January 20, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Good evening. one and all, here in the room and online, and welcome to the January 20th, 2026 City of Boulder Planning Board Meeting. Our, we have all, planning board members present. We have 5 here in the room and 2 online, so we have a, full complement of Planning Board members. The, item number 2 on our agenda is public participation. And, we have, Vivian from the city here to help us, guide us through the, rules for public comment, both for the initial public participation, and then for our two public hearing agenda items. So, Vivian, if you want to take it away, that would be great. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for Thomas, for pulling up the slides. Good evening, everyone. Thank you, members of the public, who are joining us tonight. My name is Vivian, and I'll just, go through a couple of slides.

[1:07] So, first of all, just want everyone to know that the City has engaged with community members to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision that guides our public participation supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff. and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. And we have a lot more information about this, On our website. Next slide, please. And I'll share some examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision and that will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that participants in open comment or public hearings later identify themselves by their first and last name.

[2:14] And… next slide, please. If you are joining us online, you can raise your hand when we call for public participation, by clicking on the raise hand icon that's at the bottom of the screen. You can also get to it, through the… I believe it's called Emotions. Next slide, please. You can also find the raised hand by reaction, sorry, not emotions. You can find the raised hand icon there. If you're joining us by phone, you can, dial star 9, and it will also raise your virtual hand. I believe that's it. Thomas, is there anybody in person who has signed up to speak during open comment? Thank you, Vivian, for that quick presentation, and yes, we do have one individual signed up for open.

[3:05] comment in person. We have Donna, George, so Donna, you can… approach the podium and. Wonderful, and just a reminder that, each participant has 3 minutes, and this part of the meeting is to speak to items that, are not public hearings later on the agenda. Thank you, and also I wanted to note that Donna had expressed interest in pooling time for open comment. I checked on the rules, and we only allow pooling time for the public hearing portion, so you'll be limited to 3 minutes. Thank you. Do not, do not. Get your, microphone turned on, the little silver button there. You… It should be a large… There you go. There you go. That is? Okay, great. Okay, I am speaking, Today, this is why… No, I don't want you to start, because I want to make sure I can talk, okay? Okay. We hear you. Okay.

[4:05] But you. started. the timer. Okay, Thomas, if you could restart it one more time, thank you. Before you start, I'm going to clarify here. I am speaking on the survey that was done for the Boulder Valley Compland. I am also speaking on the Boulder Valley Confluent change request in the public hearing. But the public hearing is for those change requests, not about the survey. So this public comment is about the survey. And again, I think you have to start at 3… No, no, you… You need to carry on, thank you. No, really. I had to make sure. We understand. Thank you. Okay. When I researched population for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, it listed 121,000, of which 108,000 reside within city limits, which means 13,000 reside in unincorporated Boulder County.

[5:00] The 2023 survey for Gunborough alone listed 10,424, so the 13,000 unincorporated residents is most likely rounded to a low estimate. In contrast, there are 38,000 CU students in the Boulder campus, of which 57%, approximately 57% are Colorado residents, so 21,660, but not all of these are City of Boulder residents. So I rounded to a high estimate on this, to 19,000. CU students that are City of Boulder residents, which I feel is probably higher than it actually is. So that is approximately 15% of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan population. Whereas the 13,000 unincorporated residents make up approximately 11% of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive population. And yet. 25% of survey respondents were CU students. There is no data on how many are unincorporated residents, because that question wasn't asked. Therefore, if 25% of these survey replies are from CU students, it is skewed to our population that does not live here, at least on a long-term basis, into the future.

[6:09] If the 19,000 CU students residing in the Boulder Valley were to stay as Boulder Valley residents after graduating, our population would exponentially explode year after year. So why does a survey have so many CU Boulder respondents? A quarter of the policy respondents are CU students. Was there an outreach to these students? Was there an outreach to seniors who have lived here for decades? Was there an outreach to residents of unincorporated Boulder County? I live in Gunbrell, and I noticed on table 16, That question number four, for which areas of Boulder Valley, if any, do you think should be considered for more housing? East Boulder and Gun Barrel come down as the highest percent, at 31% and 30%, where many… where hardly any of the people that probably did this, because most people live in the city of Boulder. So the City of Boulder residents are saying, here, put the housing over here.

[7:03] This is interesting, because we did not know the breakdown of where each of the respondents to the survey reside in each of the areas listed. The question should have been posed in a different way. Ask where of these areas the response resides in, and then ask if they want to consider more housing in that area in which they live, and more detailed questions on what type and density of housing in that area. For instance, a question could be, do you want duplexes? Let me give you a few seconds to wrap up. Okay, multiplexes, large apartment buildings, etc, are built next to your residence, in your neighborhood, in your sub-community, and if so, where? Many of the questions in survey refer to objectives of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, but little on the specific composition. All right, thank you very much. For your comments. Okay, I have a… I will give you copies of all this. Great, I would really appreciate that. Thank you. And I just want to point out that anyone is welcome to email us. at our planning board email address, if you don't feel you have enough time to say everything you want to say. We do read our email. Thank you.

[8:01] And thank you for your comment. We don't have any other speakers in the room registered for open comment. So we're gonna move to our online participants. If there's anybody online that would like to give comment… On any item that is not on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity, so please go ahead and raise your hands. Otherwise, we're gonna pass it back to the board chair. And seeing none raised, that's back to you, Mark. Great, thank you, Thomas, and… Vivian and two members of the public for, taking the time to come and be with us tonight and speak. Our next item is item 3, approval of minutes. We have 3 sets of minutes to approve, but I think But I anticipate that there is a board member who is going to move to, delay the approval of this. Is that right, Laura? Okay.

[9:01] So, if my fellow board members are amenable, this was a hard week for a lot of us, and we had a very busy agenda for tonight, so… and there's no urgency on any of these sets of minutes. They are from February, April, and May of last year, so I would like to move that we, delay the approval of minutes for the February 25th, 2025 Planning Board Meeting, the April 15th, 2025 draft planning board meeting, and the May 6th, 2025 draft planning board meeting minutes until our next meeting. They give us an extra week or so for review. If I have a second. Sure, I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to delay the approval of these three sets of minutes until our next meeting. Is there any debate, question, or concern? Okay, hearing none, I will take a vote, and Mason, I'm gonna start with you tonight. Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. George?

[10:10] Yes. ML. Yes. Okay, and I'm a yes. So, we have, successfully moved those to, our next week agenda. Item number 4 is call-up items. We have no call-up items tonight, and so we're going to roll right into, the meat of the meeting, our public hearing items. Our first public hearing item is Agenda Item 5A. consideration of a motion to approve the list of community change requests to be considered during the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update. So, as with all public hearing items, staff will give us a presentation The board will, take some time to ask clarifying questions of staff. We will then go to a public hearing where members of the community can comment, or,

[11:11] weigh in on this particular topic, and then we'll close the public hearing, and the board will deliberate, and eventually, make a motion of some sort. So, with that, we're going to turn it over to staff. Christopher, KJ. Thank you, Chair McIntyre. Christopher Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager, it's good to see all of you this evening. George and ML Online. I'm gonna take just 30, 45 seconds to introduce this item, and then I'll pass it over to Chris Ranglos, who will provide the presentation. I just wanted to make a note that this, this item marks perhaps the first real decision-making related to the Comprehensive plan update that you all have we'll be seeing over the next several months, for the last year, almost a year and a half now, we've been engaged in this process, and much of it has been exploratory and discussions with our community members and all of you as adopting bodies, to understand the priorities for the community and how some of the policy changes may, may begin to, impact that and how we might.

[12:19] update the comprehensive plan to move forward on a number of challenges that the city faces, and really the Boulder Valley faces as a whole. But tonight is the first time that you will actually enter into a bit more of a formal process. This item and the discussion that you will have is really an initial sort of administrative step related to the community change request process. You will not be debating or evaluating the substance of each of these requests, other than just whether or not those requests deserve further evaluation as part of this process. We have performed an initial screening of those requests, and then we'll be asking for for you, to either agree with our recommended list of items to move forward for further discussion, or you may add or take away from that list as well. So, with that, I will pass it on to Chris Ranglos.

[13:12] Good evening, Planning Board members. My name is Chris Ranglos, I'm a Senior Planner, within Planning and Development Services and the. Comprehensive Planning Team. I'm excited to bring this item forward this evening. As the chair had mentioned, the agenda for this evening is a quick staff presentation. We'll take any clarifying questions from the board, host a public hearing, and then Planning Board will deliberate. We'll start here. What is the community change request process? This is a formal process that is specific to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and is one of the several ways that the community can provide input during a plan update. So, through this process, community members may request changes to the plan's policies, the future land use map, or the planning areas map. So tonight's role for the Planning Board, as KJ had mentioned, is an initial screening of all of these requests submitted during the August 11th through the October 3rd request window.

[14:07] No requests are being approved or denied at this stage. The board is simply determining which requests should move forward for further analysis alongside the draft plan. Final decisions regarding these change requests will occur during the planned adoption hearings in summer of 2026. So this process is broken down into three main steps. Step 1 was the request application window, which opened on August 11th and closed on October 3rd. During that period, the city received a total of 34 requests for changes to the plan. Step 2 is the initial screening phase, which is where we are today. During this step, staff reviews all submitted requests and makes a recommendation about which ones meet the initial screening criteria to move forward for further consideration. And each of the plan's four approval bodies will hold a public hearing to vote on the list of requests that should be considered further. Again, the action being requested of the board this evening is a vote on that list, not a decision on if an individual request should be approved or denied.

[15:14] The third and final step in the community change request process is further analysis and final review of the requests that are voted on to move forward. So once the list of advancing requests is finalized by all four of the approval bodies, staff will conduct additional analysis and develop recommendations regarding those proposed changes. Now, an important part of this phase… of this phase involves, translating land use designations. So, as the board is aware, the draft comprehensive plan proposes a significant revision of land use designations. Because those changes have not yet been formally adopted, requests were submitted using the current 26 land use designations. For the land use change requests that do move forward, staff will translate the existing designations into the proposed revised designations as part of the draft plan.

[16:06] As part of that work, staff will also reach out to the applicants to confirm the intent of their request, which will help inform the recommended new land use designation included in the draft plan. The draft plan, including the translated request, is scheduled for public release soon on March 2nd, so community members will have additional opportunities to provide input on these requests that do advance, and revisions may be made based on that feedback. Final approval or denial of these changes will occur during the plan adoption hearing scheduled for this summer. Information about the process in this request window was shared with the community by a citywide press release and the July 2025 Planning and Development Services newsletter. Staff hosted two in-person office hours, where we answered questions about the process and answered any questions around the submittal requirements.

[17:03] Additionally, a public notice was sent in December to property owners impacted by a request in which they themselves did not submit the request, to ensure they were aware of the proposed change and the upcoming public hearing opportunities. Staff also developed an online map displaying all submitted requests, which was made available in December for community review. In addition, information about the change request process was provided on the project website, and discussed at many of the in-person engagement events over the past year. To date, staff has received 5 community member comments. And I've mentioned a few times that all four of the comprehensive plan approval bodies have a role in the community change request process. So the role that each body plays is defined in the comprehensive plan amendment procedures, and those roles are largely based on the size, the location, and the scope of the potential change. So this table here on the slide summarizes how those roles apply specifically to land use change requests, and shows which approval bodies are involved depending on the planning area and acreage.

[18:10] So for Area 1 and Area 2 land use change requests, those are a city and a planning board decision. If the request in Area 2 is 5 acres or more, then, the Board of County Commissioners would also weigh in. For area, 3 requests that in the Rural Preservation Area, all four of the approval bodies would weigh in. This table's similar, but this one is for, the planning area map changes, as well as the policy change requests. So any Area 2… I'm sorry, Area 3, Rural Preservation to Area 2, if it's a minor adjustment that's 5 acres or less, then the City Council and the Planning Board have decision-making authority. For Area 3, Rural Preservation to Area 2, then the Board of County Commissioners would also, have an opportunity to weigh in on those requests.

[19:01] And finally, for policy and text amendments, the city and the City Council and Planning Board, would weigh in when there's only a city impact. If there is a potential county impact, then all four bodies would also weigh in. So, as I mentioned earlier, staff received a total of 34 requests during the application window. Of those, 22 requests were for land use changes. 3 of them were for planning area map changes, and 9 requests were for policy or text amendments to the plan. Now, before we jump into the list of changes that are recommended for further consideration, I do want to describe the criteria that staff use for this initial screening phase. So, criteria 1 is really about consistency with the comprehensive plan goals. Criteria 2 is if the request is within the policy level scope of the comprehensive plan. Criteria 3 was capacity for timely analysis, and the final and fourth criteria is consistency with the proposed plan direction.

[20:09] So we'll jump into the request here and start with land use map change request. Due to time constraints this evening, I won't be walking through each individual request during the presentation. However, detailed information and staff recommendations for each request were included in Attachment B of the memo packet. So for this set of requests here, staff determined that they clearly meet the initial screening criteria and are appropriate to consider further alongside the draft plan. Specifically, these requests are consistent with the overall plan goals, fall within the policy level scope of the comprehensive plan, can be analyzed within the project timeline, and align with the direction of the latest draft policies and future land use map. Similar to the previous set of requests, staff determined that these also are consistent with the initial screening criteria shown on the table to the right.

[21:04] I do want to note that staff has received several public comments related to request number 10, south side of Sioux Drive, from residents living on the south side. And these comments expressed opposition to the requested land use change and have been included in Attachment D of the memo packet for Board's review. The final set of land use change requests that staff is recommending for further consideration, based on the initial screening criteria is shown here. Now, before we move on to the requests that are not recommended for further consideration, I do want to remind the board that a land use translation will need to take place. So, for example, if a request proposes changing from a low-density residential designation to a medium-density or a high-density designation, staff will conduct additional analysis and work with the applicant to determine the most appropriate new designation. This new designation would then be included in the draft plan for community feedback.

[22:01] So in practice, this could mean a change from, let's say, a low-density designation to Neighborhood 1, it could be Neighborhood 2, or even possibly Community Hub. This is really the next step in the process and the work to come. There are 3 requests that staff are not recommending for further consideration, and these requests are all similar in nature and location, situated in Gun Barrel near Twin Lakes. Staff has found them generally inconsistent with the most recent draft policy and land use map direction. These parcels are in Area 2, which has long been designated for future urban services and intended for annexation into the city since the 1970s. I'll also point out that urban services are already available nearby. Now, while these sites do hold value for adjacent neighbors, offering scenic quality and other resource benefits, neither the city nor the county has found that they meet the criteria for open space designation or acquisition for broader community benefit.

[23:01] Moving on to planning area change requests. As I mentioned, we received 3 in total, and staff is recommending that requests 24 and 25 be considered further. For 24, the property at 6710 Arapahoe is home to the Westview Church, and the applicant has expressed interest in potential future annexation. Now, while the planning area change does not guarantee annexation, moving from Area 3, Rural Preservation, to Area 2 does set the stage for possible future annexation. The property is adjacent to city limits, near the Boulder Valley School District Education Center, and has access to existing infrastructure, transportation options, which supports compact and efficient growth. Similar, the applicant at 810 Marshall Road has also expressed interest in potential future annexation. And like the previous request, this property is adjacent to city limits and other Area 2 properties, and nearby infrastructure and transportation services, making it suitable for compact and efficient growth.

[24:05] There is one request for the planning area, that staff is not recommending move forward, and this is for 5028th Street. This request is for a change in the Area 3 planning reserve to Area 2, and according to the amendment procedures, only the City can initiate a change in the Area 3 Planning Reserve, making this request ineligible for further consideration. Okay, we'll move on to policy and text requests. We did receive 9 in total, several of them some really good ideas that staff, has already started to consider. Of those 34 is the request that staff is recommending further consideration of. And this request is somewhat unique. The applicant submitted several, red line edits, essentially, to the plan's existing transportation-related policies. And most of these revisions do align closely with the draft policy direction and present meaningful opportunities to strengthen mobility outcomes.

[25:04] However, I will point out that not all of the proposed edits within this request can be applied directly due to the significant consolidation, modification, and removal of some transportation-related policies. In addition, some of the request's implementation and programmatic recommendations are outside the scope of the Comprehensive plan's aspirational policy-level framework and will not be considered. This request was included in the memo packet as Attachment C for the Board's review. There are several policy requests that staff is not recommending, for further consideration. So I'll briefly go through these. Request 26 calls for a vision-level funded regional wildfire mitigation program that addresses ignition sources, parcel level targeting, fuel management, structural hardening, and emergency response. Now, while this request does align well with the Comprehensive plan's goals and the latest draft policy direction, the specific operational elements do fall outside the aspirational policy level framework of the plan. These are really better suited as implementation strategies.

[26:15] For request number 27, this is also very similar. It proposes a policy that's focused on sustainable agriculture, water use, and the modernization of irrigation infrastructure, which does align broadly with the plan's emphasis on supporting viable agriculture, efficient water use, and climate resilience. However, the detailed elements, such as funding mechanisms, partnerships with ditch companies, infrastructure upgrades, and on-site farm irrigation improvements, are all implementation strategies that do exceed the scope of the comprehensive plan. In addition, for Boulder County, policies supporting private ditch infrastructure are more appropriately addressed at a county-wide scale rather than within the geographically limited planning area of the comprehensive plan.

[27:04] Okay, request number 28 is also not recommended, as it proposes changes to the amendment procedures. These procedures are contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement, or the IGA, between the City and the county. And while these are included in the comprehensive plan for reference, are not formally a part of the plan itself. As such, the community change request process cannot directly modify these procedures. Request 29 aims to address the allowance of conditional uses in existing buildings. These regulations are governed by the Boulder Revised Code and not the Comprehensive Plan. Which provides a high-level policy guidance and land use designations. So conditional uses or detailed zoning allowances would require a code amendment following the city's formal code amendment process. Thus, this request is also ineligible to proceed. Request number 30 is also not recommended to proceed, as annexation into the City of Boulder already does require property owner initiation through a property owner petition.

[28:08] Further, under state law, the city cannot forcibly annex an area to property. While existing comprehensive plan policy already reflects this principle, staff does recognize that this could be clarified in the draft plan. This request also aims to establish that rural character should be maintained in Area 2, and the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate rural character preservation in Area 2, as these lands are already developed at a suburban scale. Lands that are intended for long-term rural preservation are specifically designated as Area 3 Rural Preservation. Request number 31 aims to clarify that providing community benefits does not automatically allow additional building height, and the Boulder Revised Code already ensures that decisions about additional height are evaluated through site-specific review.

[29:01] Processes which consider aesthetics, view protection, and community input. Because these protections are already in place, this request is not recommended for further consideration. Request number 32 proposes that any future annexation of gun barrel be initiated by the residents, and removes policy language about the city and county continuing to support eventual annexation. Gun Barrel contains major employment centers and is already adjacent to city-served infrastructure. The city and county continue to support the long-term aspirational guidance for eventual annexation. While any annexation would remain entirely voluntary and initiated by the residents of Gun Barrel, not by the city. And finally, request number 33. seeks to revise the land use map designations for accuracy, particularly the current open space designations. Staff does not recommend this request, as the draft future land use map consolidates open space into a single designation and removes separate classifications

[30:06] Like open space acquired, Open Space Development Rights, and Open Space Other. Because these classifications are not being carried forward, the request is no longer applicable. Additionally, improvements to map accuracy and legibility, including color updates, are already being addressed in the draft future land use map. So here's essentially the summary. This is the list, that we're recommending and not recommending move forward. I do want to point out, though, that the board does have the option to add or remove from this list. I will note, however, that any change to this list does require approval. by all of the relevant approval bodies. So, if all bodies do not vote on the same recommendation, then that request will not move forward. This slide here is just… wanted to point out briefly the three ineligible requests. Again, the chain from Area 3 Planning Reserve to Area 2 being ineligible. Revisions to the amendment procedures as described in Request 28 are ineligible, and then any changes to the Boulder Revised Code, as expressed in Request Number 29, are also ineligible.

[31:18] Okay, moving on to next steps. So, there's some next steps happening, a lot of them happening this week and next. The Boulder County Planning Commission will be reviewing all of the relevant county requests tomorrow, on January 21st. City Council will be doing the same on Thursday, on January 22nd, and the Board of County Commissioners on January 27th. Now, once the list is finalized through these hearings, City and County staff will begin further evaluation of the selected request for inclusion in the draft comprehensive plan. As I mentioned earlier. The draft plan will be released for public review on March 2nd, and will remain open for comment through April 6th. Now, all the change requests that are included in the draft plan will be highlighted as part of this engagement opportunity for community feedback.

