainly want a fast turnaround of course. Um but it it feels like it um is putting

[123:00] expectation un sort of unreasonable expectations or unrealistic expectations on the way public process or process happens in the city. Um, so I would not, we talk about it being urgent. I would personally not talk about anything in terms of a specific time frame. Um, even though obviously we want it we want everything to happen as quickly as possible, right? But nothing nothing is going to happen in weeks in my view. I'll just uh call if folks don't mind and call on myself to say I agree that I don't think a specific timeline makes sense. I do think it makes sense to call it urgent and say fast turnaround, right? >> Um and I think this gets to Claudia's point that we don't want too many more projects to enter the review pipeline under the current version of the code because that's the version that they'll

[124:01] be held to is whenever they start the process. I think some folks have even talked about a moratorum. I don't know that we want to recommend a moratorum, but I do think that it's appropriate to recommend a fast turnaround and try to fix it before we get a whole lot more applications. um ML. >> Yeah, I I concur with the idea that we need to um make sure that the urgency is not uh undermined and I I would support a moratorum on any form-based code projects going through East Boulder sub community plan until this is updated. there's just too much there's just too much fluff in it that um I think it's a liability. So if there is any way that we can do that, I would I would propose that because I think that also um uh confirms

[125:01] our urgency that this is not something that we put on the back burner or that we wait and see. you know, we've already we've already seen. >> Thank you, ML. Other thoughts? And Claudia, I saw perhaps you had something on your mind. >> I I'm objecting to going the direction of using moratoran language. I'm not that on board with this. >> Other thoughts? Mason. No. Okay. >> Uh I think recommending a moratorium would send a very strong message, but it might also be seen as unduly alarmist. Um, >> I agree strong language, but you know, I mean, George is using weeks, so I I Yeah, and I don't know how to I I like

[126:01] that urgent is in the is in the title there and that it'll be, you know, at the top of our of our page. Um um yeah, I don't know what else we can do, but it is a um it'll be difficult to see at the next project come through. Well, and you know, here's here's something that we can talk about that we might want to talk about this as a as a matters item um just in general, but like for instance, I I think I think we all have different views relative to how we interpret things. And I think that's something we might want to each individually reflect on. Um because I think there's opportunity as the planning board. What was what was what's what's scary to me is that when you get something like this presented to you and you say, "Well, you have to vote for it." Yes. And I I do think there is room for interpretation based on how we and

[127:01] everyone voted the way they felt. But I don't I don't necessarily support a moratorum because um I do think that if a pro you know another project that's brought forward there there is room for interpretation. We proved it with our vote. There was a three- four vote. Um, and so whether or not people want to interpret that they that they're mandated to do something, whether they like it and they just want to vote for it, um, or whether they believe that they have the right as a planning board member to interpret things, um, and and and and vote uh, with their interpretation. Brad. >> Yeah. I just want to piggy back on your comment uh George because I think you know it was late that night when we were talking and I was trying to articulate >> um the point you're you're making that things like uh articulation of the building are things that the board can reasonably judge about acting as quas

[128:00] judicial. Um so you know from my vantage point that's the system working at some level. Now, I hear you talking about other specifics, but I just wanted to kind of tie that to something that I was trying to articulate that evening as well. Thanks. >> And I'm going to just channel Hela here and say I think the and I'm not a lawyer, but what I have heard lawyers say is that it is our job to determine do we believe it meets the criteria and there is some exercise in judgment in that. So, for what it's worth, um, do we need to vote on the idea of including a moratorum or does anybody feel very strongly about the idea that we really must include the idea of a moratorium? >> I I'm not proposing that we include that. I just I'm I'm just um I was I was uh I guess writing that language um as a means to try to see if if there were other ways to state that it this is this

[129:04] is our top priority. We said it there and we used the word urgent. Um, yeah. And yes, I concur with whomever. I think it was George that said, "Excellent paragraph. Thank you for putting this together in such a clear and um uh I think it's weighted in the correct places." So, thank you for doing that, Laura. >> Sure thing. Uh, any other suggested edits to the paragraph or anything else from Mark's letter that folks want to talk about bringing in? Yeah, Kurt. >> Um, just one word. You say the East Boulder Forbes Code was designed to provide a faster, easier pathway to approval. Um, I'm not sure everyone would agree that