[32:07] Staff will then make revisions based on that feedback before integrating them into the final recommended plan, which is scheduled for adoption in the summer of 2026. With that, the Planning Board has 3 action outcomes before you this evening. You can approve the motion language as drafted. You can define, and adopt a modified motion, so if there are requests that you'd like to remove or add to that list, then we would need to, define and adopt a modified motion in this instance. Or we can refer back to staff, at which point we would return back to the Planning Board and City Council with additional information at a future date, as requested. So with that, this is the draft motion language. Staff does request Planning Board consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion. Approve the list of community change requests recommended by staff.

[33:01] for further consideration as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update, and direct staff to evaluate these requests for potential incorporation into a comprehensive plan. And with that, we're happy to take any clarifying questions. And when the time comes, I'll throw that motion back up on the screen for us. Great, thank you, Chris. And, I'll just note that I think, all of us appreciate the clarity about what we're dealing with tonight, and what the next steps are. So, with that, I, we have now's the time for clarifying questions, and I see George is leading us off tonight. Yeah, it first is a question for you, Mark, actually, on the… and the board, which is, since we're talking about individual properties, does it make sense for the board to mention if they have any conflicts or interests in these specific properties?

[34:06] I'll be glad to, raise that question right now, and I just want to clarify, it is not my intention to be discussing individual properties, unless a board member wants to make an addition where staff has recommended a removal, or the other way around, where staff has recommended, continuing to include, and a board member, wants to see that particular item removed. So. I'm going to focus on the broad picture tonight, especially given that the four bodies need to review And approve the same list. But, I think your point is well taken, and so now is the opportunity. Does anyone

[35:02] on the board have any financial interest in potential conflict of interest because of some relationship with any of the map change requests before us tonight? Kurt. I just want to disclose that I have talked with people at St. Aiden's Church a number of times. about their property when I was the… liaison to the Landmarks Board. I did a tour there, and there was lots of discussion about potential landmarking or not, and so on, and I've had ongoing discussions off and on with them since then, but I have no other relationship with them. Other than, just chatting about. What, sort of, what, what, is, you know, they, they are planning to do, and,

[36:00] I talked to them a little bit about the potential Yigby bill, which didn't end up passing at the state level, and so on. But I have no financial or other relationship there. Okay, anyone else? Okay, great. George, thank you for that. Yeah, thank you for that. And, so here's… here's my clarifying question that I'm trying to figure out. On this list, we have 1343 Iris 3 times. So I find that a little confusing. And then it's also still under the control of the county, from my understanding, and so I'm just trying to understand How that works when it's listed multiple times, in this process. Yeah, that's a good question. Thanks, George. What I can say is that for request number one, the first 1343 Iris Avenue was submitted by the county.

[37:00] Now, the other requests that you see, requests 14 and 15, were submitted by community members. So, how does that work in this? I mean, I'm just confused as to how this works in this process when you have 3 requests on the same property. Well, what I can offer you is anybody in the community can submit a request for any change, whether it be policy-related, whether it be a land use map change, So, technically, it could have applied to any of these parcels. I think 1343 Iris has the attention of the community, and is probably why we saw multiple requests on that property. But again, as I had mentioned, the first request was the one that was submitted by Boulder County, and then the other two were submitted by community members, who I assume have an interest in the future of that site. So… Are you recommending… and I don't see a pre… I see you're recommending all three of these for consideration.

[38:02] So, is there… given that they're all on the same property, are you prioritizing one over the other, or how does that work? Yeah, we're not prioritizing one over the other. We thought all three requests had some merit behind them, irregardless of the proposed land use that's before us. The rationale that was provided in the applicant's narrative We thought, for all three requests, we're worth exploring more. We're not making any kind of decision on the actual land use that would be provided or designated for that individual parcel. That's really the work that is to come. Got it. Thanks. Any other questions, George, on that one? Okay. All right, Kurt. I just wanted to follow up on that. So, in the map request, people have requested a specific… land use designation, right? Which, of course, is going to change anyhow because of this the, the, the re…

[39:03] reclassification, whatever we're calling that. But we're not… by considering these, we're not in any way bound to If… if it moves forward, that that will end up being… or the reclassification of that will end up being the final land use designation, right? Yeah, that's correct. That's part of the work that's to come. We'll be reaching out to the applicants to verify the intent, and also express what staff's recommendation is on it. What's proposed by the applicant is not, even if we're recommending that that move forward is not a bounding or a binding sort of agreement, that that's the land use, that would be most appropriate for that location. We may ultimately choose a land use designation and recommend one that's not necessarily in line with what the applicant proposed, once we do further analysis and engagement on these requests. Okay, ML.

[40:01] I think this… this process is, definitely… quite complex. So, my question, my broad question, As you're looking at these requests. And given that one of the, kind of directives Is the creation of 15-minute neighborhoods. I'm guessing that as you bring any of these forward. You're looking to see how they would potentially support That, without seeing, you know, the map of what is being asked for and what… the future map looks like, it's kind of hard to understand how we get from here to there. It seems like there's a lot of, Of impacts that were not seeing.

[41:04] So my question is… Are these moving forward with the idea of… of supporting the 15-minute neighborhood? Yes, not just 15-minute neighborhoods, but the overall direction of the comprehensive plan, including the land use map, that has really come from a year, well over a year now, of community input. So, you know, one of those is… housing opportunities, we looked at that. If the request intended or it had demonstrated an intent to provide additional housing opportunities, we found that to be in line with the direction that the Comprehensive plan is headed, as well as creation and enhancement of walkable 15-minute neighborhoods. So as we continue to consider these various applications and requests. Looking to ensure that they do support the other vision that has been expressed within the draft comprehensive plan will be a focus of ours. Another question, going back to the IRIS property.

[42:04] What role does, sort of, the express public opinion. As a lot has been given to those ballparks up there. Play in the unfolding of that land use. consideration. Yeah, that's a good question. We will take, all community input into consideration on all of these requests, not just the IRIS site, but we will, Provide an opportunity, should that request be voted on, to move forward, to gather additional community feedback, not on just that request, but all requests that are moving forward, and that can, and will ultimately influence the outcome of the land use designation that we assign. And, and lastly, I think you, talked about this. when… A request comes in that includes many properties, but not all of the property owners are on board with the

[43:06] Suggested… Consideration. What… How… does… How does staff consider that some property owners are reluctant. to go down that path. How does… how does that play in? And it's a little bit different than just public input, because this is people's, right, people's property, and I wonder, is there, like, a majority rules type of thing, or how does staff, sort of take those situations into consideration? That's a good question. We pay attention, we read all of the comments that we receive by email, all of the comments that potentially be expressed this evening, we will also take into consideration, so there's…

[44:00] No numerical, you know, threshold that we use, but we certainly would be paying attention to what the expressed desire of the community, of neighbors. For all of these requests, and much like the rest of our community feedback, we'll take that into consideration as the request moves forward. So those precise… requests Would carry a different weight than just somebody generally in the public making comments. No, I don't think that they'll carry more weight. I think that we ultimately… you know, pay attention to all community feedback that we get, whether it be a neighborhood, a neighbor, or a community member that lives on the north side of town. One of the things about the comprehensive plan is it's really for the entire Boulder Valley, and so we do take into consideration feedback from all residents within the Boulder Valley. Making recommendations. Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Okay, thank you, ML. Laura?

[45:02] Thank you. I just have a quick question about 18, 20, and 21. These are the ones that are, like, west of Foothills and on Walnut, in that kind of area. And there are 3 properties that are kind of adjacent or near each other that are trying to move from light industrial to more of a residential character. I think it was characterized as mixed-use residential. And I'm just… I'm just curious, given one of our criteria here is on balance consistent with the policies and overall intent of the comprehensive plan, and I know we have struggled with how to balance the desire to preserve industrial with getting more housing. And I'm… I'm curious and interested to see how that moves forward in terms of what that new land use designation looks like, and how it does take industrial into account. But do you have any comments tonight about… I see you nodding like you have some things to say. No. I think it's a good question to raise. Much of what you're describing, I think, is sort of the next steps in the process, right? And I think these requests specifically…

[46:05] moving from light industrial to more of a mixed-use residential. It does signal that there is an intent to provide additional housing opportunities, so we think that that's worth exploring and worth considering a little bit. We may ultimately come back with a decision that the mixed-use residential designation or the equivalent of in the new land use framework may not be appropriate. We'll take board feedback on that, council feedback, as well as the community's feedback, and ultimately, if The determination is that we do want to preserve some of those industrial spaces in that area, then we can assign a land use designation that would ultimately help do so. But yeah, it's a challenging circumstance, trying to preserve those, you know, important industrial spaces, and again, that's sort of the analysis that is to come, and some of the outreach that we'll be doing with the community, as well as with the applicants of the request. Thank you.

[47:01] Claudia. Thanks, everyone, for the questions. I actually wanted to start by circling back and acknowledging ML's question. About, change requests that are not initiated by property owners and how we handle those. I think that's an important question, given some of the comments we've received from the public, so thank you for that, ML. Just want to add that I also had that concern. A similar question, but maybe going in a different direction. Some proposals, I'm thinking in particular here of number 11 near Scott Carpenter Park, but there may have been others, are really for what looks like a small parcel in a larger area of similar land use. And so, when… I want to know, when considering proposals like that, do you also consider changing surrounding land uses? And if so, how do you make that decision? What should the scale of a change be? Yeah, so we do, Following the final list of recommended, changes that we'll continue to explore, they will really be, you know, looped in into and wrapped into the draft land use map.

[48:09] And so, you know, we'll be taking a look at the areas surrounding a lot of these parcels and making recommendations. More staff, you know, initiated recommendations. The 2810 Olsen Drive, the… over by Scott Carpenter Park, I think is a good example, where it is one individual property owner who's requested that for his property. But that could really create, if it was just that property, somewhat of an island effect, right? And so there may be, additional land use changes within that area to ensure that, the area is coherent, and that the land use designations in the area do speak to each other. Okay, and since we're on that topic, what would the public notification process look like for that, if you were to conclude this analysis with a larger recommendation that was actually submitted? I might let KJ talk about what the public notice.

[49:01] Yeah, thanks for the question. in a traditional, situation where there was a land use change, to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, all properties within that land use change are, are, provided, mailed notification, so printed notification. This update to the Comprehensive plan is going to be a bit unique in that we are conceivably changing the entire map, which means we would have to send an awful lot of letters out to notify everybody of those changes. And so we, my sense is that really, as part of, as part of this process, and ultimately what you will see and the community will see in March in the draft plan. As you will see a draft land use map that covers the entire valley, but we will also be highlighting all of these areas that are proposed for substantive changes, either related to a community change request or a significant staff-initiated change. As part of that process, we will, and in particular, during the month or so long review of that draft, we will try to make, additional efforts to contact those property members, or property owners, so that they are aware of those changes and have a better understanding of those.

[50:15] The other thing I'll just quickly mention, and I think this is relevant to the question, from ML as well, related to properties that might be recommended for a land use map change, where they did not submit that, but really broadly speaking, any land use change to a property is a land use change at the sort of highest policy level. It does not have an impact on the zoning district that applies to that particular property. It does not change anyone's property right, just in and of itself. Any future changes related to zoning or redevelopment all needs to come from the property owner specifically, so… You know, I recognize that that is certainly something that property owners want to pay attention to and would have a very vested interest and concern about, but also recognize that the land use map changes is a relatively minor adjustment to the overall vision for that property or that area.

[51:11] As a whole, over a 20-year time horizon, but it does not necessarily guarantee that there would be change in that particular location. Thank you for clarifying that. Mason I have, perhaps some very basic questions. So, I'm aware of land use, change process when it comes to regular zoning or the annexation process. We've seen that. This is the first time. I've seen this process, I honestly didn't know until this packet… this was, how we did this, and I'm kind of just wondering, what are the primary reasons requests are badged and screened collectively during the update, rather than following a more individualized review? Like, requests outside the update.

[52:01] Yeah, I'll try to take a, a pass at this. So this is a… this is a process that, that has been, really part of the Comprehensive plan since its, initiation back in the 1970s, so it's… it's something that has been unique to the Comprehensive Plan updates that, at that moment, the community has asked for any recommended changes, and they… can be related to land use, they can also be related to policies, etc. Really, everything is on the table, for the most part. That, I do think that in this particular instance, again, as I mentioned, you know, we're going to be updating the entire map, with new categories, and so it is… A bit, awkward from a sequencing standpoint, that we, you know, needed to… we needed to have this process because it is part of the amendment procedure, so it's a required element of a comp plan update. So we needed to do the process, but we also needed to, do it in a timeframe and use the existing framework that we have, because that's what is adopted, that is what is in the comprehensive plan today.

[53:05] The way that it's always been done is to do this as a batch, so that they can be reviewed collectively. And I would say, historically, there's probably been many fewer land… land use map changes. Things were locked down pretty tight, and so there were only a few that were analyzed and brought forward at any given time, so… Again, I think it's more from a… A community standpoint, that they can Sort of assess and understand all of the potential changes at any one time, but also a staff capacity and sort of workload, that it's most efficient for us to batch all of those together, as opposed to taking them individually through, through those individual, review processes, like a rezoning. Yeah, and just a quick follow-up. From Steph's perspective, does the update period process create different expectations or incentives for applicants compared to requests submitted outside the update?

[54:05] Maybe to some degree, in that it, I will say that, you know, the comprehensive plan is updated… well, now it's updated on a 10-year cadence of a major update. It used to be updated on a 5-year cadence, but we still do the mid-year update, or the midterm updates at 5 years. So, what that ultimately creates is there's a… there's a free opportunity for a community member to request a change on a 5-year basis, so you're putting a lot of eggs in the basket, but it doesn't cost you anything to put it forward. Those other processes that you're referring to, like a rezoning, have a cost associated, you know, with those, and are usually Tied directly to an actual redevelopment scenario, so, you know, I think it opens up the door for any community member to be able to offer their input and their request for change, but it's also fairly low stakes in terms of the cost to them, but they have to wait for it every 5 years.

[55:05] Thank you. Okay, Kurt, you just did an initial colloquy on a thing, so you're gonna get your first round. You go ahead, I'm gonna call on myself, and then I'll call on George. Okay. Again. Okay, thanks. I wanted to go to the criteria that you were using for review, and specifically criterion 2. And you referred a couple times to the… aspirational policy level framework, I think it was… were the terms he used, of the comp plan. Can you tell me where that terminology is coming from? Or where that… Criterion is coming from? Yeah, it's really sort of the nature of the comprehensive plan, really being more of a policy-driven document, whereas a lot of the more specific implementation strategies and programmatic decisions, are really more appropriate in other planning tools, that we in the city have, whether it be a department plan.

[56:15] the citywide strategic plan. We can't cover everything within the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan, if you think of, you know, it's flying at the cruising 30,000-foot altitude, right? So it sets the vision for the community, and then the specific, implementation items, programmatic items. Many of them are great implementation items or programmatic items, it's just we can't cover everything within the comprehensive plan. So like I mentioned, there's other planning tools that we do have that largely come after a comprehensive plan update. Or we'll develop a work plan to implement the comprehensive plan, and that's really where you'll start to see some more of those implementation or programmatic items called out. Yeah, does that… does that help? Yeah, so just to… maybe to restate for my own purposes, this is staff's judgment about the appropriate level for

[57:07] the comp plan. Yes. But it's not coming from the IGA specifically? Correct. Correct. Yeah. Okay, sounds good. And then, one very specific question about the request number 33, which was the land use map accuracy. Thing, which seemed very different from most of the other requests. And you've clarified that, well, the open space designations are all going to be combined anyhow, so maybe it doesn't make so much difference, although potentially there's some accuracy problems at the edges. I'm just wondering if you know, like, did this come from a particular sort of problem, or what was… what was the genesis of this… request. It seems like kind of an odd request. I don't know that I can directly answer that on behalf of the applicant. What I will point out, though, is that this request has been made before in previous comp plan updates. Yeah, I don't necessarily have the answer for the rationale or the details of that request. I think the applicant might be able to provide better rationale behind that. Okay.

[58:13] Yeah, great. Thank you. Okay, George, go ahead. Thank you. I had a specific question. To understand how you derive a positive outcome or yes in your criteria, specifically, because one request stood out to me as a bit different than the others, which was 17, which includes converting open space to medium density residential. Why is that a yes from staff's perspective? I just want to clarify, George, yes, for… Continued consideration, not.

[59:04] Yeah, for continued consideration. That's my… that's my question, because… because it's open space specifically, and we're converting it to a… like, where… where is the criteria that… that… that… Informs you that that should move forward for further consideration. I'm sorry, George, what requests are you referring to? 17, which is Elks. And as a component of the land use that they've requested, a component of it is open space to medium-density residential. Yeah, what I can say is it's a bit of a unique parcel. There's actually 3 different land use designations within that parcel, and that might be where some of the land use accuracy issues are coming from. The majority land use that's designated for that property is actually public. I think there's just, like, a little sliver of open space other, which was likely a mapping error, that occurred.

[60:00] So, I wouldn't… necessarily latch onto the open space designation as much as I would the public designation, as that really is the majority of the land use that's designated on that property. Well, I guess same question for public. I mean, I understand the conversation with, Because it's such a… it's so unusual, because I didn't realize that public would… would be a designation already that… that sits with Elks. Do you… do you have the history on that, to just understand it a little bit better? the history of the public designation on there. Yeah. were there trade-offs made by the community already to… for those designations? Because I know there's a park there, and there's… there's several things that have happened historically, so I'm trying to grasp Sort of why… the request on the big change and if it jives with what has happened there historically, and why that use is in place. Yeah, I don't have the answer for you, immediately right now, George, about some of the history around that designation and around that property. We'd be happy to look into it, and I will say that that's, you know, sort of the additional analysis that we would do, if that request were to move forward, is to understand

[61:11] Previous land use designations and sort of the rationale behind those in order to inform a future recommendation on that site and others. Got it. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna call on myself, my first one is, So… the opportunity… for map changes. That's done. That window is closed. And that is done. Okay. The possibility for policy change requests, as the draft of the, updated BBCP is completed. Will the four bodies essentially have Opportunities to make

[62:03] suggestions, suggested edits to the draft. So, fellow board member Nordbeck's, email from earlier in the week, etc, with some policy change suggestions. We do still have an opportunity for input coming up. As do all members of all four bodies. Yes, and I would also add all members of the community as well, so that'll be part of the draft review that, we'll be gathering, you know, input through a number of different engagement opportunities, March 10th, mark your calendars. But there'll be… there'll be other opportunities, and I would say the land use map changes also are still somewhat open. You know, that's really the purpose of that March draft, that first draft, is so that we can gather any additional feedback on the policies as drafted and the land use map as it's

[63:01] Proposed at that time, so that we can then go and revise that, for a final version before adoption. Okay, great. That's actually encouraging. I… concerned that, alright, this… it's like, we're locked in here. Okay, that's very helpful. Well, and Mark, if I can just point out a couple more specifics, March 2nd through April 6th is going to be the opportunity for Planning Board members, as community members and the larger community, to provide input on policies or the draft land use map. March 10th will be an open house, for the community. We would encourage planning board members to attend that as well, and provide feedback. And then March 26th, we have a joint study session with the Planning Board and City Council, and that would be another opportunity to provide feedback on both the policies and the land use map. I don't have any, specific Questions related to any of the applications. Okay, are there any additional clarifying questions?

[64:02] ML. I… I do. I wanted to, get back to something I believe Laura talked about, 18, 20, and 21, specifically relative to Criteria 4, which talks about consistency with proposed plan direction. So, these are those properties where they're currently industrial, looking to go residential. how is it consistent with the proposed plan direction? Do we know that? Is the proposed plan direction something other than industrial there? That's a good question, ML. I would say, again, right now, we proposed consistency with the proposed plan direction is largely coming from the community feedback that we've heard over the past year, year and a half or so. And so one of those big ones is the need for additional housing opportunities. So at an initial, cursory glance at the request, we do think that it's worth exploring, looking at what a residential designation could look like in those areas.

[65:11] The additional analysis and working with the applicant and the broader community will ultimately inform the final decision or recommendation on the land use designation, so there's… You know, if we continue to hear from the community planning board and others that we really do want to preserve industrial spaces in these areas, then that's feedback that we would take into consideration for that land use recommendation. But just because the applicant has proposed a mixed-use residential designation does not necessarily mean that it will be a residential designation. In order for us to make a good determination on that, it's going to take additional analysis and community feedback to arrive there. Yeah, I was just responding to… you checked the box, it was consistent with proposed plan direction, which is criteria 4, so I was curious. As to how that, I guess, initial, thought was… was formed.

[66:06] Okay, that's my question. Thank you for clarifying. Okay, last call for questions from the board. Okay, seeing none, we're going to close this phase, and we're going to open the public hearing. We have, a significant number of people wanting to comment tonight. And as chair, once we reach a certain threshold, then it's possible for me to limit the comment time from 3 minutes to 2. I don't want to do that tonight. And I'm not going to, but I would simply request that during public comment, that, If you don't need to use all your time, don't. Be ready to speak. And in fact, Thomas, if you could announce the next speaker and the one after that, so that people can queue up over there, so we don't have a lot of time going back and forth and shuffling chairs and so forth, that would be… that will be… expedite this.

[67:13] And I will note that, again, that the… The topic… The decision-making that's going on tonight is not about approval or denial of any specific request. It's about adoption of the list Of items that staff has created With some items removed, because they do not, in staff's opinion, fulfill the criteria for a map… for a land use map change. So, anyway, limit your comments as best you can to, the topic at hand, and be ready, and

[68:00] make your comments tight, and away we go. So, and we'll… I believe we're going to do the, In-room comments first, followed by online comments. Thank you, Chair. Yes, we'll start with in-person speakers. And first up, we have Margaret LeCompte, and then after Margaret, we will have David Foster. Right into that microphone with the red light on it. Okay, can you hear me? Yes, and I'll. I'll start the time when you begin. Good evening. My name is Margaret LeCompte, and I have lived at 290 Pawnee Drive. at the corner of Sioux and Pawnee for 34 years. The City Council and the Boulder Commission talks about needing, family-friendly, vibrant neighborhoods for the missing middle. Well, I live in a neighborhood like that, and I oppose any further consideration of item number 10, the land use change for Sioux Drive.

[69:04] That is because the change in density and housing type threatens the exact type of neighborhood that Boulder says it needs. Our 11 houses are fairly modest homes. They're all I could afford when I moved here and bought the house, and it's all I can afford now. The neighborhood is close to my work, it's close to a shopping center, a good school, a welcoming church, a medium-sized retirement home, where my mother lived and she passed away. I loved the fact that my neighbors were varied. There were older residents who'd raised their kids already, and Manu families who had moved in with children, to their forever homes. And they had room for children to play in the yards, in gardens, and places for… to neighbor with other people in the neighborhoods. But somebody, and it wasn't me. Has requested that this all will change.

[70:00] This increased density request has an elephant in the living room. The Fraser Meadows retirement community, which has metastasized from a modest size to take over a full two city blocks, and now wants a third, it will tear down part of the church, build a 55-story, 4-story, 55-foot, 4-story, full block long. bunch of 94 luxury apartments that Boulder doesn't need. And our block, those houses will be demolished and replaced with… replacing our modest homes with multi-family units. That… that will also encroach on the backyards of Rickera Drive and Shawnee Place, creating… to create a transition zone between the 55-foot high high-rise and our houses. And that the impacts on the entire neighborhood will be considerably and adverse. We were what the families really want.

[71:04] And that will be gone. It will be replaced with a crowded urban cityscape that's no longer friendly to children, to pets, or the elderly. That is not my vision, and that is not what I think Boulder needs, and I ask you to not further consider item number 10 in the change requests. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Margaret. Next up, we have David Foster, and after David, we will have Mark Johnson. And I'm also, speaking regarding change request number 10. On the south side of Sioux Drive. Immediately across the street from the Fraser Meadows… But could you raise that up a little bit, speak in there a little more? Thank you. Oh. The Fraser Meadows Manor Retirement Home. Directly across the street. This request does not reflect the sentiments of the neighborhood.

[72:02] to me, it appears to be part of an orchestrated plan to circumvent the Boulder Municipal Code's prohibitions, Against, sudden transitions from Quote, density, massing, or scale that are required for the 175,000 square foot luxury apartments that have been proposed by the manor. The neighborhood adjacent to the manor, as you heard from Marquee is composed of very modest homes built in the late 50s and early 60s. Footprints are about 1,500 square feet. One to one and a half stories tall. Very modest. The apartment proposal is in perfect contradiction to the code. Your proposal would create one of the longest Tallest single buildings in non-University Boulder.

[73:00] One quarter mile long building, 55 feet tall. With a theoretical setback of only 25 feet, and practically less than that. Which I won't go into here, but… Perhaps the motivation is for this change request was approved. then there might be sufficient transition to allow the apartments to meet this provision of the code? Maybe, I don't know. Is there a hidden agenda? Of the 14 homes in… excuse me… of the 14 homes in the change request, the manor has recently quietly acquired Four of them. Purpose and future is vague and contradictory. They are all I might say. Poorly maintained rentals. It is a reasonable suspicion that the change request and the audacity of the high-rise apartment proposal Including privatizing a public road, It's meant to drive us out of our homes at higher sale prices.

[74:00] If you allow me to… anecdote. This wouldn't be the first case of a land baron trying to forcibly acquire the holdings of peasants, and I speak only for myself there. however, There are, some recent noble precedents in Boulder of developers actually working In close cooperation with the neighborhood. I think Iris Fields, if I'm reading that story correctly. Let's continue on that cooperative trajectory. Please help us save our homes. Great, thank you. Thank you, David. Next up, we have… Mark Johnson, and after Mark, we will have Donna George, and just to note that Donna's… Pooling time with two other individuals. And so, Mark, you have 3 minutes. Please go ahead when you're ready. Alright. Good evening Appreciate you guys taking the time to hear our concerns.

[75:00] I'm speaking to the same matter that they spoke about. My family lives on the south side of Sioux Drive. And with Fraser Meadows Manor, currently proposing to build a 175,000 square foot, 55-foot high structure directly across the street from us. And now this new proposal, number 10, Enabling replacement of single-family homes with duplexes and triplexes. We feel increasingly pressured from all sides. It feels like the home and neighborhood that my family consciously chose for very specific reasons 20 years ago is being taken from us. We simply want to live peacefully in the neighborhood we are raising our daughter. Paying taxes, and contributing in big ways to this community. If both the Fraser Meadows expansion and the land use designation proposal pass, there will be no homeowners left on Sioux.

[76:01] We will all be ruthlessly pushed out so that Fraser Meadows can generate millions more dollars while paying no property taxes. And so that property owners, not homeowners, such as the individual who proposed the community change request, can profit as well. The person who submitted the rezoning proposal does not even live in the house that they currently rent on Sioux. They are head of an architectural firm. And they never bothered discussing their proposal with any of the residents who actually live on Sioux. That's a really big deal right there. It seems that many architects, builders, and large businesses in Boulder are lobbying for increased density under the pretense that it will result in more affordable housing. Yet very little affordable housing is actually being built. If these proposed duplexes and triplexes on Sioux were required to be genuinely affordable, I'd be far more open to this proposal. I'd still probably resist, because it's my home, but I'd be more open to it, because Boulder actually needs that.

[77:12] If density in Boulder must increase, why focus on existing neighborhoods when there is available space around the city? For example, near Gateway Fun Park, where additional housing could be built without directly impacting established homeowners like us. Why do developers in purely financial interests get to determine what happens in the neighborhood where my family has lived for 20 years? Shouldn't we be listening more closely to longtime members of our community, people who care deeply about Boulder and have contributed in countless ways, rather than to developers who are not invested in what will truly enrich our community? Thank you.

[78:00] Great, thank you. Thank you, Mark, and yes, next up we have Donna George, and Donna, please just begin by, restating your name, as well as the names of the individuals you're pooling time with, and you… Allow me a moment to adjust your time to 5 minutes. And we need to identify the people you're pooling time with here in the room. Oh, yeah. Donna George, Miho Shida, and Dinah McKay. Great, thank you very much, I appreciate that. Donna George Gun Barrel. We, the public, only just heard about the staff recommendations on these change requests last Thursday, and not even a week later, you are having meetings on whether they move forward in the process. This was not enough time for the citizens to review these recommendations and make comments. Exhibit B, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures, describes the amendment procedures for the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Under B, Procedures for Changes 5, Schedule and Process of Updates, it explains the screening process under Changes 5B.

[79:02] There it states, the Bonneys will consider all requests for changes together with the staff recommendations at initial public hearings, and will compile a list of proposed changes to be considered during the update based upon, one, consistency with the purposes of the update as described above. Two, available resources to evaluate the proposed change. Three, consistency with current Boulder Valley Comprehensive policies, and four, compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighborhood contexts. In contrast. The four criteria for screening analysis that the planning staff base their decisions on, which of the change requests should be considered further, are consistency with the comprehensive plan goals, within the policy level scope of the comprehensive plan, capacity for timely analysis, consistency with proposed plan direction. Therefore, the planning staff did not make the staff recommendations on the proper screening criteria in the Boulder Valley Comp Plan Amendment Procedures. In the staff's criteria number 4, they further screened based on, is the request consistent with the latest comprehensive plan policy and new draft future land use map direction?

[80:08] They are supposed to screen the change request based on consistency with the current Boulder Valley Comp Plan policies, not some new draft, future land use map that has not been properly explained, reviewed, and vetted by public engagement on the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Due to lack of proper procedure in the process to screen the change requests, these change requests cannot be voted on at this meeting. The planning staff need to go back and make their staff recommendations based on the four screening criteria in the Boulder Valley Comp Plant Amendment procedures. Also, for request number 28, planning staff said that it was ineligible, and to not consider it further. They put NA under all the screening analysis criteria. They wrote, Staff does not recommend further consideration of this request. The request proposes changes to the amendment procedures for a land use map and Area 1-2 boundary decisions. These procedures are contained in the intergovernmental agreement.

[81:04] and are not formally part of the plan itself. As such, the community change request process cannot directly modify these procedures. However, if you read… 4.25, under the Boulder Valley Comp Plan Intergovernmental Agreement, you will see outlined there that the plan will be reviewed at least 5 years… at least every 5 years for possible amendments to reflect changes in circumstances and community desires, and this IGA will be reviewed by the parties during the periodic plan reviews. Therefore, request number 28 should go forward. Part of an update is to notice errors in the plan and correct those errors in the update process. Request number 33 addresses this. I submitted this as a land use change request, for some reason, the staff put it under a policy or text change. This request was to review land use designations and correct those which are incorrect, and not just on open space designations. For instance, the Boulder County Country Club is listed as public under the 2020 land use map, and it is an exclusive, expensive, private golf course.

[82:05] This request was supposed to be addressed in the 2020 Boulder Valley Comp Plan midterm update, along with requests number 7, number 8, and number 9, but there was not enough to address them at the time, and the pandemic was going on. And they said then that they would address them in the 2025 major update. We are now in the 2025 major update, so these requests also should move further. And also concerning the request number 7 and number 8 and number 9, these requests are consistent with comprehensive goals and policies as described in much detail in the 2020 update, which was referred to in the request before you today. They are compatible with adjacent land uses and neighborhood contexts, they are adjacent to open space, they provide for community recreation uses, and have beautiful views of the front page in the mountains. The adjacent neighborhoods are zoned rural residential and low-density residential land use designations. The policies of the Boulder Valley Complain guide the Boulder Revised Code. The staff recommendation for request number 30 was… 31 said that the BRC already provides the decisions regarding additional building height.

[83:10] which are evaluated through site-specific review processes. However, in looking over the Section 9214 they referred to, I saw the following, and my husband will, do the rest of this talk. I just want to note that these These are what you're supposed to follow. Where's my other one? Here. They're not being followed. So you have to follow this. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, and next up, we have Mark George, and after Mark, we'll have Mary Kate. Reg… rejois? I'm not sure how to pronounce it, but, next up we will have Mary Kate. And go ahead, Mark George. Yes. Concerning the height requirements, as pointed out in number 3 exceptions, the following developments. that exceed the minimum site review threshold set forth in this section shall not be required to complete a site review.

[84:04] Residential projects where all units will meet the requirements for permanently affordable units in chapters 9 through 13, end quotes, inclusionary housing, end quotes. Boater Revised Code 1981 provided the applicant for such a project applies for and receives approval of an Affordable Housing Design Review pursuant to Section 9-13-4, in quotes, Affordable Housing Design Review, end quotes, Bota Revised Code 1981. The policy change request I submitted asks that a community benefit such as affordable housing will not guarantee additional building height, and it shouldn't. This change request is a valid policy change that should be reviewed. Then the voter revised code can be updated to reflect the change in policy. Additionally, requests number 30 and number 32 deal with annexation of all Area 2 lands. As was stated in both of these requests, there has been very low interest in annexation into the City of Boulder from residents in Area 2 and Gatton Barrel over many years. Under 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan, the intergovernmental agreement states, in quotes, the city and county agree that the plan shall be reviewed at least every 5 years for possible amendments to reflect changes in circumstances and community desires, end quotes.

[85:12] These change reflects reflect the community desires of these Area 2 and Gun Barrel residents to not have support of City and County of an eventual annexation of these areas, but rather lands may be annexed into the city in the future if there is an interest by the residents of those Area 2 areas. Staff comments included… Annexation, in quotes, annexation, end quotes, annexation would remain entirely contingent on initiation by the residents of Gun Barrel, end quotes. This is what my request asked for. They also said. This approach maintains the plan's long-term aspirational guidance for urban expansion while respecting the community's character and the principle of voluntary annexation, end quotes. This long-term aspirational guidance for urban expansion comes from the City of Boulder and not from the residents in these areas. The request also is… and then the request is also a statement about how Area 2 lands provide a buffer between Rural Area 3 lands and Urban Area 1 lands.

[86:07] All these requests, I'm gonna jump… all these requests, number 28, 30, 31, 32, and 33, as well as the land use change requests 7, 8, and 9 should be considered further. I've got limited time, so let me just jump ahead, because I wanted to make this statement, and this is what I want to highlight. Although the… I just want to remind the planning board members that you have to follow proper procedures outlined in the Boulder Valley Conference Plan Intergovernment Agreement Amendment Procedures when you make decisions and vote on these change requests, because not all of these procedures are currently being followed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And, next up we have Mary Kate, followed by Bal Patterson. Good evening, I am Mary-Kate Rajouille, I serve as. as the rector of St. Aiden's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. I want to thank you for.

[87:00] For your efforts with community engagement and receiving community feedback in the. process. Geography is destiny, urban planning really matters. I wrote a letter to you on behalf of four properties. Two of them have change requests, number 4 and 5 from St. Aiden's, number 16 from CU Hillel. I speak today, however, as the rector of St. Aiden's and not for those other four properties, and I am grateful that you, are looking at forwarding our request for land use change. As my letter indicates, the St. Aiden's property will soon be next door to 3 to 8 stories of student housing, upwards of 1,700 beds of student housing. We could not be more thrilled about this, I have to tell you. We are here to serve the community, and we are here to serve students. We regularly feed students and offer food pantries and many other

[88:00] services. That a parish congregation can do. We want to continue to be able to do that. We believe that life is with people, and so I applaud your efforts for 15-minute neighborhoods. I applaud your efforts that greater density can perhaps lead to greater affordability. If we do it carefully, that attainable housing matters, that being able to live where you can eat, be with other people, and walk matters. That is deep in our theology. So we are asking, as you know, for an underlying change to land use for higher density from RL1, which is low density residential, that many religious properties in Boulder have been designated. The reason for this is that many religious properties are changing. Our income streams are changing. We have property that could very well be used for housing, for community benefit, and for a sustainable common good.

[89:03] By allowing higher density, that will lower barriers that are inherent and implicit in city development process, that might allow nonprofits that struggle to meet our own budgets, that struggle to do common work for a common good in the community, that might allow us to stay in place and continue to do that service for years to come. So, Got 30 seconds left. Thank you, and please allow religious properties to have the capacity, not necessarily the destiny, but the capacity to develop for higher density use. Thank you. Thank you. Then next up, we have Bal Patterson, and following that, we will have Dave Query. Please go ahead, you'll have 3 minutes. Hello, I'm Val Patterson. I'm speaking in support of, moving forward items 4 and 5. I'm a member of St. Aiden's,

[90:04] church for my life. I'm a Boulder born and bred. And my membership in that worship community proceeds the construction of our facility, so I have seen our community serve. The university, serve our congregation, and be a place of service to the community. for my life. I ask you to let us continue to do that. by changing our land use designation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Dave Query, and after that, we will have Donna Baston. Please go ahead when you're ready, and you'll have 3 minutes. Hello, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Speaking on the 2815 Jay Road annexation. That, I believe, will allow Boulder to have a lot of.

[91:04] affordable housing. I have 5 restaurants in town, we have 200 employees. 50% of those employees live outside of Boulder. So, they're driving to Westminster, Broomfield, they cannot afford to live here. 50-plus percent of those employees that do live here are CU students. So, they're living in CU housing, they're attending CU, they have to be near CU. Once they graduate, they end up moving out of town because they can't afford it. I grew up here, it has become more and more expensive, and I think having some real, Real affordable housing, in a… in a place where it's not going to offend a lot of the folks who have made comments tonight about putting it right next to their, their, houses that doesn't match the area. It's north of town, it's surrounded by parks, and I think, as Boulder entertains Sundance and more and more exclusive, things that are gonna make this town feel more and more like, exclusive towns around the United States, like Santa Barbara.

[92:07] We need to take a nod from towns like Minneapolis and… Portland and Seattle and Atlanta, who have done really great work with affordable housing, and do it aggressively, and not miss this opportunity. If Boulder's committed to affordable housing, this is a great opportunity to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Next up, we have Donna Bazdan, and after Donna, we will have Adrienne Sofer. Thank you. Good evening, members of the Planning Board. I am Donna Baysden, the CEO of. Boulder Medical Center. And, we have a primary office location at 2750 Broadway, here in Boulder. I appreciate the opportunity to represent Boulder Medical Center as we request, your support to further consider request number 3, proposed land use map change as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update.

[93:06] Since 1949, Boulder Medical Center has proudly served the Boulder community as a local, physician-owned, independent, multi-specialty medical group practice. Our original clinic at 2750 Broadway continues today to be our largest location. Now, being entirely owned by the physicians that practice within Boulder Medical Center, we do not rely on venture capital or corporate health system funding, which subsequently allows us to focus solely on serving the community's healthcare needs. Now, as we look to the future. We are committed to maintaining a central Boulder presence. With a practice location at 2750 Broadway that we have occupied for 77 years as of this year, we are now operating at maximum capacity.

[94:06] Through diligent study, we understand that we are unable to grow in our current location. We've engaged local experts, Adrian Sofer is one of those who will speak after me tonight to analyze the land use map designation and their impact on the value and usability of our property. We believe the proposed land use change not only aligns with the community's needs, but is also crucial to enabling Boulder Medical Center to reinvest in a future Central Boulder facility. This will allow us to continue to promote the health and well-being of Boulder residents for many years to come. Thank you for your important work, and for considering this request. Thank you. Thank you, Donna. Next up, we have Adrienne Sofer, and after Adrienne, we'll have Elizabeth Black.

[95:03] Good evening, board members. Adrienne Sofer, Sofer Sparn Architects, working with Ms. Baesdon on the 2750 Broadway Boulder Medical Center Application and subsequent work. Which will be coming for you separately. The medical center has to move. There's really no way they can stay in this location because of The floodplain that it sits in, it's a critical facility. It cannot continue to improve its facilities without meeting the floodplain regulations. The site slopes very substantially. I presume you've all read the letter that we've sent. And, it just is completely impractical for the kind of improvements they need to make to stay in that location. So we are asking for a land use map change to associate that property with the shopping center to the south on the block that it shares. As the… As the update information states, that the purpose of it is to make amendments that respond to changing conditions and community needs. While the conditions have changed in the 77 years that the medical center has been there.