[130:00] it's easier. It is clearer or more deterministic. >> Um, how about more predictable? >> More predictable. That That's great. Yep. Thank you. >> Love it. >> Other edits or things from Mark's letter to in. I do want to acknowledge that when I read Mark's letter, I had a strong reaction to the idea of making it very based in a project, which I think we're making the right call not to do that, although I understand where Mark is coming from. [snorts] Um, and then some of his other suggestions here, like making it more subjective, having concept reviews, referring it to the design advisory board. To me, that basically just tries to recreate site review. um and it doesn't provide what formbbased code is supposed to provide, which is just a checklist that staff can

[131:00] administer and that there's not all these additional reviews and subjectivity. So, I appreciate where Mark is coming from, but I um I would not support that. >> Yeah, Laura, that was my reaction, too. So, thank you. >> All right. Any other edits on this paragraph? So, right now, this is where we're at. This paragraph here will be moved up to our number one. Do we want to put a vote count and say this was planning board's top priority, six out of seven members, or just leave it as this was planning board's top priority? >> I I I mean, we're not we're not rank I mean, we I think we open up voting. We were going to open up voting on everything. I I would just leave it as the letter from planning board because all of us have different perspectives about all these things. Um, so it's probably better just to leave it as close to a unified letter as we can get. >> Okay. >> So, just to say this is planning board's top priority because I think it clearly

[132:00] was in the book. All right. Then I'm going to go ahead and move this up to number one. So, this is number one. I'll fix the formatting. This is number two is ground floor retail and then we have number three which is our site review and number four is middle housing and I'll fix the formatting so that we don't lose a lot of our >> body to um to to to Laura's point about underscoring the First one, um, we put this is playing board's top priority at the at the bottom of that sentence. Um, would you guys mind bolding that? That way it really stands out.

[133:03] >> Thinking I was thinking that we could use some formatting to to drive that message. >> Okay, we'll bold this as well. >> How about we bold this as well? Sure. >> Okay. I don't know why it keeps jumping around like that. My apologies. Okay, so we have our uh little opener there. We have our four suggestions. We have our elaboration. And then in closing, we just say thank you for considering our input as you prioritize your next one-year work plan. Respectfully signed by Mark on behalf of the whole board, all of us. Last call before we finalize. Anything else bubbling up for you? Sorry. Are >> is there kind of a header? So number four says missing middle housing. >> Is there sort of an introduction a a title to each one of these?

[134:04] >> Yeah. Each one has a three like a a few words. >> Okay. >> Do you want to set that off with underlining or something >> or or bolding those too? Just I think it would make it more readable. Okay, bold all of those. We'll bold this. I'll I'll clean up the um margins before I send it to Thomas. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think that's more readable. Thank you. >> Anything else? I'll take this out of bold then since it's uh that makes it look weird. Okay, it does say that these are our top suggestions in priority order.

[135:00] Anything else on the letter or >> and are we at two pages? Is that correct? >> Um let's see. I think we are probably slightly over when you consider headers, but yeah, basically two pages. >> Well done. Well done, board. >> Hey, uh, we're sending it from I don't have a problem sending it from Mark, but he's the only one that hasn't seen this, and it's his name that's coming as the chair. So, I don't know if you guys want to think about how that put out there, but he he didn't actually get to see this. Um, I think procedurally the letter from planning board comes from the chair. That's I I copied that format from what Sarah Silver did in our last letter and Mark is still the chair even though he's not here tonight. Um, and I think he accepts that whatever we do tonight is the will of the board. So, I think that that is appropriate for him to sign off as chair. I don't think he'll have a problem with it. This was his number one priority was the form base code. And

[136:00] >> as long as every I just wanted to I just want to put that out there as recognition because every other every other time we've drafted these the chair has been present when it's from them. So this is um we just might want to give him if it's from I'll put it this way. If I was in his shoes it was from me. I'd want to see it before my name was signed. >> Hey George, you're breaking up for me but it >> Yeah, George, you broke up for me but it might have been I was just saying so I'm gonna go off of video. Can you can you hear me? >> I think you bring up a great point. So, what I'm going to suggest Yeah. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Hey, folks, can you hear me? >> Oh, you're you're frozen. Okay. All right. I stopped screen sharing and I turned off my video because my internet connection was unstable. Um, but George, that's a great point here. I'm going to suggest a process suggestion, which is this letter doesn't need to go to city council until the 19th. Um, and so I suggest that we share it with Mark. And if Mark is uncomfortable having it