[96:10] It cannot remain a medical center, so what should happen there? And we're fairly confident that the best use of that property is for multifamily residential, not just because of the… The fact that it's a one-minute neighborhood when you make it so. But also, because that is what's going to bring the medical center the most money so that they can relocate and stay in Boulder, which is the long-term goal of the medical center. And that's what all of this is about, is to support the ongoing needs of the community By creating a new medical center in a location that is relatively near to where they are today. So, we'll be coming back to you beyond this, but I'm here tonight to just say I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have relative to continuing with this process that you're going through, and including this site. Thank you. Great, thank you. Thank you, Adrian. Next up, we have Elizabeth Black, and then our final speaker, who is registered, is Bill B.

[97:06] And Bill, when it is your turn to speak, we will need you to state your full name for the record. And thank you. Go ahead, Elizabeth. Hi, Elizabeth Black. I've submitted change request number 27, which. says Boulder's ag water delivery system depends on 160-year-old legacy irrigation ditches, which present many opportunities for system upgrades to minimize water loss. and maximize the yield of dwindling water supplies. The city and county will partner with local ditch companies, farmers, and ranchers to upgrade our ag water delivery systems to maximize ag water efficiencies, and to ensure that the survival of viable agriculture in the Boulder Valley. Staff says my change request is consistent with comp plan goals and direction, but should be denied for three reasons. Number one, this falls outside the comp plan's vision level framework. I can only assume staff is not referring to my language.

[98:08] But to my explanation, which is carefully written in the conditional tense, and which prescribes possible actions which you could possibly consider. There are many other possible actions which you might like more, many other ways to skin a cat. I am not prescribing specific actions, just offering them as examples of possibilities. Number two, staff says this is more appropriately considered at a county-wide scale. Certainly, looming ag water shortages must be dealt with on a county-wide scale, but the city has lots of skin in the game, too. 10 irrigation ditches flow through the city. 30 ditches irrigate 10.5 square miles of OSMP's agricultural lands. City staff help to manage 70…

[99:00] Elizabeth, I'm going to pause you for just a second. Thomas and the other speaker, I really want to be able to focus on Elizabeth's comments, and so I would appreciate if we could either take the comments outside or just pause it until Elizabeth's done speaking. Thank you. Yeah, add 30 seconds back on there, please. Okay. 30 irrigation ditches irrigate 10.5 square miles of OSMP's agricultural lands. City staff help to manage 70 different ditches that cross OSMP lands. This is a pressing need. Which both the county and the city must address. Number three, staff says there's no capacity for timely analysis. I'm not sure what kind of timely analysis is needed. The facts are straightforward. Crops need water. Ag uses far more water than cities. Ag is where efficiency upgrades save the most water.

[100:01] Climate change is worsening. Droughts are more frequent. Boulder's residents strongly support local food and agriculture. Ag needs water to survive. There will be less water in the future. And so, we must minimize ag water waste and maximize efficiencies. Our current drought is shaping up to be a doozy. Snowpack in the South Plast drainage is in the seventh percentile, well into the red danger zone. The Upper Colorado Basin, which supplies boulder and gross reservoirs and much of the summer water, is worse, in the zero percentile, down below the red danger zone. California and Arizona are sharpening their knives to come after Colorado's water. Please recognize the realities of our natural world and support this change request. We need to start yesterday to upgrade our ag water delivery systems. Thank you.

[101:03] Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth, and that was just Bill letting us know that he had intended to sign up for the second public hearing item, so that concludes our in-person speakers, and that being said, if We have folks online that would like to speak to this item. Please go ahead and raise your hands now. And Vivian will assist with our online portion of public participation. Thank you. Vivian, we can't hear you. Okay. Still, no. No worries, I know Vivian has had some other technical, difficulties, so I can… I can go ahead and help out. with our public… That'd be… That'd be true. Great, and… Vivian, if you could just help monitor, folks online, that would be great, but… Okay. First up, we have Daniel Ong. Daniel, you'll have 3 minutes, and you can, I just unmuted you, so you should be able to go ahead and speak now.

[102:10] Okay, can you hear me now? We hear you. Okay, Daniel on, 1205 Holly Place, I'm in the East Ridge neighborhood. This is for request number 22, East Ridge Subdivision. I'm a 45-year owner and resident here. I have been trying to, or applying to. Redesignate my neighborhood for higher density for 25 years now, a quarter of a century, so… I've seen a lot, in this… of this process. In my narrative, I… Started out saying that I would… provide supermajority support documentation as directed, but I never got any direction other than the generic,

[103:03] instructions for comments. This morning, I noticed that there were, on the online land use map, there's 29 rental licenses out of the 40 houses, plus 3 ADUs, plus myself, and I think I've… There's 3 others that I know that are residents here that support this, so without documentation, that's assuming, 36 out of the 40 properties, so that's 90%. I would hope to have formal documentation by the time of the next deliberation about these applications. She's, swinging this, As I started out, the best place to put more students is right between both CU Boulder academic campuses, and that is exactly where we are.

[104:07] Students are a big part of our economy. And I missed, most of the earlier comments, but, I mean… They are part of our community, and do need to be considered, and I guess I have some homework to… Review the new draft to see how it deals with students and their housing. So, we are the land bridge between the main and east campuses. I've demonstrated supermajority support in the past. The reason I bring this up is I notice every time I show supermajority support, Planning Board, supports the change, and when I don't, then Planning board does not.

[105:00] So I did procrastinate on that. Again, thank you for letting me participate online. Thanks so much for joining us. Can you hear me now? Yes. Wonderful. Okay. Next up, we have JV D'Souza. Please, introduce yourself when I unmute you, and we don't have anybody else with their hand raised to speak, so just a reminder to our online participants to go ahead and raise your hand if you do wish to participate. Please go ahead. JV D'Souza. Thank you. My name is JV D'Souza. I am an architect. I am the person who submitted the controversial proposal number 10. I did so solely for my property, precisely because I was unable to speak to my neighbors before the submission deadline.

[106:00] But in later communication with city staff, I did state that the proposal to change the land use of the property at 4700 Sioux Drive that I own, I thought would most appropriately apply to all of the properties on the south side of the street. I want to be really clear that I value my neighbors' opinions and desires, and if they don't wish to have their land use changed, I'm fully supportive of that. I laid out the rationale for the proposal. That I made in the documentation that was sent to staff in October, and you, the board members can read that if you wish to. The proposal really grew out of a comment made by Board Member Claudia, and I apologize, Claudia, for referring to you so informally, I don't know how to pronounce your last name. At last year's concept review of the proposed Fraser expansion. When the neighborhood asked, for some step down in the scale of the buildings along Sioux in response to the lower density across the street.

[107:05] Claudia commented that, perhaps the massing of the low-density zone should be asked to step up. And so I've made this proposal, not as a requirement that the neighborhood massing would step up, but at least provide the opportunity for it to happen, and, to provincially, potentially provide some additional housing types that I think the City of Boulder is missing, and that I think could, fill in between, the dramatic difference between detached single-family structures and large urban, multifamily structures. I want to be clear that I share all my neighbors' concerns about the Fraser, Fraser's proposed expansion, and I think that some of them, are very concerned that the consideration of this land use change that I've proposed Would in some ways signal support for or approval of Frasier's plans?

[108:04] And I think it would be really helpful if Planning Board could state clearly and definitively that these are entirely separate issues, and that anything, any discussion and consideration of the land use plan in no way ties back to, some sort of support for what Fraser is currently planning across the street. Thank you. Great, thank you. And just want to give folks a few more seconds in case there's any lingering desire to speak for this public hearing item. Alright, doesn't look like it, but just want to appreciate everyone in person and online joining us and participating in this community process. Back over to you, Chair. Great, thank you, Vivian. And I want to take a second and, thank

[109:00] The online participants, those in the room here. And I want you all to know that, you have been heard. the outcome tonight or in the future, may not be what you desire, but you all have been heard. And you have been heard well Because of the way you've participated in the world today. We have, lots of ways of participating, and sometimes they are troublesome and heart-wrenching, and, anyway, this… little bit of civic discourse that we've had tonight, I think is an example of the way to relate to each other in community, and, to, work under the rules of law. And, so, I, thank… we thank you all for, your participation tonight. So, thanks. Okay, that closes the public hearing, and…

[110:04] We can, consider a break now, or push through and then break between the two agenda items. Are we ready to go for another… okay. Alright, we've now closed the public hearing, and, we move to board deliberation. So, yes. I just asked the chair if I could ask a question of staff that was raised by one of the public commenters. One of the public commenters, stated that, staff did not use the appropriate criteria for analysis, and I think that was based on the IGA. Can staff comment on that, please? Yeah, thanks for the question, Laura. The… The speaker stated that staff did not use the criteria as described in the amendment procedures, and that is correct. If you look at those in terms of word for word.

[111:01] But staff used those criteria, both staff from the city and the county, to develop the criteria that you see in your packet, and that's primarily because of the significant changes that are envisioned in this year's update to the comprehensive plan. Evaluating the proposed land use changes against current plan policies, particularly when those policies may be changing, or are very likely to be changing, is problematic. So that's why we've, framed those criteria based on the underlying intent of the criteria that are in the amendment procedures into those that you see in the packet. Thank you. Okay. So, I have, while listening carefully, I have also been thinking about how to, Move this item forward in a way, that's efficient and,

[112:00] honors the input from staff, and the potential input from board members. So, I'm going to put this out there, and and I've discussed this a little bit at dinner with the Vice Chair Kaplan. Which I'm not going to do what… I'm not going to propose that. What I'm going to propose is a first round of general comments from the board, about your thoughts about this, about the procedure, and then I would hope that we would go to a motion. To adopt the list. And then, seek Any amendments to that motion, for additions or removals from board members. So, we are… we would be debating those specific items, should there be any. I'm not advocating or, Suggesting that there would be a lot, but should there be any, they would come in the form of a motion, require a second.

[113:05] And then be debated. So, unless I hear a strong objection. That is my proposed procedure. Do people understand that? Laura. Understood, and I don't object to it, but I would suggest that in our round of general comments, if we are thinking about suggesting an addition or a subtraction, that we mention it in our comments. Please. Agreed. Okay. So, I… opening it up to… Comments, and, if anyone is ready, You may go. Kurt. Well, I want to follow up on this question that Laura asked. About the review criteria, because… I am concerned about that. I think that the review criteria that the staff used made a lot of sense.

[114:03] But they do not seem… they're not exactly the criteria that are stated in the IGA, and so I wanted to go to hell for, An interpretation of this, too. See, do you feel that this is… that what has been done is appropriate and consistent with the IGA. Yeah, as KJ stated. than… These criteria have been come up with in collaboration with the county, and this amendment. procedure is part of an IGA with the county, so it's what these parties have agreed to, and it sounds like both parties agree to slightly Adjust the criteria to take into consideration the… The feedback and direction that staff has been given by all the approval bodies up to date to make sure that land use map changes and other public requests are going to be considered consistently with the

[115:04] BBCP that we anticipate is going to be adopted. And one of the things that the plan requires is that during a major update, policy changes should precede map changes, and I think that's, that's the thought that's behind this, to make sure that if you're considering land use map changes, that they're consistent with Whatever the current policies are gonna be, they're gonna be updated first. So, these… the… the… it was… it was city staff and county staff that agreed on this, but they weren't… there weren't adopted changes to the IGA. Is that correct? That's correct, yeah. But at this point, the county hasn't objected to this procedure. Yeah. Okay, so you're comfortable with them from… you feel that they are… what has been done is legally…

[116:02] Appropriate, defensible, consistent with… The intent of the IGA? Well, the party that could enforce the procedures be followed. Is the county. And it seems the city and county are in alignment on how to proceed with the review of these changes. Okay. Could… well… If either party, either staff, was… sued by… Resident. for not following the IGA. I'll phrase that as a question. Do we have a possible legal liability and maybe I shouldn't be asking this question, legal liability, by not strictly following the IGA.

[117:02] The IGA can only be enforced by the parties to the IGA. There are no third-party beneficiaries to it. Brad, welcome. Hi, Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services. I won't put further words. in Hela's mouth, but I will, try to relieve her from being put on the spot that we would not typically give legal advice to the board, except in a You know, private MMO, yeah. Okay, thank you. I got that message. May I, may I just… Yeah, please. Just for the sake of folks who are following along, Hela is from the City Attorney's Office. That's her role on staff. Okay, any, anyone else ready with any comments? Laura. I am ready, and I will try to make this brief.

[118:01] So the planning board has been accused of, sort of, Byzantine bureaucracy, brain-breaking, adherence to bureaucracy kind of things. But in this case, that is what we are doing, is we are simply engaged in a process of saying, do these change requests meet the criteria for further analysis. And on that basis alone, they could still be approved or denied at a later stage. We're not… judging whether they will be approved or denied. But on the basis of do they meet the criteria for advancing, I will say that I agree with almost every determination that staff has made. The one change that I might make is I was persuaded by the speaker that number 27 has some high-level elements. This is the one about, focusing on efficiency of water delivery for ag that could be appropriate in a high-level planning document, and I would suggest that staff take those high-level things, not the implementation details, and make sure that those are covered in the new BBCP policies. So I would add back number 27.

[119:03] You, you are suggesting adding back in 27, thank you. suggested do not proceed on the basis of it was too implementation-oriented, and I think the speaker persuasively convinced me that there were some high-level, appropriate elements in that that could be incorporated and probably should be considered. Great. Anyone else? Okay? Kurt? Thank you. I agree with the staff's interpretation on all of the land use, map. proposed changes. I have a few additional comments. I think there are several… and this sort of came up in the context of the Olsen Drive one. that really, it shouldn't be an island, right? Really, that should… the entire area should be considered as one. I think that that's also true of the changes on Valmont, where a couple were… were proposed along Valmont.

[120:04] And, and really, it should be a larger, consideration of that area, and the changes on Colorado Avenue, where, again, it should be… it shouldn't be little islands, it should be the entire area. The ones on Walnut and 38 that ML was asking about. I'm fine keeping those in consideration. I think that they would not particularly make sense If they were just, again, an island, like, surrounded by light industrial. If… I think it makes more sense to have more housing further to the west, and so if, like, from 30th East, if all that were to change, then I think including these would make sense.

[121:01] But just having them sitting In and of themselves, kind of separated from Retail and so on wouldn't make so much sense. 810 Marshall, again, I… I support keeping it in there. I have some concerns, I… heaven. gone out and surveyed it or anything, but having been by there many times, it seems like it has pretty significant grade. On, portions of it, and so I just… I wonder how, how appropriate that will be, but that's something to be determined. In terms of the policies, I agree with Laura that number 27 has high-level elements and should be included And same with number 26, which is the wildfire mitigation one. Again, there are some very detailed specifics in there that maybe are not appropriate, but also some higher level

[122:01] concepts and policy-level ideas that I think would be appropriate to be included, so I would suggest including Both of those. George. Great. This is a super challenging process, because I don't really… it feels like we have more of an action than we really do here. You know, as I mentioned on, like, I have lots of concerns about a lot of these things. But that doesn't seem like what we're here to do. It seems like we're here to say. move this forward so we can understand these things better. And I think, in general, that's a good thing, right? When I ask questions about, specifically about 17, about what's the history on it being public? What about the open space? Well, those are things we need to dig into, but we need to move this process… we need to move that in the process so we can dig into it to make a determination.

[123:05] And so, I'm seeing this process as not so much what moves forward to be looked at and reviewed properly to really get a sense of what should be done in these locations. Same thing with, like. The three, the three requests on, an iris for the same public land that the county is planning to dispose of. I mean, I think there's very strong community sentiment about what should happen there. But we've got 3 different things, and this is all gonna be evaluated anyway, so… it's a little bit frustrating. So I think what we're here to do… It feels like what we're more here to do is take things that may have, been screened off and say, hey. this really needs to be looked at a little bit further in this process so that it can be properly screened one way or the other. And so, from that aspect, I agree with Kurt and Laura relative to 27 and 26. I don't know whether or not

[124:17] they're appropriate, but I don't feel like enough has been answered, or enough detail has been gone into, to fully understand that, like a lot of these things. And then, as it relates to Sioux Drive, I want to bring that up, because I think there's an opportunity for these neighbors to potentially solve this outside of this process. I heard, from the person that made the application, a conciliatory, sort of, feeling to… that he wants to work with his neighbors, and so I would suggest to you guys, outside of this process, maybe you guys can get together and maybe,

[125:02] Maybe the applicant may want to reconsider, pulling that or not. Based on his comments tonight, and based on whatever outcome. I'm not suggesting one thing or another, but I think there seems like an opportunity to meet up as neighbors, and I think that's a good thing, and so I appreciate you all coming for that public process. Those are my comments. Thank you, George. ML. Yes. Thank you. So there's definitely a lot of anxiety around potential land use changes, but I think I understand that this is a preliminary phase. That will allow closer examination of requests. As they align with the future map. So, my concerns are regards to 18, 20, and 21. I… I will caution that those requests appear to be in direct conflict with preservation of industrial.

[126:05] As once residential enters this area, it sets a precedent and opens residential into a land use that has tremendous value and is increasingly diminished. So I… I think… we have seen again and again that we don't want to lose our industrial land in Boulder, and we also know that once residential gets a foothold, this, proximity to residential gives other residential the ability to further invade that land, that zoning, really, I would say, not necessarily land use, but they're… they're interconnected, so I would just caution, That, relative to criteria number 4, is it consistent with the proposed plan direction?

[127:00] and, take a very close look at the industrial. I think oftentimes. You know, we go into this mode of housing, housing, housing, housing at all costs, but truth be told, 15-minute neighborhoods and livability don't happen in mono-cultures of housing, housing, housing. So. I'm… I'm concerned, that we might lose something that is really important with that. But other than that, I… I don't have a problem I understand the complexity of the IRIS site. I would be very interested to see how that plays out, especially whether the ballparks can retain public public land use while the rest of the site becomes something else. I think we can't diminish the will of the people, and the people, I think, have definitely spoken, around that site. I do support,

[128:04] the ag water, number 27. I agree with Laura, there was a very compelling argument made that, water needs to… needs to be, Perhaps needs to take… needs to take a part of this… be a part of this process, even though there might be some complexity to it that isn't relevant. So, I Court 27 as well. Yeah, they're gonna have an opportunity to debate 27. Right. I'm just expressing my support for the future. Thank you. Gloria. Okay, so I basically support further study on the items here as recommended by staff, with just a few caveats and guidelines that I want to…

[129:01] talk through right now. I want to specifically address proposal number 10. On Sioux Drive, so I just want to acknowledge that, yes, in an earlier concept review, I did Raise this general issue of attention at the boundary between low-density residential and high-density residential land uses. And I absolutely understand the response. Of the neighbors that have spoken to us here, to an unexpected proposal. exploring that boundary. It came as a surprise to me, too. I think that the theoretical problem is still there. And without committing to a particular outcome at this location, I would be interested in seeing staff's analysis of a proposal that addresses that tension. If my board colleagues feel strongly otherwise, I could also be convinced to support removing this from the list. But with regard to this item, I also want to thank the neighbors, that engaged all of you, and you live together, and I really feel for you in that context, and so I hope you will continue

[130:07] To talk with each other and hear each other as you talk about change in your neighborhood. Two more comments, then, to staff. Since you are the ones developing these new land use categories, you know, as you know, you rather than the requesters are going to be doing most of this work, translating the requests to the new categories. And I think you indicated in your presentation to us that you're going to be working with the requesters to understand what their intent is. I really appreciate that. I also hope that since the categories we're going to be working with are new, that you will be leaning towards Some of the more flexible interpretations of these requests, in your ultimate recommendations, as we kind of learn what's possible. I think it's also important to note that this community request process Rewards individuals and entities that take initiative.

[131:02] And that usually that is coming from a position of private interest. Sometimes this results in requests that feel like overreach. Sometimes it results in requests. that would create an island in what could or should be a broader zone of change, and I see examples of both of those in the requests in this package. We've talked through some of those. So I would just ask that as you're doing this analysis, that staff both be zooming in and out as you analyze them, keeping in mind where the requests are coming from, and trying to get the scale right as we consider how to respond to them. And I think it's not the job of the requesters to do that, it is our job as experts and as an oversight body to make that determination. So just some things to keep in mind as you proceed. Thanks, Claudia. Mason? I'll be really brief. Haven't heard anything I disagree with so far from my colleagues, especially appreciate the comments from George and Claudia around the Sioux Drive. I really hope

[132:00] Whatever happens next in the process leads to strengthening of relationships amongst the community members, rather than, animosity. I also approve the comments around number 27 and 26, adding those back in. I look forward to the further discussion around that, and have a bit of a wild card, I've… as I've kind of learned about this process, I appreciate that it provides a low-barrier, no-cost opportunity for community members to share their decided land use designations. I share, Claudia, your concerns. Around who participates in this. But I… I would love it if we could consider doing this more often than every 5 years. I think including planning board earlier in the process, in the screening process, would be good. I know I'm signing everyone up for more work, and that's rarely appreciated. But I kinda think it's cool, and that more would be better, frankly. That's all I got.

[133:01] Great, thank you, Mason. I'll simply say, I reviewed staff's list, I support staff's list as it stands with the, I look forward to discussing item 27. I appreciate the, the presenters' comments and the board's comments. So, I look forward to, A motion, and then debate on any additions or deletions. And… So… I have a motion here, and Chris, if you want to put that motion up on the screen… Did we lose George? I don't. Still here. Still here. Okay. Okay. Is anyone ready to…

[134:02] make this motion with the knowledge that we will have, an opportunity after this is moved to, make amend… to propose amendments. Kurt. I move to approve the list of community change requests recommended by staff in this memorandum for further consideration as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update, and direct staff to evaluate these requests for potential incorporation into the draft Comprehensive plan. I'm just noticing… I'm sorry, I, I will second. But I thought Planning Board did not direct staff. So I'm a little concerned about the language that says that we direct staff to evaluate. Can we just say we recommend that staff evaluate, or we approve of staff evaluating, or… what's a better phrasing there, Hela? Honoring your input, staff, that we do not direct you.

[135:04] Is request the right? Request these requests? Request… request staff to evaluate these requests, oh. Yeah. And we support staff evaluating these requests. Support? You could take out the… the direction to staff part and just… That they would be further evaluated for potential incorporation into the draft comprehensive plan. Okay, so, may I make a friendly amendment? You're in that seconding phase, so, between, yeah, so, you caught it at the right moment. So, Kurt, I will suggest that it's a, Approve the list of community change requests recommended by staff in this memorandum for further consideration as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update, including evaluating these requests for potential incorporation into the draft Comprehensive plan.

[136:03] So it'll just say, including, evaluating. Rather than directing staff to evaluate. I accept that, friendly. Okay, we now have a, Motion and a second as modified and and… As a motion maker, you can speak to the motion, or we can move on to, Any potential amendments to the main motion? Anyone ready with a… I'm ready with a potential amendment. I don't think I need to speak to it. I think we're all generally aligned on the list with any potential changes that we may approve as a body. So, I am going to… Propose Move to amend. I move to amend. The list of community change requests recommended by staff.

[137:00] To add back in numbers 26 and 27, At a high policy level. appropriate to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. As determined by staff. I'll second that. Should I write that up for Thomas? I wanna… I wanna stop for a second. I may have seconded too soon. 26 and 27, to me, are… are… Very different, and possibly should be evaluated separately. because of, the… We have recently adopted extensive citywide, fire, resiliency, code changes. And, and so… I think that that could be evaluated separately and maybe have a different outcome than item 27, which is about ag water and resiliency on ag lands and water use.

[138:18] So, yeah, I'm gonna undo my second, and if someone else wants to second, 26 and 27 together, otherwise I would… I would propose that we evaluate them separately. I second. You… okay. Okay, alright, then we have… great, we have 26, 27 together. As motion maker, you may speak to your motion. I defer to… I'd like to defer to Kurt to let him speak first as I type this up and get it to Thomas. Sure, yeah, thank you. I think both of these have potential for as beneficial policies or, or, you know, potentially multiple policies in the comp plan. Obviously, wildfire is an incredibly, timely and important thing to be

[139:09] to be considered. We have existing policies. about wildfire. We have existing code and building standards and so on about wildfire, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't potentially have additional policies. It would just provide the opportunity Again, force staff to think about it. maybe nothing comes of it, that is totally fine, but if we don't recommend it, then we're guaranteed that nothing's gonna come of it, and I don't see reason to… foreclose that earlier than necessary, as long as it's an efficient use of staff's time. Given the importance of both wildfire and water conservation and water issues generally. I think that these are both really important things for staff to be spending a bit of time on for the boards to be spending, board and council.

[140:02] to be thinking about and potentially incorporating into the comp plan. So, to me, both of them rise to the level of warranting further consideration. Again, that's as far as we're going today. But at that level, I think that including them is appropriate. Great, thanks, Kurt. I agree with Kurt's comments, and I just want to read a little bit of language from the narratives that, for me, speaks to the high-level nature that staff may be able to pull from, and that may inform this conversation. 26 talks about the BBCP should have a high-level requirement for a comprehensive commitment and approach to wildfire threat remediation. a vision-level expressed regional commitment to combat this existentially threatening issue with a focus on parcels and areas from which the threat primarily emanates. That feels like high-level policy language to me. It feels like it can direct or just help to express that commitment in the BBCP. I think I hear staff saying that they're already planning to include a lot of this kind of stuff, and so it's more of a procedural, bureaucratic thing about whether this request is accepted or not. But I think it's useful for a planning board to express our…

[141:13] support for the idea that, yeah, this is the kind of policy-level stuff that should be in the BBCP. I don't see any harm to including it, given that it's going to be a high-level kind of policy, statement. 27, similarly, as the speaker pointed out. It doesn't necessarily require any particular implementation details, but it is a focus on the legacy irrigation ditches that lose a lot of water, and points out that this is a great opportunity To increase efficiency and work together in partnership with the ditch companies to make sure that that's not a waste of water. And so, to me, that's worth expressing in a policy document. Great, thank you. Any other comment on the motion to amend to include, items 26 and 27?

[142:01] Okay? Then. will… Should I read it again? Yes, please. Okay, and I'm gonna… I'm sending this to Thomas right now, and I sent it to all of us on Zoom. Move to amend the list of community change requests to add back in number 26. I'm gonna add, and number 27, at a high policy level. And as appropriate to the BBCP as determined by staff. Okay. We have a motion, we have a second, we've had debate. And I'm gonna go to Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes. audio. Yes. Kurt? Yes. George? Yes. ML. Yes. And I'm a yes. So, okay, now, are there any other proposed amendments, additions, deletions, To the main motion.

[143:01] Okay, seeing none… Then we are now back to voting on the main motion, As amended with… With both the amendment and with the change of language from direct. Thomas, I don't… Laura… Do you think you can read that? Restate the motion for us? with both the change in wording, and adding your adopted amendment to it, please. Challenge accepted. Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. Motion to approve the list of community change requests recommended by staff in this memorandum for further consideration as part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan update. Including evaluation… evaluating these requests for potential incorporation into the draft comprehensive plan. with the following amendment, amending the list of community change requests to add back in number 26 and number 27 at a high policy level, and as appropriate to the BVCP as determined by staff.

[144:10] Okay. We need a second for… No, we, no, we don't. We're ready to vote. Okay. Mason? Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. George. Yes. ML? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, so, congratulations to staff and to members of the public. Again, another example of, someone coming and speaking and inform… people, you, residents coming, speaking, informing the board, and in fact, potentially changing our minds, so that's just great. So, alright, thank you very much, everyone. We will now… Take a break, it's 8.26, and we'll come back at 8.37.

[145:04] Okay.

[157:19] So I hope, George and ML, I can't… I can't see you just yet, but anyway, hope you're… Back on… We're both, but we're both back on. Okay, great, thank you. Okay, we, move on to Agenda Item 5B, and before we go on, I'll just simply say that we had budgeted, 90 minutes for Agenda Item 5A, and it took, more like two and a half hours rather than one and a half hours. And we have budgeted two hours for this particular item, which, if we were really lucky, would put us out of here about 1045. So.

[158:02] I am hoping that, both, The board and staff and everyone can, just recognize, I'm not saying anything to anyone, other than just recognize that we would all like to go home at a decent hour. And, so, keep that in mind as we move forward. So I'm going to introduce Agenda Item 5B, consideration of a motion to determine if there are sufficient community need, as defined. in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to warrant further consideration of a service area expansion plan for the Area 3 Planning Reserve. So, this, again, staff presentation, KJ's gonna take us through that, clarifying questions from the board, a, Public hearing with public comment. and then board deliberation. So, KJ, take it away.

[159:02] Thank you, Chair. Good evening again, Christopher Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager. I will do the same quick 30-second intro, and then I will pass it over to Sarah Horne, who will be leading you through the presentation. Slightly different than what the item, that you just went through that was much more, sort of analytical and related to, a procedure that is within the comprehensive plan. This one also is, but it is much more, I'd say it's much more broad in terms of its interpretation, and what we will be discussing This evening is really to just understand, through the process of the Comprehensive plan, we have heard a lot about community needs, and we as staff have attempted to identify those needs that are most relevant to potentially needing additional land within the city to accomplish those needs.

[160:00] We, we have, identified those needs as part of your memo packet, and what we are asking you this evening is not to initiate moving into Step 3, which is the Service Area Expansion plan for the Planning Reserve. It's only to close out Step 2, and so really your role this evening is just to determine Are those needs of a sufficient priority? To think about and keep the door open to moving into the third and final step, but you're not actually making a decision tonight about moving to the third step. With that, I will pass on to Sarah. Hello, Planning Board members. I might repeat a few things KJ just said, but, I'm Sarah Horne, Senior. Planner on the Comprehensive Planning Team, and as KJ mentioned, we're here with you tonight, to share the results of the Community Needs Assessment. Based on staff's analysis, which I'll share with you in a few minutes, as KJ mentioned, you're being asked to close out Step 2 of the service area expansion plan process, and determine if there is sufficient community need to warrant

[161:08] to consider moving to Step 3. Which is preparation of the service area expansion Plan. And just to remind you, the discussion before you tonight is not about the design or particular uses for the planning reserve, and it's also not to approve initiation of the service area expansion at this time, as KJ mentioned. So here's the agenda we'll go through, to provide you with information to help you make your determination tonight. We'll first share a staff presentation, and then the board will have time for clarifying questions, public comment, and finally, your deliberation and vote. Alright, I'll start with a quick update on the comprehensive plan and service area expansion process. On the slide, you see a diagram of the Comprehensive plan update schedule. Throughout the last year and a half, which Chris mentioned, too, in his presentation, we've been identifying and assessing community needs through the first three phases of the project, which you can see the first three white boxes on the screen.

[162:04] And we're now on the last phase, the green box, which is pretty exciting for us. We're drafting the plan for community review and approval by the four decision-making bodies, later this summer. During the update, we've continued working on the service area expansion process. You can see a diagram of the steps in the process on the slide in front of you. Step 1, the Urban Services Study, was completed and accepted by both Planning Board and City Council. In November of 2024. This step… this step helped us answer the question, could we expand into the reserve? Staff were then directed, or maybe I shouldn't say directed, maybe, it was suggested that we move to step two, the Community Needs Assessment, which is the middle image you see on this slide. That's where we are now. This is the point where we're asking the question, should we expand into the reserve? And it's important to note that we're considering this step as part of the comprehensive plan update process, so we can understand how we might address these needs in the existing service area, as well as considering the planning reserve.

[163:10] And once this step is complete, you can choose to pause the process or move forward. If you decide to move forward, you and Council, to the final step, which is Step 3, a service area expansion plan, which you see on the screen, that's the point when we would determine how we expand. And just to quickly orient everyone to the Area 3 Planning Reserve, it's outlined in orange on the map you see on the left side of the screen, tiny up at the top. It's the only Area 3 location in the city where we could expand for future urban development. It sits just to the north of the majority of the city's existing service area, which you see in light yellow and pale gray on the map. The reserve is about 493,000 3 acres, and the city owns… Sorry. The city owns about 220 of these acres. 189 have been designated currently for park uses, and 30 acres were purchased with affordable housing funds. 270 of the acres are privately owned, and 5 are owned by the U.S. Forest Service.

[164:16] Okay, now to the Community Needs Assessment. As I mentioned, we are currently nearing the end of this step, sharing our evaluation with you so you can close it out and determine if you want to consider moving to Step 3. To assist you and Council in making this determination, the project team has been working with community members, other city colleagues and departments, and policy makers to identify needs. And we've evaluated these needs against three criteria which are defined in the current comprehensive plan that you see on the screen. Community value, capacity, and benefit. Identifying needs through community engagement and research has been central to the Comprehensive Plan Update Strategy since we began the process. We've hosted, which we've talked about in other meetings, over 58 opportunities for community members to engage in the process. During these events, we learned that there were several areas of focus people were interested in us digging into. They align with the City's Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework, or SER goals.

[165:14] We use these as our foundation for our evaluation. We also conducted a statistically valid survey and staff research, which has informed the assessment as well. And finally, we consulted various resources, including state legislation, regional reports, and city department plans to identify needs. For the purposes of the evaluation we're sharing with you tonight, we focused on a list of needs, as KJ mentioned, relating, that relate to needing land to potentially address, and the potential expansion of the city's service area to meet these needs. It's important to keep in mind, too, that there are, of course, also many other community needs that we're addressing in various ways through the comprehensive plan update. Okay, now that I've shared how staff have identified community needs, how did we evaluate them? Well, we used the set of criteria I mentioned that are defined in the comprehensive plan, you can see them on the screen, and the exact definitions are included in your memo packet. They're community value, capacity, and benefit.

[166:13] So, just so you know, when thinking about these criteria and applying them to our evaluation, staff asked the following questions. Will expansion address a long-term community value, as articulated in the comprehensive plan? Can the need for a service area expansion not be met within the existing service area because there isn't suitable existing or potential land or service capacity? It's a long question. And finally, will expansion benefit existing community members and have a lasting benefit for future generations? And these are the questions we ask you to keep in mind to help you determine if they're a sufficient need. So now that you know how we identified the needs and what we used to evaluate them, I'll go over our actual assessment. And with the next set of slides, I'll first share the community areas of focus and identified need, then we'll look at the three criteria.

[167:03] For community value, we're using the city's SER framework goals. Then for capacity, we'll look at both the existing service area and planning reserve capacity, and then we'll go over the last criteria, benefit. And we've included benefits and considerations you should keep in mind when thinking about potential expansion. Okay, so to our, first need, to the assessment. Here we go. Related to housing choice and opportunity, that community area of focus, consistent with the Dr. Cogg Regional Housing Needs Assessment, staff identified a need for approximately 9,500 additional housing units by 2032. Whoops, sorry. Whoa. This need, aligns with the livable SER goal. In terms of capacity, the current service area could accommodate over 10,000 units. The planning reserve, according to our early estimates, could accommodate approximately 4,300 to 8,700 units, which would need to be a mix of affordable and market rate units.

[168:02] And then the benefits, section. Related to potential benefits and considerations of expansion, staff found that while the city owns a significant amount of land in the reserve that could accommodate housing, there's also capacity in the existing service area to theoretically meet this need. Of the land the city owns in the reserve, as I mentioned earlier, about 189 acres is currently reserved for park use, and about 270 are privately owned. So meeting the housing need in the reserve would more than likely depend on private development. That being said, the city could potentially mandate and or subsidize private development to create additional affordable housing through annexation agreements or other tools. And finally, keep in mind the extension of infrastructure and development could take at least 15 to 30 years to fully realize in the reserve. Okay, our second need, it relates to safety. The City's 2020 Fire Rescue Plan identifies the need for new fire rescue storage facilities for reserve engines and equipment.

[169:04] This aligns with the safe and responsibly governed SER goals. Both the existing service area and planning reserve have capacity to theoretically accommodate this need. Sorry, I keep doing that. When looking at potential benefits, In consideration, staff found that our community, of course, benefits from well-resourced fire rescue programs and facilities, wherever they're located. At this time, it's unlikely that the service area… that the service area would be needed to meet this need, because there are currently locations both within and outside the current service area that could accommodate this facility that we could use. Okay, and the third need, this falls under multi-generational, multi-cultural community area focus. Per the City's Bloomberg-Harvard City Leadership Initiative and Aging Well in Boulder County reports, we've identified a need for affordable continuum of care facilities. This need aligns with the livable, healthy, and socially thriving goals. And both the existing service area and the planning reserve have potential, capacity to accommodate this need.

[170:10] And then, looking at benefits and considerations, while community members could benefit from having more continuum of care options located in the city, especially as the population ages, the likely schedule for extension of infrastructure and development could increase the timeline for realizing benefits related to this more immediate need for the community. Okay, number 4. There are 6, so we don't have that many more to go. Another multicultural, multi-generational need that was identified through the 2022 Boulder Parks and Recreation Plan is the need for regional parkland to continue to meet level of service standards for 2040 population protections. And this need relates, also to the livable and healthy and socially thriving SCR goals. Related to capacity, currently there isn't room within the existing service area to meet this need. In the reserve, city-owned properties that were purchased with Parks and Recreation funding are available, and have already been identified to accommodate this need. So we could accommodate this in the reserve.

[171:12] When looking at benefits and considerations, park development could potentially occur faster than other land uses in the reserve because the city owns the land. And while we'd have to extend city services and infrastructure, for regional park use, the needs would not be as intensive as those needed for housing or commercial types of development. And also, community members, this is another, like, the safety… fire and safety, community members, would, of course, benefit from having additional park and recreation space that help… helps meet national level of service standards. Okay, under the food systems area of focus, and through a lot of community input, staff has identified a need for small… smaller-scale farming options for local producers. This need aligns with the healthy and socially thriving and economically vital SER goals. There are suitable sites within the service area to accommodate small footprint agricultural production.

[172:08] However. There aren't suitable sites to accommodate traditional agricultural operations, which historically have been located on Area 3 rural preservation land. There is space in the planning reserve to theoretically accommodate this need. But when thinking about the benefits and considerations, expanding farming op… farming options and land for local food producers could be beneficial. But leasing, managing, and working the land is a complex process, and it's unclear if this need could be successfully met due to the low agricultural value of the land in the reserve. The Boulder County Comprehensive Plan maps confirm the area does not have significant ag lands, which is in In part, why it was selected as an area for potential urban development expansion. And finally, this use is already accommodated outside the service area in Area 3 rural preservation sites. The city currently owns and manages much of the ag land in the county that could be used for this need, possibly more effectively.

[173:07] And then our last need, which falls under climate action. Through the City's Climate Action Plan, staff identified renewable energy generation to support the City's move to zero-emission electricity as a community need that could potentially be accommodated in the Area 3 Reserve. This need aligns with the environmentally sustainable SER goal. Currently, there isn't space available for large-scale renewable energy generation in the service area. There is space available in the planning reserve. Community members, of course, could benefit, again, from renewable energy generation. It can improve overall community health, the economy, the environment, and could eventually help maximize utility bill savings, for example. While there are large enough areas of land in the planning reserve for this type of use, typically utility-scale renewable energy uses are located in more rural areas, and may be better coordinated through utility providers and other partners.

[174:01] So, that's a quick review of the community needs assessment staff completed to help you with your decision tonight. And before we get to next steps, I just quickly want to add that there are a few additional considerations for you to keep in mind as you deliberate. Aside from, or along with expansion, there are also many potential, which I touched on a little earlier, comprehensive plan land use framework or policy updates that can be made to address these needs. For example, how the existing service area capacity can grow and be more flexible is something staff are exploring. With our new land use framework, for example. We're also looking at policy updates that could provide more flexibility to address some of these needs. And as many of you know, we did conduct a statistically valid survey as part of the update, and I just quickly want to touch on a couple of items worth note. The issues survey respondents are most concerned about include the cost of living, the cost of housing, hazard preparation and resiliency, and the decline of the natural environment. About 8 in 10 respondents said it was essential or very important for the Comprehensive plan to focus on protecting and enhancing the natural environment and promoting a strong and diverse local economy.

[175:10] And finally, related to new housing and businesses, 39% of respondents feel the city should focus this type of development within city limits, 16% think we should expand to accommodate these uses, and 32% felt both options should be explored. Okay, now to next steps. So what does happen next? As I've mentioned, you'll vote to determine if there are needs of sufficient priority to warrant continued consideration of service area expansion. And we'll ask… make the same ask of Council on February 12th, so that's when we'll go to them with the same presentation and ask. On the right of the screen, you see three outcome scenarios. If Planning Board and Council determine the needs are not of sufficient priority to warrant consideration of expansion, the process will pause and can be restarted in the future as part of a midterm or major update to the comprehensive plan.