[137:00] signed with his name as the first person, I can sign it as vice chair and just list it on behalf of the board. And if Mark doesn't want his name on it, he can take his name off of it. But >> I think it'd be great. I think it'd be great just to send it to him and say, "Hey, you know, we're sending this from you. You know, we all voted on this. We're all unanimous on it. We're assuming you're fine with it." But just give him the benefit of I think that makes sense. >> Yeah. I I think the important point though is that he can't edit it, right? Because it needs to be the decision of the board, >> right? >> So it's just his his sole decision is does his name is he the person who signs it or am I the person who signs it? >> Yep. >> As vice chair. >> Okay. So I think that will be our process. I will send it to Mark, ask him if he wants to be the one signing it and then we'll package it up and send it to Thomas and staff. Okay. All right. Well done. Well done board. did a good job. So, I think that takes us >> Yeah, thank you, Laura. >> My pleasure. So, I think that takes us to any other matters from either the

[138:02] planning director or city attorney or other planning board members. So, Brad, you have popped on. Well, I'm going to have to channel uh the city attorney since we don't have them today. But I will point out I you may not all be aware that uh Laurel uh has handed in her resignation, so she will not be with us much longer. >> Oh no, we didn't have that, >> which is a bummer. We uh certainly will miss her and her um you know, council. Uh but yeah, she's going to be moving on and I think given when she'll be leaving, she wouldn't have a chance to talk to the board again. So, I just want to share that with you. Um I appreciate you all getting getting through things and um and getting a letter together. So, we will be happy to uh follow up with colleagues and such on that as

[139:00] well. And Charles and Christopher might have something. So, >> I just had one um really quick item. So, as we go into the break, it doesn't look like we have any items scheduled for the first meeting of January quite yet. So, we may not meet until mid January. Um which means we may need to transmit some callups to the board via email, which we try very hard to not do, but um it would be difficult to hold those in obeyance for a month. So, um, we'll we'll definitely give you guys as much lead time as possible in the event that we need to do that, but when we don't have a a meeting for, you know, five weeks, um, sometimes that's a necessity. So, apologies in advance. >> Thank you for letting us know, Charles. >> Charles, am I hearing you say that, um, the January 6th meeting is likely not to happen? >> Likely will be cancelled. >> Okay.

[140:00] >> Thank you. And I see Christopher Johnson has joined us. >> Yes. I'd love to jump in too really quickly. Um first just to say thank you and and a note of gratitude to the board for attending our marathon meeting with city council last week. Um I think it was I think it was really productive. Uh we received I think a lot of um really good information and the team is excited to move forward um with all of that as we move into the drafting phase. Um, the other thing I will just mention is even though you might get a reprieve on January 6th, you have a pretty uh meaty meeting coming up on January 20th where we will be bringing those two public hearing items to you. So, um, just a note to be prepared for that. We'll try to provide, you know, materials as as soon as we can so that you have time to review those well in advance of those meetings. Um, and that's that's all I have. >> Thank you, Christopher. Um, and Brad, just getting back to Laurel, if you I assume you're going to see her, even if we won't. Could you please convey to

[141:01] Laurel our sincere appreciation and gratitude for her work with us and that we will sincerely miss her, and I hope all is well for her and her family. >> Yeah, I certainly will. She's moving over to the private sector, uh, a firm that works with, uh, municipal financing among other things. >> Is she staying in Boulder? Uh I don't believe she lives in Boulder. >> Oh, >> but I don't know that. So, >> okay. Any other Thank you so much, Brad. Thank you. And uh since this is our last meeting of the year, I also just want to convey from the board and from me personally our sincere appreciation to staff for guiding us so skillfully through all of the code updates, all of the site reviews, all the concept reviews, form based code, all of the things that you folks have been juggling. >> Uh you make it easy for us to do our work and we are in your debt. So thank

[142:00] you so so much and we hope you have happy holidays. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And happy holidays to all of you. En enjoy the season and don't get blown. >> Don't Don't get wet. >> Don't get blown away. [laughter] >> Yeah. Tie yourself down tomorrow. >> You might need to tie yourself down the next day or two. >> Everybody be safe. Pack your go bags just in case. Like let's let's um have a good day tomorrow despite the uh small Colorado hurricane coming our way. >> Right. Right. Um, any other matters from planning border staff? >> Thomas, do you have what you need? Do we need to do a calendar check? >> I think we are all set. Um, thanks to Charles for covering some details about our upcoming January meetings. >> Okay, fantastic. All right, my friends. See you in the new year.

[143:00] >> Happy holidays, everybody. Everyone, >> bye and thank you for Laura. >> My pleasure. >> We're officially adjourned. >> Bye. >> Thank you all. >> Bye.