[176:05] If both bodies decide yes, there are needs of sufficient priority to consider a service area expansion plan, we'll move to Step 3 after the comp planning process, is complete, once it's been adopted. We would move to that. In the third scenario, if Planning Board decides there isn't sufficient need and Council makes a different determination, they can ask us to come back to you for reconsideration. And if you maintain your original position, then the process again will pause and can be reconsidered at another update, at a next major update. Okay, and then here are the motion options. And I won't read them word for word, but I will mention that. You can find that the needs are not of sufficient priority to consider expansion at this time. Whoops. Sorry, you can find that there are needs of sufficient priority, and you can find that the needs are of sufficient priority and list those needs, or you can find that the needs are sufficient priority, and you don't have to list the particular needs that you think deserve consideration, but as long as

[177:15] a majority of you vote that the needs that I have suggested are sufficient. We can move forward. And I will now turn it over to Brad, I think. Good evening again, board members, and I'm, just here to elaborate a little bit on the third recommended motion, which we recognize is not in the memo. Following discussion today at the regularly scheduled Planning Board Agenda meeting. We recognized, both during that meeting as staff and then afterwards, subsequently, that we had not actually contemplated another scenario, and certainly had not articulated in the recommended, or potential recommended motions. That… a majority of the planning board could determine that there is a need as individuals, but you may not all collectively agree on any one particular need. So, in other words, the criteria that is laid out in the comprehensive plan says that

[178:15] the body needs to determine that there is a need. It does not say that they need… that there needs to be a collective agreement on… on a need or a set of needs. So, stated more logistically, that means that if 4 of you find that there is any need of any sort. And it could be 4 different needs for 4 different people, then you would vote in the affirmative that there is a need, and and that would be your determination. And I'm happy to answer questions about that, or elaborate on that. Laura. Thank you for that, Brad. I do want to ask about, is there not another option where we say we need more information, and please come back to us with additional analysis before we make a determination? That was in the memo.

[179:07] Yes, that is an option as a motion. I would… want to point out, and we can speak to specifics if that conversation goes down that line, that there is a scope that Council defined for us, and if that scope or that level of research exceeds that scope, then we would need to seek a nod of… what's called a nod of 5 of Council. Not a 5, for those of you that aren't familiar, is defined, I think, in the Charter. Ella can keep me honest on that, where the Council, gives direction to staff to follow, or in this case, amend former policy direction. So, if it exceeded, really the scope of the work plan item, and this was actually one of their council priorities from two years ago, then we would need to go back to them for authorization to do that level of research.

[180:04] But that… but that is an option of the board. Okay, I want to pause here and say thank you for the presentation and ask you, Have you concluded? And are we into, clarifying questions now? I just… I wanted Brad to weigh in, but my final thoughts were that I do have a slide of the needs, if you would like me to pull that up so you can look at that, and that… You have a slide of what? Of the needs that I can pull up, like, the listed needs in order, if you'd like to see that, and that it's… it's your show now. Okay. So, thank you. All right, great, thank you. Alright, so now we move into clarifying questions, and I see George has his hand up, but I just, I want to make sure that board members are clear about the question being asked of us tonight, and the options… the three options that are presented there, in addition to,

[181:01] Laura's question about Sending this away and coming back with more info. I just… Do we understand… What's being asked of us tonight, especially in… in… In light of the additional possible motion language. Okay. Yup. Just one more clarification question. this language is a little different than I was expecting in terms of… my understanding with the community needs survey is that we are trying to determine whether… not just are there priority community needs, but are there priority community needs that cannot be met within the current service area? And that would be our justification for expanding into Area 3. Is that what we are trying to determine tonight? Do we determine that there are sufficient needs that cannot be met in the current service area? I'll let you start. I would… yes, I will start. I would say that is correct. If the needs cannot be met, the capacity,

[182:07] the value, capacity, and benefit. If they cannot be met within the service… existing service area, that is when we would consider expansion into the reserve. And that's what we're being asked to determine tonight, not just, are we… No. No. Just if the needs are of sufficient priority to consider… to continue to consider this process. when would we make a determination that the needs that have been identified cannot be met in service area 1 and 2? Is that tonight, or is that at some future meeting after the Comprehensive plan is concluded? That's… that is tonight. stairs, right? Yes, that is tonight. The one thing I will just mention is that specific, determination as to whether or not there is capacity within the current service area boundary is just one of the three criteria.

[183:01] There's also community value and benefit to weigh in addition to capacity. But yes, that decision is tonight. And I'll further elaborate that. our staff analysis of capacity across the spectrum of services. There are many, you've seen 6. is an analysis. Reasonable people could bring a different approach, or a different conclusion. Oh, so we need to have a yes on all three of those questions. Yes, it provides community… it responds to a community value. Yes, there is insufficient capacity within the service area, and it provides a community benefit. I would say that that is what we were directed… how we were directed to do this evaluation, this assessment, and that is what… those are the things that we found related to those, and if you feel that that is… something that would warrant expansion based on those criteria. Yes, you should consider those criteria in your decision.

[184:03] trying to get at. I've talked about this. I want to regain control here for just a second. We are, this is a time to ask some clarifying questions of staff, and then we can Bait… Subsequently, whether or not this fulfills your interpretation, my interpretation, of both the question that's being asked tonight, what's stated in the BBCP, what's stated in our packet. And so, rather than a debate back and forth about this, I want to give everyone an opportunity to ask some questions And then we can have a subsequent debate, and I'm hoping that questions from other board members will, enlighten us all. So. I'll pass the mic, but I have one more question. Thank you. I do want to answer the question, because it gets to the process, and the specific quote from the comp plan about the process is.

[185:07] The city will consider the following factors, and there's four, but let's consider, and it doesn't say that they all need to be considered, or that they are the only determinants. So, unlike a land use case where there's criteria. Where you have to satisfy all the criteria. This is saying that the city will consider these factors. Doesn't mean you have to consider all of them. Or it has to be the only aspect of your consideration. And I'm seeing head nods from the attorney. Other stuff, so… Okay, thank you for that clarification. George had his hand up early, and so, Yeah, I'll be quick. It's around, my question is around… Should… should… should the direction ultimately be, you know, continue on and delve into this after the comprehensive plan update?

[186:06] What does this mean? For… from a… Cost perspective for our community relative to the amount of staff time, the amount of dollars, and, what We might need to compromise on, in order to initiate a further project like this. And I'm thinking, you know, just off the top of my head, right, like. I saw feedback back from staff and council that the form-based code, the thing that we brought up as planning board, didn't seem like there was sufficient time for staff to attack that in a year. And so my cons… I guess the question is around the concern of If something like this moves forward after the Comprehensive plan.

[187:02] Where do your staff time and priorities and dollars go, and what do we lose as a, as a, As a consequence of moving this forward. Yeah, thanks for the question, George. This is Christopher, and I will, I will, provide an answer, and Brad probably will want to add a little bit from a larger, kind of, department-level perspective, but as… as… As far as the comprehensive planning team, a service area expansion plan is, you know, we would consider that to be very similar to a sub-community or an area plan, so you can imagine a roughly 18-month, maybe 2-year process. to engage with the community and ultimately develop a, you know, a land use plan, for the planning reserve and a phasing plan, etc. So, from a soft cost in terms of staff time and consultant dollars.

[188:05] you're looking at a two-year process of multiple staff members and likely consultants in the neighborhood of, give or take, $300,000 to $500,000? That's off the top of my head. from a hard cost standpoint, as far as infrastructure upgrades or, you know, real money, that… that would not be impacted through continuing this… this process. That would be, much further down the road, and also in coordination with any future development in that area, where the… developer would be, paying for much of that… those infrastructure upgrades going forward. Brad, I don't know if you have anything you want to add to that. Not a whole lot. Back to work plan, though. Doing sub-community planning is kind of the bread and butter of the, comprehensive planning development. The comprehensive planning division within the department in off years from the comprehensive plan.

[189:03] We don't have a determined work plan for 2027 yet. There may be things that aren't sub-community plans, but this would be a sub-community plan, among others, that were envisioned. Thanks. Thanks. Okay, thank you, George. Okay, who else has clarifying questions? Okay? Pisa? Reading through this, I was a little confused at, like, the timeline. Like, if we're looking at meeting, like, the capacity need thing, is that within the next… 10 years? Over the next 5? Like, what… what is the timeline here that we're… should be considering? Well, I could start. I… the timeline, I mean, it would depend, I think, on what… if we keep moving forward and would consider a service area expansion plan, it would depend on what

[190:10] you decided you wanted to see there, because different kinds of development take different amounts of time, is that… Sorry, I wasn't very clear. That's okay. Yeah, so when we look at whether or not the need can be serviced within Area 1 and 2, is meeting that need meant to represent the next 10 years, the next 30 years? What are we talking about? The capacity in the existing service area is now. That's the capacity we have. Like, if today we decided we wanted to add that 10… over 10,000 units, we could. That's not realistic, that won't happen, but the capacity is what we have now, what we could do. Great, so it's… it's the… it's the realm of what's possible, not what would actually occur… reasonably occur. That's correct. So, Two questions on that. When you're thinking about the need on the housing piece, was it by, certain housing-type needs, or just housing in general? Just housing in general.

[191:11] Great. And I assume by the clarification in the language that we just got, we… as a… as a board member, I could consider by housing need type. Yes. the… the… Hmm. Let me look at questions real quick. So I think you answered most of these… So, if a service area expansion plan were pursued, can you clarify what affordability requirements could be imposed through annexation agreements that are not available through infill redevelopment? KJ. No. We… that, That is a level of detail that would be worked through as part of the policies within a service area expansion plan, because ultimately, it would be that expansion plan that would guide those annexation agreements.

[192:10] to determine what those affordability levels would be, but at this time, we don't have enough information to determine, you know, with any specificity of what that would be. Sure. Great, so what I heard is that annexation agreements could have… Certain affordability requirements, whereas infill development can, cannot. Well, they both do, currently, so infill development is governed by our, inclusionary housing ordinance, and so there are affordability requirements associated with that, whether they're built on site or they pay into the affordable housing fee. But annexation agreements are more of a, negotiated agreement where, where affordability requirements can be much more stringent. Great. On the infill piece, my understanding is…

[193:01] that some do have to pay in, some do not. Do we have a sense… of… of the 10,000, or I think it was $9,500, whatever the amount was on the infill. Of that, how we modeled what we would expect would and would not. be under the Affordable Housing Program? Well, I believe all projects are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, is that right? New dwelling units are subject to inclusionary housing requirements. Right, but under, like, just… so if I'm thinking of a single-family home, isn't it only if, like, there's certain expansion? Or am I remembering that incorrectly? Oh, that's… I think we… you might be referring to the recent changes to the impact fees, Yeah, we imposed an… and there is actually, an exemption under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

[194:03] For expansions of single-family homes. And… And also, I think, if you rebuild within a certain amount of time, a building that's already there. So, they would not be subject to the inclusionary housing requirements, but to a separate fee. That calculates the affordable housing impacts of the increase. That occurs in floor area with the redevelopment. I guess what I'm trying to get down to, and I don't quite know how to ask it correctly, is of the estimated housing within service area 1 and 2, How much of that… Could we assume… Even just by rough estimates, would meet middle, low-income affordability. Yes, please do. So, one way to look at that would just be to recognize what the city's overall goal for affordable housing, and just to put a fine point on it, we're talking about deed…

[195:04] Restricted income, qualified affordable housing. And I believe, and Jay, I think, is online to keep me honest on this, but I think the city goal is for 15% by 2035. So… and we were making progress towards that, so that would be a way to consider it. My understanding is that we've gotten halfway to that goal over the past 33 years. But it's been accelerating, yeah. I mean, yeah, we could have a whole debate about whether we're actually going to get there or not, but there is a commitment to do so, and there's reasonable progress towards it, and expectation. Can't imagine she'll get there. I think Jay Segna from HHS is on the line, so he can maybe add a little more. Jay? He needs to be promoted. He has been. Okay. Hey, everybody. Jay Slugnett with Housing and Human Services.

[196:00] So, that is a great question. So, if you want to look at, sort of, past performance. Over the last 10 years. Of all the housing units that have been created in the city, about 37% Of those have been permanently affordable to low-in middle-income households. So, you could project that out, potentially. Annexation is typically a little bit higher. Then the 25%, which is the inclusionary housing requirement. But, It kind of depends. The typical annexation community benefit that's required has been between 40% and 60%. I would say 40%, nowadays is probably on the high side. We're finding a lot of the annexation agreements, their, developers are challenged to, even meet the 40%, so… I think it will depend on what the market is doing at the time, but just to give you some rough numbers, I would go with, 37%.

[197:06] Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mason and Che. who else has Clarifying questions. Claudia. So my question is about time horizons, and also about housing. So, the Dr. Cogg report that you are citing talks about housing that is needed by 2032, which is 6 years from now, and the memo in a lot of our discussion mentions that we can't meet that in Area 3 on that timeline, that 6-year timeline. I understand that. How are we evaluating housing needs beyond 2032? What data do we have, and was that longer timeline part of this needs analysis?

[198:00] Good question. the… so I would say that the Dr. Cogg, findings and the analysis is one piece of information, and I think we recognize holistically that, Even if the planning reserve was available, and there were essentially no regulations in this city, it would still be very difficult to meet that, 10,000 units, roughly. By 2032, and so I think, as staff, we have taken a, you know, longer-term view. This is analysis and needs discussion that we're having within the context of the Comprehensive plan, which has a 20-year horizon. So we're looking more on that type of timescale, in terms of, you know, what are the housing needs that we might anticipate over the next 20 years? And what are the policy and land use changes that we can incorporate into the comprehensive plan that can help support that, again, with or without the planning reserve, so we're trying to…

[199:03] You know, look at these things, a bit independently, and not necessarily put all of our eggs in one basket, so we're trying to approach it from a number of different directions. Okay, I mean, maybe I got distracted by that number, that 9500 number from the Dr. Cogg report, but that did seem to be the kind of central numerical piece in the analysis that we were given, and I was curious if there are other target numbers that refer to different dates that we should be considering. Let's see, well, other, other examples from the, I guess, sort of subset of the Dr. Cogg report is that, well… well, I would say the much… the largest proportion of that 9,700 units is really, where the greatest need is, is from 0 to 50% AMI, so it's at the lowest end of our income spectrum.

[200:01] There are, you know, there are other analyses, that, I know, I see Jay's, picture has popped back up, and he probably has some other things that he can, refer to of other, you know, housing-related studies that, are also factored in. I will… I will say that we For the purposes of this needs study, we used the Dr. Cog as a useful metric for us, because everyone was aware of it. It was a topic of a lot of conversation last year when that was released. And it, again, was a useful benchmark for us to analyze, because it's certainly a big goal. We believe it's achievable over time, but, but it's not something that's gonna happen overnight. Jay, I don't know if you have anything to add to that. Just, I guess, a little more color to what KJ was saying, So that number from the Dr. Cogg's report, I would say it's less important to focus on the number and more to focus on the scale of the problem.

[201:08] You know, I would say that… We will never… create enough housing so that everybody who wants to live in Boulder can live in Boulder. It's more a question about what kind of community do we want to be. Right, so that's why we had the goal of 15% of all housing units are affordable to low- to middle-income households. And we're getting close, you know, we're at 9%. So, I would like just a little bit of context, instead of trying to look for that number to sort of provide that path forward, it is really more of a policy question and a qualitative question. Great, thank you. Claudia, is that okay? Alright, Kurt?

[202:01] Nope. Okay. Ml, if I'm not… if you have your hand up and I'm not seeing you, let me know. Okay? Alright, I'll ask a… I'll get to you. I'll get to you. I know you're anxious. Okay, all right. My question is, let's say, we… Moved and adopted that third motion. At a future date, then… We would expect to… you to come back With a more… detailed proposal, For adoption, or not, of of ni… of initiating a service area expansion plan of actually doing it. And at that time, would we also expect A more in-depth needs analysis.

[203:09] I'll start. I think, I don't think that at that point it would be a more in-depth analysis. It would be, deciding what you want a service area expansion plan to look like, we would come back with a scope and, like, consultant needs, those kinds of things. And then, if we choose to move forward with Step 3, with a service area expansion plan. That is when a more detailed needs and… needs analysis would begin. So, these needs are important. they may change at the time that we… you… if it's decided to move to a service area expansion plan, we might get into studying things and say, oh, wait, we're discovering this, what do you think? So… I guess the short answer is no, it would be the next step after that, if that makes sense. Yep, thank you.

[204:03] Okay. Laura. Thank you, Mark, and thank you to my fellow board members for great questions. Sarah, could you pull back up that slide that you showed that had the three stages of the process? the, Urban Services Study and the needs assessment. Yes. Okay, so this is where I'm at, is… What we are being asked to decide tonight really is the question of, should we do an urban service area expansion? Are there needs that warrant us to say, yes, we should do an urban, a service area expansion. Is that… am I understanding that correctly? Okay, and then… Yes, that's correct. So that's not a decision we make later. Like, we are making that decision now. Yes, we should, or no, we should.

[205:03] You are making the decision of whether… yes, you're making the decision to keep the door open, and whether you should, at some point in the future. create a service area expansion plan, but that service area expansion plan could occur in 3 months, 6 months, 10 years. There's no… there's no expectation that you would immediately initiate the expansion plan. That's a deter… that's a future determination that you and Council would make? So, step 3 includes, should we do it now, or should we wait? Because I… Correct. Okay, I'm a little confused by this process, but… if we say, yes, we should do it, we're not… I mean, I think we all agree we should do it at some point. It's just a question of, are we ready to do it? Are the needs of sufficient priority that we should be devoting, like George said, devoting staff resources to this instead of to another sub-community plan, or area plan, or different planning process. That's right.

[206:04] So this really is a decision of, yeah, we think we should do this, and we should start it soon. Yes, I would… I think soon is, again, that's your decision at some point in the future, but… so the decision tonight is, yes, we should do it. Decision later would be when you're going to do it. Okay. And then I do want to get back to this question of the capacity question. I'm reading from the BBCP, and… On page 162, it says, the Area 3 Planning Reserve is that portion of Area 3 where the city intends to maintain the option of a service area expansion for future urban development in response to priority community needs that cannot be met within the existing service area. And that is my primary understanding of why we would say, yes, we should do it is that in response to community needs that cannot be met within the existing service area. And I… my basic under… and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong, but my basic understanding is that

[207:05] The City prefers compact development. The city prefers infill. We are saving the planning reserve for when we cannot achieve our fundamental or priority community needs. through infill. And is that what you're asking us to determine tonight, is, yes, we should do a service area expansion plan, because we cannot meet our needs through infill. Because that was my understanding, but I'm not sure I'm hearing that. No. I think you're right. I think your description is correct. Okay. Alright. Thank you. That helps me clarify, because I think we all agree that, yes, we should do this at some point when appropriate. Okay, thank you. Okay, any additional clarifying questions? Otherwise, we're going to move to the… public hearing. Okay. We're gonna open the public hearing. I think everyone's been briefed on the rules of decorum, and, Thomas, you're going to…

[208:09] Let us know who's. Who's up? Thank yous. We have to sign up? Yes. Yes, there's sign-up slips over there. No problem to get you added on at this stage, though. First up, we have Terry Palmas. And Terry, the microphone's already on over there, so you can just speak into that, and he will have… Thank you. Good evening. My name is. My name is Terry Pomos. My address is 2775 Iris Avenue. Avenue. Hey, Terry. Lean in. Lean in and louder? Okay. Alright, my family has owned 23 acres on the southern edge of the planting reserve for over 50 years. Yes, we've been in the Planning Reserve since before it was called the Planning Reserve. We've also been developing housing in Boulder for two generations.

[209:01] Building housing in Boulder is a major part of my everyday life. Over the last 10 or 15 years, our community has done a great job of building big, multi-million dollar homes and smaller apartment units. Where we've fallen short is in between. The missing middle. The 1500-square-foot, 3-bedroom, single-family home or townhome at a reasonable price. It's been documented that we need 10,000 new homes by 2032. It's also been suggested that we can build 10,000 homes in the existing service area. I agree, we should continue to redevelop properties in Area 1, but those projects will likely be more apartments. For a myriad of reasons, they will not be 1,500 square foot family-style homes. If our goal is to build attainable family housing, we should look to the Planning Reserve. The Planning Reserve is like a blank canvas where we can start from scratch and paint our own housing picture. This area is not governed by existing zoning and burdened by high land costs. On our 23-acre site alone, we can build hundreds of family-friendly homes, including a large percentage of deed-restricted for-sale housing, at no infrastructure cost to the city.

[210:10] It could be a great first step. Years ago, we initiated the baseline study, then we initiated the need study, we've come a long way in this process. The vote before you tonight is not to annex any land or approve any development. A yes vote only allows us to look at the options, gather more information so we can make the best decision in order to better our housing stock. A no vote slams the door and prolongs our problem for decades. Let's vote yes and work together towards a solution. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Terry. Next up, we have Bill B, and bill, just a reminder to please state your full name before giving your comment. Thank you. And after Bill, we'll have Mac and Cowles. Good evening. My name is William. bro. and. I live at. 46 Left Hand Canyon in Boulder County. I've been in Boulder for 40 years.

[211:03] And, what's, really concerning to me is you have an option tonight. There… It's very clear. that there's a sufficient community need, as defined in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, to warrant further consideration of service area expansion plan. In Area 3 planning… Hey, Bill. Yeah, lean in, yeah, bring that, adjust it, there you go, thank you. So, I've learned some, some stuff tonight from your discussions, and… What's… what's very clear is… is it's… the 9,500 or 2… or 10,000 housing units that's… that are required And, and suggested in the, DRCOG, study, the housing needs study, it… Area 1 and Area 2, the current There's insufficient… Opportunity to build

[212:11] sufficient housing in Area 1 and Area 2, lending support, continued support for the expansion. What you have in front of you is an opportunity To vote yes. There is a sufficient need. In this community. There's 60,000 people in commuting to Boulder every single day, Monday through Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. There's a problem that has been… going on for 40 years since I've lived here. Everybody says there's a housing need, housing need, housing need. You have an opportunity to press forward and create a solution. There is a problem. You have the opportunity to address the solution here tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Next up, we have Macon Cowles, and then after that, we'll have Adrian Sofer. Thank you.

[213:05] Macon Cole, 1726. bulletin. Sarah, thank you for your. presentation of. slide deck. I'm gonna start with The consideration of whether this number of units can be. met within the current urban growth boundary. If that is the question. The answer is yes, it can, and let's go home, but this is not just about the numbers. I mean, Laura, you were on the East Boulder Sub-Community plan, worked 2 years on that. We know we can put 5,800 units in the East Boulder, in that sub-community area. But here's the tension. We can't look at those as just numbers. We know what we are going to get. within the Urban Growth Foundry. We're gonna get apartments. Many of them affordable to people earning from nothing to 60% AMI.

[214:00] Because we've built, within the last 9 years, we've built 3,300 apartments and condos. About 376 a year. But, the kinds of things that people say they want for infill that was revealed in the survey, the statistically valid survey, was they want to have single units with ADUs, they want to have duplexes, townhomes, cottage courts, and we do… we cannot get those within the urban growth boundary that we have. That is the tragedy of it. Within the last 10 years, there have only been 420 detached units that have been sold in the City of Boulder. Permitted in the city of Boulder. Of those. 13, or between 1,200 and 1,800 square feet. The money is driving it. People want to live large. And the saddest thing, Sarah, going from your point about

[215:03] a place for old people to live, to go with when they need more assistance. One of the best infill sites in the town was the county campus at Folsom and Broadway, just bought by the Academy. Where the buy-in for the Academy… so on those 17 acres, we're gonna have senior housing for people that can afford to pay from $1.25 to $5 million to buy-in, plus $10,000 to $18,000 a month. So, we all have an idea, we're urbanists, of what that Shangri-La would be. The kind of neighborhood we might build. The planning reserve is the only place that we might actually do that, so we should study it further so that we can get a next-generation neighborhood, do a pilot project. And, I don't like that third way. Go for the second motion, and tell staff what you want, and signal to council, we want the cottage courts, we want the duplexes, we want the single units. Great, thank you, Mate. Don't leave it to staff to figure out. That's your job in councils.

[216:16] Thank you. Follow that, Adrian. Oh, no! I, I, I… I was gonna say what he said. But, adrian Sofer. 2505 Walnut. this is a very confusing directive you've been giving… been giving, but I think… I keep looking at this in the opposite way. You're not being asked to approve something, you're being asked to not deny it. So that it can continue for further study. And I think that's the essential point, because if you deny it, it's dead. And it's dead for a minimum of 5 years, and more likely 10. But you're being asked to whether studies should continue.

[217:02] So when we talk about additional 7,500 or 10,000 units that can fit in the city as the boundaries exist today, by 2032 or whatever number, let's look back to 2000 and ask how many units have we actually put in? Since 2000. And I can remember, because we've been a part of this for a long time. And it ain't that much. So, realistically, we're talking about a different animal here, as Macon has very well described. So don't say no. Say, let's move forward the discussion so we can continue to look at what's possible and makes sense. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Adrian, and that concludes our… Public comment for in-person speakers, if there's… I… Sure. I… I defer to… Fine. He's familiar with the rules of the planning board.

[218:03] Whoever he is, but anyway. Good evening. Please introduce yourself. Yes, this is, Harmon Zuckerman. and 280 30th Street in Boulder. And I… I wasn't going to speak, but I just… I heard some talk on, on the. the dais about, criteria-based decision making. Thomas, even though he's a former planning board member, you still gotta start the clock for him, okay? Or I could just go on. So anyway, I just wanted… I just thought, you know, one thing I heard that was interesting was, you know, and I think you guys are doing an amazing job as a board, and I hear the desire to touch on the criteria, and so, you know, if you want to think about how you could use these criteria to justify a vote to continue the study, if that's the way you want to go. You know, I think it's easy enough to do, and if you just look at that first

[219:00] criterion of community need, housing choice, and opportunity. You know, you're looking at it through the value of livability. You know, you can certainly think about the kind of livability that people would obtain with the housing typologies we're not seeing being developed in Area 1 right now as a kind of livability that is available in the planning reserve. where land costs are lower, and you can get cottage courts and duplexes and 1500-foot single-family homes, which are apparently unbuildable and unsellable in Boulder. You've got 13 built in a decade, and none of them were actually really affordable. To the average, you know, new first-time Boulder home buyer. And then, you know, benefit. You know, what is benefit? Benefit describes the potential cost-benefit to the community and additional items to consider regarding expansion into the planning reserve and the influence it may have on the community members of the Boulder Valley.

[220:02] So if what we're looking to do is create missing middle housing. certainly looking at community values and benefits under the criteria is a way to justify that type of a vote, so I just wanted to point that out to you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, and now we are going to move to our online participants, so if you're online and would like to speak to the public comment for item 5B, this is your opportunity. Please go ahead and raise your hand. And we have a couple of hands raised so far. We will start with this individual, and just a reminder, you will need to begin by stating your full name. Since you do not have it displayed. And I'll start the timer when you begin. Thank you. Lynn Siegel, if we can't plan things. to have the full range of AMI from the start. In our comprehensive plan, in our long-term planning, then we can't do it by expansion, because

[221:10] Boulder is not about another sprawl, more sprawl. I hate going to North Boulder, I hate going to East Boulder, I hate going to South Boulder. I stay Central. I am freezing cold, I'm 43 degrees right now, so it's not like I don't deprive myself to stand to live here. deny. The planning reserve is for emergencies. Emergencies! Like, we have no food anymore, and we need it for agriculture. Like, we have to have it for solar farms to supply our community, the rest of the community. It's not another opportunity for more sprawl. Just like with… Weathervane… Whole little city out in the east.

[222:06] Anchored on a brew pub. Give me a break here. God, I see the developers lining up. It is revolting. It is sickening what this town has become. My father was right in 1949 when he said the place was too big. Then… Then… Shame on all of you! For what you've turned this town into. And I'm sorry if everyone wants to live here. Everyone is gonna live here with Sundance, with the Millennium. Rented by the bedroom, 930 students, high-end students, with a parking place is for all of them. 250.

[223:01] hotel rooms before that, so we had some sales tax revenue before we gave away 28th Street to the students. Naropa. Rincon School, to see you. Rincon, Mexico, to see you. Is this Boulder, or is this CU Town? No, it's Boulder. Shame on all of you. This is the Planning Reserve. Area 3 Planning Reserve. It's for emergencies! It's not another… Growth opportunity. God, it feels like a feeding fringe! No way. Deny. Thank you, Lynn, for offering your comments. Next up, we have David Insign.

[224:03] David, you will have 3 minutes, and please go ahead when you're ready. Good evening, Planning Board members. David Ensign, 4020 Evans Drive in Boulder, speaking as an individual resident. Thank you for your service and for your consideration of the future of Boulder's Area 3 Planning Reserve. As an engaged community member and a former planning board member, I've spent a significant time focused on how Boulder can better address the challenges facing middle-income residents who want to become homeowners. Through my work with local nonprofit boards and advocacy organizations. I've been closely involved in examining missing middle housing strategies. While there are no silver bullets, I'm encouraged by the seriousness with which these issues are being addressed. That's why I was disappointed to see recommendations against further consideration of a service area expansion plan at this time. I want to be very clear. Tonight's motion is not about approving development in Area 3.

[225:03] It is about whether there is sufficient community need, as defined in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, to warrant further consideration. And I believe that need clearly exists. I agree there is meaningful potential to address housing needs within existing city boundaries. Boulder has made real progress through inclusionary housing and infill development, particularly for renters. But we've not moved the needle on ownership opportunities for middle-income families, especially those seeking homes that support real lives. Children, pets, and work from home, or hands-on activities. Creating housing that works for firefighters, police officers, teachers, and city staff remains extraordinarily difficult. As a result, many of these essential workers are among the roughly 65,000 people who commute into Boulder every day because they cannot find a viable housing option here.

[226:01] The planning reserve exists precisely for moments like this. when identified community needs cannot realistically be met through existing land supply alone. Declining to continue analysis risks pushing this work out 5 to 10 years, especially if… as we enter a major BVCP update that should be setting Boulder's long-term direction. I urge the board to take a yes-and approach. Yes, continue evolving land use policies to support infill, transit-oriented development, and vibrant neighborhoods within existing city boundaries. And yes, continue appropriately scoped work to evaluate how the Area 3 Planning Reserve might help address time-sensitive middle-income housing needs. Finding that a community need exists does not predetermine an outcome. It simply keeps the comprehensive plan and Boulder's future options on the table. For those reasons, I urge you to support a finding that sufficient community needs exist to warrant further consideration of a service area expansion plan. Thank you for your time.

[227:09] Thank you, David. And we have no other raised hands online at the moment, but I just want to give everyone a couple of seconds to… Raise them if anybody else would like to speak to the public comment. And seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and pass it back to you, Chair. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Thomas. Thank you to all the speakers who have contributed, both here in the room and online. And, so that closes the public hearing portion, and we move on to board deliberation. I'm going to propose a similar scenarios last time, a brief round of comment, and, let your fellow board members know, what you're thinking about in terms of the motions available to us, why you're thinking that, and then…

[228:06] I, again, I propose that we pretty quickly move to motion-making, and that we debate We debate a motion Rather than, debating what we think might be a motion. So, Let's… let's move to a round of board comment. Who has… who's ready? Laura? So, you know, I want to thank all the members of the public for your comments. I want to clarify where I'm coming from, which is… staff's analysis did not particularly address this question of the potential for the planning reserve to specifically provide the types of housing that you all have commented about, and that that would be what we want, right? I think I think what I'm hearing, and I'm open to hearing other things from my fellow board members, but I think everybody acknowledges we have a need for 0-50% AMI, we have a need for middle housing types that are more affordable, like townhouses…

[229:09] townhouses, plexes, and cottage courts, specifically for ownership, but also for rent. But what I have not heard is, does Area 3 Planning Reserve offer us a special opportunity to do that? And specifically, can we guarantee that if we open the planning reserve, we're not just going to get more of the same? And I'm hearing great intentions from folks who are saying this is a special opportunity to do a pilot project, to create something like Holiday. We didn't hear that tonight, but we've seen that in some of the other, comments. And I think we would all welcome that and love that, because David Ensign and others who spoke tonight are right on that we're not getting that in the current service area. So I'm not opposed to saying, yes, a community need exists, and we, but the thing that I'm worried about is.

[230:00] if we say yes to expanding the planning reserve, how do we guarantee that that is the thing that we're going to focus on in a service area expansion plan, and can we actually get it? Can we legally create mechanisms to get it, and I have heard some encouraging things, you know, like when we did holiday, there were some special zoning things that provided, for example, like, density bonuses if they provided additional affordability. I think there are some creative mechanisms. So if we go ahead and approve a service area expansion plan. tonight, and say that the community need exists, I would very much want to define what those needs are that we are hoping the Area 3 expansion will address. Because I don't… I have not yet become convinced that simply adding more numbers with the same percentage of affordable housing that we're getting now in areas 1 and 2 that that is a sufficient reason to expand the city's boundaries and not just focus on compact development. But if we can indeed get different outcomes from Area 3, then I would be all for that.

[231:00] That's my basic comment. I do also want to touch on this parks parcel. When we did the urban services study, that 189-acre parcel that the city owns. Both Planning Board and City Council asked to examine a scenario where not all of that becomes developed parkland, and some of that becomes housing. And I have not yet become convinced by the needs assessment that we need all 189 acres for parkland, especially if the design of that parkland, which is as yet undetermined. includes scenic views and passive recreation areas and trails similar to what's in the open space. Like, if we're talking about developed parkland in terms of a new rec center, a new swimming pool, pickleball courts. another developed facility, definitely. I think we will have a growing need for that. I'm not convinced that that parcel needs to have a bunch of trails and scenic views and things that are not active recreation facilities. I'm also not convinced that we have the budget to develop 189 acres of active recreation facilities. So I would want to see some… in that,

[232:05] Service air expansion plans, some real consideration given to how can we integrate housing with some amazing recreational facilities for our community. That's… that's kind of where I'm coming from tonight. Great, thank you, Laura. Kurt. Thank you, Laura. I appreciated that. I have some fairly extensive comments, I'm afraid. But I… it's a complicated situation, and so I want to make sure that my… my ideas are expressed as well as I can. So I'm actually going to read this. Boulder was formed as a city on stolen land 166 years ago. With luck, we are only a short way into our history as a municipality. Jericho, in the West Bank, is reportedly the world's oldest known continually inhabited city, having been first settled around 11,000 years ago.

[233:07] It may be a stretch for Boulder to aspire to such longevity, but it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that we are only in our early childhood as a city, with many hundreds or thousands of years yet to go. And unless things change dramatically in that entire sweep of our history. The planning reserve will most likely be the last parcel of its size that we will ever have the opportunity to annex. There will be smaller plots, but never again will we have nearly 500 acres of mostly undeveloped land to work with. I conclude from that that we had better get it right. If we do something here, I want it to be not just pretty good, but something truly world-class. A place that people from all over… all over come to visit and admire and learn from. Anything less is not worthy of this literally unique opportunity.

[234:00] or of Boulder as a far-sighted city. Or of Boulderites, as some of the most creative and forward-thinking people there are. One of the aspects we're to consider in this decision is values. Staff identified a number of possible values, but the only one that remotely qualifies And one that is, at the moment, as we've all discussed, an overriding concern, is the need for more housing, and specifically for moderate-sized… moderate-cost housing that could be attractive to the sorts of young families who are less and less able to make it in Boulder. To the detriment of our schools and the long-term vitality of the city. The need for this sort of housing is unambiguous. We're also to consider benefits, which the BBCP says should be interpreted as benefits against costs. The potential benefit is in creating an adoringly wonderful place to live. However, that will require some very major systemic changes. On the city level, our zoning code and design standards do not currently encourage, much less require, outstanding design.

[235:03] A new development in the planning reserve can't possibly be successful without good transit access. And RTD is clearly not able to provide great service there. Nor is the city in a budgetary state to be able to provide it on its own. And there's US 36 as a major obstacle to get across, which will require working with CDOT to significantly change it to be safer, easier to cross, and more pleasant to live next to. CDOT has made great strides recently to broaden its mindset and perspective. But it's not clear to me that it's yet ready to be able to reimagine US 36 the way it needs to be reimagined. So while the potential benefit is clearly there, we're not yet at a place where the benefit can be as great as it needs to be. On the cost side, the biggest one is the opportunity cost I alluded to earlier. That is potentially enormous. Our state and region are going through dramatic demographic changes, with an aging population, significantly reduced growth, and little to no net migration.

[236:05] Some of that will continue, some may or may not. But we can be sure that even if we gave full approval to this today, it would be decades before full build-out. Our needs could be significantly different then. We're skating to where the puck is, but are we skating to where the puck will be? I'm not sure. The financial cost is also huge. We saw estimates for infrastructure in the high hundreds of millions of dollars. And to be frank, if the city is doing any of this development, it has a poor record recently of cost-effective projects. So it could easily end up over a billion dollars. That's almost $10,000 for every existing city resident, or $100,000 to $200,000 for every dwelling constructed. And that is in a time of flat to falling budgets. So the benefits net of costs, including opportunity costs, do not seem high. Meanwhile, we have potential benefits with much lower costs within Area 1 and Area 2.

[237:05] Especially as we revise our land use map and descriptions, BVCP policies, and zoning code to allow for much more mid-range, family-friendly housing, and even to require that. This is the third consideration, existing capacity. Given the risks inherent in developing the planning reserve, it only makes sense to see what we can do within the existing bounds of the city, where water, sewer, and electrical service exist, the street network is built out, and bus service is closer. It has been pointed out completely accurately that we haven't been getting this kind of development in Area 1, but that is because we have made it almost impossible. We can change that. We must change that. To wrap up, my conclusion is that while we potentially have a lot to gain in moving forward on the planning reserve, we potentially have much more to lose. When and if it's the right time, for the right thing, I think it will be obvious that it's right. We won't have these kinds of discussions and deliberations. It will be obvious.

[238:10] Until then, we should put our effort and time and money into improving the already developed parts of Boulder. Thank you, Kurt. Claudia, are you ready? That's rough to follow, but I will. I only want to talk about housing need tonight, because I don't think anything else in the needs assessment merits action here in the Planning Reserve and or now. In this BBCP cycle. So in that sense, I want to emphasize we do need to talk about potential uses here, and that the why really matters. If we accept the Dr. Cogg housing assessment and the BVCP Community Survey as rough guidelines on our housing needs.

[239:03] It is not plausible to me that we can meet those current and future housing needs in Area 1. I say this as someone who is an idealist, perhaps to a fault, in the realm of planning. But who's also a political realist. We don't have the community consensus that is required for serious changes to our land use code. And we don't have the consensus to commit the financial resources that would be required to pull a significant number of properties out of the speculative market. And use them to meet. Our low- and middle-income housing needs. I think that development and the planning reserve, if managed properly, could potentially overcome both of these obstacles. So I would like us to continue this process at this time. If our housing needs can be met in Area 1, let's prove it in this final comp plan update.

[240:01] And then reconsider this step in Area 3 if necessary. But I am not confident in that analysis at this moment in time. I think that a service area expansion plan focused on creating affordable, complete neighborhoods would meet the criteria for community value, capacity, and benefit for current and future residents. And, at the same time, like Laura. and Kurt, I am worried that we will let these same forces and rules that have warped housing production in Boulder for the last 50 years produce more of the same here. I would like to see a service area expansion plan that puts strong and enforceable guiding principles on development in place. I think we can do that, I think we have some precedence in our history for doing that, and I would like to see our best effort towards it here. Considering the planning reserve would never be my first choice for meeting housing needs in Boulder, it has also never been Boulder's first choice. This reserve was created 30 years ago, and even with a continued process, it will not be fully developed for decades to come.

[241:13] I think win that time, we should and must continue to push for better policies and outcomes in Area 1, absolutely. But our track record there and the outlook suggests that now, and not 5 years from now, not 10 years from now, when the window opens again. It's time to start thinking about how we could best use this space. Thank you, Claudia. Mason. Sure, why not? First, I wanna just kinda address maybe something I said earlier in questioning, in that, I acknowledge the city's real progress on affordable, housing. moving from fewer than 1,000 affordable units in the early 90s to more than 4,000 today reflects a sustained effort by staff and partners, and I appreciate that work as we move towards the 50% goal. So, Jay, thank you.

[242:06] You're out there still? on, the criterion. community value. I think the housing needs clearly aligns with our long-term goals around livability and equity. I also want to be clear that I strongly support increased density and infill in the right places, and I believe the comprehensive plan updates are moving infill in the right direction. Where I'm focused a little more carefully is on the capacity criterion. The analysis looks primarily at total unit capacity, but it doesn't meaningfully account for housing types. New construction, whether infill or Area 3, is highly unlikely to be market rate affordable. And market rate affordability largely comes from aging housing stock in Boulder. To meet both the raw number of units we need and our longer-term affordability goals within the planning horizon, I think it's likely a both-and conversation, not an either-or. on benefit, and this is getting to more of what Kurt and Laura were speaking to, I do think Area 3 presents a different opportunity, not just more of the same.

[243:05] Though a community plan… through a community plan and anchorization agreements, the city has tools to set clear expectations around housing type, mix, and affordability outcomes than we often have with incremental infill alone. I don't see this as replacing infill. Regardless of what we decide, we should continue incentivizing the types of infill that we want, but as a way to be more intentional about meeting our housing needs under the criteria we're being asked to apply. Great, thank you, Mason. Ml, I believe you have your hand up? Or, ML, are you there? Yes, I am. I couldn't unread my microphone. You're now. I am here now, thank you, and hey, Kurt, that was pretty awesome. I appreciate the,

[244:04] comprehensive approach you took to, that issue. So, I'm… I've got a couple of comments, and then a statement. One of the comments under… the environmental sustainability, I guess, consideration. I believe that the USS study that was done showed that there was not sufficient water to meet the projections of possible development in extreme situations. And I think we can assume that extreme situations could be the norm. So, I think we have to check in with, what can we actually accomplish in that, area? So, that's just one point I'd like to bring. A second comment is, so we… Did Dr. Cogg identify 9,500 housing… houses, especially affordable, middle.

[245:04] In the last year, two ordinance… many ordinances have been passed, but two in particular, one Ordinance 866 alone, and staff projected 3,300 Duplexes and small houses could be, accommodated with that ordinance change alone. We also have existing under park… parking lot land, That potential could be significant to address the multi-generational, the climate, and small food growing options. So, those are opportunities that have come about due to policy change in 2025 alone. And this is just, like, leaning into… There's a lot that can be done. In the area we still have. So, we're all talking about the vision of getting cottage courts, duplexes, small houses in the reserve.

[246:04] And this starts to lean into what, I think the gist of Kurt's, comments were. What will be different? from the developments, We've been seeing in the city. Yes, we saw Holiday, but the world has changed since Holiday got done. And since we have seen Boulder Junction and the luxury housing. So I think the real question is, what's going to change the trajectory? This trajectory of unaffordability. By developing the reserve. what's gonna change? And I think it comes down to point to… let's get… how we develop Write first. And that means paying attention to, looking at our existing city and focusing on ways to uphold area plans, strengthen codes to prevent profit margins from develop… from delivering solutions that don't meet the needs.

[247:12] We have great aspirations. But I think we must first put our attention to creating robust processes that will lead to the livable city that we all want. I think that's our… our most… Critical. Next step is to… let's get how we build. right. Let's get the codes and zoning in place so that we get, as a result, the housing that we want and need. We get the, support. We get the, community, community facilities, capacity for a range of people to live in the city.

[248:00] It's not happening, and it's not happening because it's not profitable. So, we need to find a way to get the city that we want before we start developing, into the reserve. Thank you, ML. George, do you have comments? Yeah, sure, I appreciate everybody's comments. I tend to agree. With a lot of them. like, Kurt, ML, Laura… Claudia. To some extent. I get concerned by even the notion that this area could handle, quote-unquote, 10,000 plus units. I think that demonstrates to me the risk, that everyone's been talking about, which is more of the same.

[249:02] I also… I think the infrastructure costs are real. you know, just the city consultant that estimated the baseline off-site infrastructure costs, including the water lines and wastewater treatment, could reach a billion dollars. And to Kurt's point, I mean, right now the city, at least in my mind, doesn't have a very Good track record of effectively spending, Our money in development. I, I, I think… ML's point was dead on, which is, I think we have an opportunity to get things right. in Service Area 1, and that Kurt's point, that Boulder has a long future ahead of it. And this is a rare and unique opportunity. And I don't think,

[250:00] Rushing into it when we have a lot of work to be done, to get things right before getting there, makes a whole lot of sense to me. I would 100%. Love to see… holiday-style type neighborhood. All the things that we're talking about, you know, another rec center, amenities, those types of things. I don't think the city's financial house is in order. I think we have a lot of priorities on our plate, that's why I asked that question up front. I would like to see more planning in Service Area 1, before getting to planning new and shiny objects. And, I do believe there will be a time in probably the near future where this should be tackled. And to Kurt's point, that future… the outcome might be a little bit different than any of us see it right now, because we've got this

[251:00] one chance opportunity. And so, that's at least my position at the moment. If we were to move it forward. I would want… Very strong… wording and narrow scope around making sure that we're getting an outcome of medium-sized homes, for families and people once they exit apartments, in whatever life situation they're gonna be, that we're gonna get ownership opportunities, and right now, we don't have a structure in Boulder for either. And I think, we need to figure out how to get that right before moving forward with it. Thank you. Thank you, George. Okay, I'm gonna call on myself, and… I've got a problem, because I agree with everyone on the board.

[252:00] So, you know, Area 3 is, like. A canvas on which we all get to paint Our dreams, our vision of what we want. And there's some consensus here about… about that. But the decision, we have this decision tonight. And for me, that decision is, do we stop? Painting on this canvas, or… Do we allow ourselves to move forward and solicit the kind of input we've heard from our residents in the audience tonight, from the board members, and to grow this vision. Because, you know, I quote from the plan, extension of infrastructure and development of future land uses could take At least 15 to 30 years to realize. And then we also state that when we… if we said no today, To this expansion plan.

[253:06] We are adding 5 to 10 years, so the 15 to 30 becomes… 20 to 40. So… For me, that's two generations of families, kids growing up. in other communities while their parents work in Boulder, and commuting, and all these things. that… that we could… we could have two generations, potentially, pass by before we actually start building some housing in Area 3, That fulfills the vision that we all seem to share. So, the other thing that, having been in, Business for most of my life and everything else. We always need more data. We always need more data, and if we say no tonight.

[254:03] We stop the process of collecting data. We just stop. And also, things always take longer than we expect, so if we say, yeah, sure, we'll add another 5 or 10 years onto this. And, we might be adding even more than that. And, and I appreciate Kurt's long view of history, and there's lots to be learned from history. At the same time. I see very real needs in the community right now. And so, I think this is an opportunity for us to say yes and, as David Ensign said, to say yes and. This is an opportunity for us to provide, feedback to staff so that when they come back and say, okay. We now want you to actually adopt initiation of a service area expansion plan.

[255:03] That we hold them to a cri… An accountability that says, you heard. what it was we wanted. You heard what this is. For us to approve that at this future date. then we're going to have to have the assurances that, in fact, our requests, our desires, are acknowledged and fulfilled. So. I am of the mind. that I support the most general motion, and that is the motion that says, We're not going to stop. We're going to move forward But, we are not relying on the two pages of a needs analysis to flesh out the service area expansion plan. We're going to use community input and vision

[256:01] From, this board, from Council, from the community as a whole, as to what this might look like. So, that's… that's my thought. Okay. Do we have, yep. So I'm sitting here, and I want you folks to rein me in if I'm way off base. But I'm sitting here with my collaborative facilitator hat on, thinking, we all kind of want the same things. And we have different thoughts about how and when to get there, and what's the best path forward from here. What if we… made a finding tonight that there are significant community needs that are not currently being addressed in areas 1 and 2. And then we put together some principles for considering a service area expansion plan, and those principles could include something like

[257:01] Expansion should be designed primarily to address permanently affordable housing with a focus on 0-50% AMI, as well as middle housing types that are naturally more affordable, such as townhouses, plexus, and cottage courts, for both ownership and rent. That if we do expand into Area 3, we should be seeking to do a creative pilot project that would give us a truly excellent 15-minute neighborhood. That a service air expansion plan should include creative use of the 220 acres of city-owned land for housing as possible, and enforceable development guidelines to guide annexation agreements for private land to meet those housing needs. That we would recommend limiting a first service area expansion to just city-owned property and adjacent property owners who are willing to work with us to produce the above kind of pilot project or housing types. and a continued focus on trying to produce those housing types within the existing service area before considering any further expansion beyond a pilot project. So something like that, that kind of wraps up

[258:08] This is our vision for how a service area expansion could potentially give us some things that we're not getting in Area 1, while we continue to improve how we use Area 1. And this is what we're looking for from a service air expansion. What if we made motions similar to that tonight? So, I appreciate your perspective, Laura. I am a… I am a no on that. Because… our staff… we… we… you got… and… and I'm gonna use you as an example. You went through the whole East Boulder sub-community planning process, and when we got through one of the first projects that went through form-based code. We didn't get the outcome that all this work put into it. And to go down a road where we're starting to caveat this little plan for the staff to go on and spend millions of dollars into this thing, and we've got a billion dollars of infrastructure that's projected to be built out here, and there are a lot of question marks, when we can't get something like that right.

[259:13] And staff is telling City Council that they can't make a correction to that within a year's time. what happens to that? Does that get shelved another 6 months, or 8 months, or 12 months? Like, I just feel like this city has way too much on its plate. that this kind of nuanced, collaborative approach, I just don't believe will result in something that any of us will ultimately be happy with. So I'm just putting it out there, because I'm not going to take up more time talking about this, but I'm kind of a no at this point. Thanks, George. Mason, rebuttal… . as we heard from staff, timelines are not set, so I hear you, George, but we don't have to get this part done right in the next year, two years.

[260:07] there's through. I think we take the time that we need to address what, you know, Kurt so adequately put to make sure that we get this right, and we don't delay it another 5-10 years, as Mark spoke to. Okay, thank you, Mason. Okay, let's… quick round of comments, and then I'm going to ask for motion language, and… and we can all make a motion, Laura, I commend your work. Anyway, any other quick round of comments in light of What we've all just said. Claudia. I want to propose a middle path in terms of motions between what I heard from Mark and Laura, and that is that we try for a motion tonight that Outlines what we see as some of the community needs, and gets really serious about that, such as for low- and middle-income ownership housing, middle housing types.

[261:05] But we don't get into specifics about what we are actually wanting to see in a service area expansion plan. That is something that staff would have to come back with over time. That will be a longer process. I think they've made that clear. But that we don't leave the need open, as Mark has suggested. So putting in some specifics about why we would want to do this, but not getting into the how, as Laura is. Kurt. I'm, just concerned that anything that, that lets us go forward with this process at this time would not give us the information we… that I feel that we need about what can we do if we… if we really, you know, we're right now in the middle of updating the comp plan. A bunch of things are gonna change, hopefully.

[262:03] if they don't, then we're… we failed, in my view. And, you know, maybe failing in the comp plan means then definitely we go ahead and… and do the, the planning reserve, because we have to, but, I, I… I'm worried about, sort of, the bureaucratic process lumbering on, and stumbling into something that is not great. Just because, you know, that's the way bureaucratic processes tend to go, and it's nothing about staff, it's nothing unique to this city, it's just the way systems work. And so my preference is to really put a hold on things, just put everything on the shelf, and say, let's see what we can do over the next few years updating the comp plan, implementing new zoning code, updating some other stuff, and see where we are. And at that point, then I think it'll be much more revealing. We'll have much more data about what realistically is possible.

[263:17] what we can actually get out of Area 1, Area 2, and, and what we can't. And to me, that will be… A much more appropriate time, then, to… make a further determination about, do we go forward? But I… yeah, I just… I worry about us kind of stumbling forward and ending up with something mediocre. Can I ask you a question about your thoughts here? Because I'm hearing, kind of, like. And I don't mean to put you in a box in terms of just two options of the future that I hear you saying. One is. we… fail, and we have to do Area 3, and the other one I'm hearing is we succeed, and then we're ready to do Area 3.

[264:02] No, I think if… if we succeed, if we succeed in… Creating, new, you know, land use. Designations, new zoning code, new standards that really allow us to start to get significant amount of missing middle housing, that's at, at, you know, moderate cost, whatever that means in Boulder. And then Then we've succeeded, and we can say, you know, we don't need to spend that billion dollars on the planning reserve, at least right now. How is that different than the world that you painted where we succeeded, and then were ready to do Area 3? Sorry, I must not have been clear. If we succeed in changing, adequately changing our our planning paradigm within Area 1 and Area 2, then I think we can say that we have the capacity

[265:11] in Area 1 and Area 2, and so we are not meeting the requirement for… we don't need to go into Area 3. So, I… I probably was not clear… I didn't state it right. If we fail. in terms of our, you know, our updates, or… or… or maybe I'm just overly optimistic, I mean… Claudia talked about being an idealist, and I'm an idealist, too, in terms of this. I think it'll be pretty obvious within a few years that, oh, you know, we… We gave it our best shot, but we weren't able to change enough because of, you know, politics or… finances or whatever, and, And we're not going to meet that, you know, requirement for 10,000 new units, or whatever, realistically, within Area 1 and Area 2, and then we have to go on and do Area 3. Or we, you know, get to go on and do Area 3, however you want to put it.

[266:15] But… but to me, that's the choice, or the… Those are the alternative pathways. Did that clarify it? Okay. Ml, you got a quick comment? You got your hand up? So, let me see… yeah, my quick comment is, I believe we should use our resources to attend to our existing city. Let's get it right here. You know, if we can't do that, we really don't have any business developing pristine land. So, that… That's… where I'm at. Okay, thank you.

[267:00] Could we have, motion language back up, because I… and again, I'm… I'm not racing to… my motion, I'm… Pushing for a motion so that we end our… Collegial discussion and begin our decision making. So, you… Kurt, you… Sure. I moved… You're not on. I move to turn on my microphone. I move to find that the identified community needs are not of sufficient priority per the criteria described in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to warrant further consideration of a service area expansion plan at this time. I'll second that. And just to speak very briefly, I will say that the at-this-time wording to me, is very important. You know, it's not saying we will never do it by any means, it's saying, at this time.

[268:06] Okay. We've got a motion. Kurt has spoken to it. George, you're next, if you want to speak to that. No, I, I think, I think, Kurt captured it perfectly, which is, I… I believe this area will serve the city very well. I think we need to focus on the city we have right now, in getting a number of our policies. We've got a lot ahead of us with the comp plan, with infill, with, with upzoning in several areas, with all these adjustments, and I think we need to, let this stuff play out, and I think it will inform us and make this area better when it's time. And I don't think that time is necessarily gonna take decades, but I don't think it's time…

[269:00] To insert in our many processes, is now. Any other comment? on the motion. Listen? I'm gonna vote against this motion, mainly because I agree that this time is the important part, and what I heard from staff is that really, you know, this is just to… to study. This is to really further define what this looks like. So, here we're all really discussing what happens after this next step. And that's fine, I think it's important to look ahead, but even if we do focus on that, I still think it's okay to support Or to… to not vote for this. Because, you know, George, as you talked about, I agree, we have a lot on our plate, but what I heard was, you know, the first step, if we were to consider going forward, would be more of a community plan. Situation, which there appears to be some capacity for…

[270:02] In these off years, between, you know, comp plan updates. So, you know, at this time, it feels like the right time for me to at least figure out how to get this right, and not wait another 5, 10 years to start, you know, a lot of deliberation. Great, thank you, Mason. Okay, Laura? So, so I will say that, you know, I was… I very much sympathize with George and ML and Kurt's point that we need to get things right in the city, and I will point out that the city has 10 sub-communities. We only have maybe two sub-community plans. We have talked about needing, you know, for example, a better area plan for Diagonal Plaza and other areas of the city, and that doing this service area expansion would divert resources from that. I think that's pretty clear, that if this is our next area plan, everything else kind of goes on hold.

[271:04] And, you know, fixing the form-based code for East Boulder is also a priority for me above this. So, if we vote no here tonight, if there's a majority to vote that the needs are not of sufficient priority, City Council can kick it back to us and ask us to reconsider. If that is the situation that we find ourselves in, I would really want to see better assurances from staff that we could indeed get the outcomes that we have said here tonight we want from expanding Service Area 3, and I want to know how we would do that. And there's been a little bit of discussion of that offline, but not here tonight. So, that's what I would be looking for if this gets kicked back to us, if We vote in the way I am anticipating we are about to vote. Okay, my comment is… that, That it's… it's… it is time.

[272:01] When something takes as long as this is going to take. And you look at the conditions on the ground now in the city, It doesn't mean that we stop work on all the things that we need, to do in areas 1 and 2. It means… we… Proceed with this next little step. And there are… many, perhaps countless points along the way before a piece of dirt is moved in Area 3, For us to, influence, direct, and… create… a plan for Area 3 that fulfills our vision. But if we… if we vote. For the motion now, then all of that, envisioning and everything stops for the next 5 to 10 years. So, I will not be voting for this.

[273:04] Any other comments? Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. I'm going to re-read the motion. Which is motion to find that the identified community needs are not of sufficient priority per the criteria described in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to warrant further consideration of a service area expansion plan at this time. Okay, I'm gonna go in the same order. Mason? No. Laura? Yes. Claudia. No. Kurt? Yes. George. Yes. ML? Yes. And I'm a no. The motion passes, and that concludes… This agenda item. So, I, again, appreciate The deliberative nature, and everyone's thoughts, and

[274:04] That's that. We'll see what the, result is. Can I just say, I feel like somebody said that we're all really very close, and I think that that is absolutely true. It's, I think, a very fine division. Between what was the yes and what was the no. So, I'm heartened by that, even though we end up having to vote one way or another, I'm heartened that, really, we all have the same goal here. Perfectly. And I think we can get someplace good based on that. And… Yes, I agree with that. I have a deep concern. That are 4-3 votes. present counsel Rather than with planning Board. planning boards. deep considerations. It presents them with a challenge. You know, that, this was brought to us first.

[275:04] It comes to council, Council deals with so many other issues. They are not going to spend In the last two and a half hours. On this carefully. They won't spend this time on it. And so we've given them another 4-3 mixed message. And we are close, we know that. Council doesn't know that. And, anyway, I feel for them. Getting this mixed message from us. So, okay, that closes out, this item. Okay, Laura? I want to say this is not necessarily dead. Council can still say that they want to do a service area expansion plan and kick it back to us. And I think staff has heard, kind of, what we would be looking for to change our minds, at least for me. and I am one of the four no votes, that's what I would be looking for to change my mind. I can't speak for Kurt or George or ML, but I think we have heard there are deep concerns about the resource commitment that this would take, and how that would divert from, doing things within the city footprint.

[276:10] As well as wanting to know, are we actually going to get something different if we say yes to this? And we have not yet seen that, I think, in the analysis we've been presented with so far, but I'm pretty sure staff could Tell us some interesting things. Okay, again, thanks for everyone, for attending. We move on to item 6, which is matters from the Planning Board, Planning Director, and City Attorney. And I'm going to go in that order. Are there other matters from the Board? Any board member have anything to discuss under matters? Real quick, One of the questions that we asked procedurally that I think was addressed earlier in this meeting is, with the BVCP and all of those change requests. the four bodies have not yet been solicited for our ideas of policy changes or land use map changes, and I think we will have the opportunity to do that when we see the draft plan, and I would just encourage all of us to be thinking about that in advance, so that we make sure we have time to give that our careful consideration.

[277:16] Thank you, Laura. Yeah, I totally agree, and I think that consideration both of policy changes, text changes within the plan, and the map changes coming from us could that could take a lot of time, so I hope that we're considering that in, you know, in our meeting planning, and And our, our, agendas, and so on. Good input. Any… Mark. Any, ML? Yes, I would just, add to that, if we can get information that we need to be reviewing as early as possible, that would be very helpful, because having, you know, the handful of days before the meeting

[278:06] those of us that still work full-time, it's a challenge. So, the sooner we can get information, the better our attention on that information. Kurt? Sorry, one other thing, and this is for KJ and Sarah. Early on, I had asked if possibly we could get, like, big prints of the map, of the land use map. And you foolishly, I think, said yes. Are you? Are you wallpapering your kitchen, or what are you doing with this? Yeah. If, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but it would… in terms of, like, examining all the lines and stuff, I'm… the proposed, exactly.

[279:00] you know, for me, I just like an old-school map. For me, is… You don't want to turn on your phone? I do not want to do it on my phone. I think when, when the draft map is ready and released to the public, I'm sure we could make a large print for you. Awesome, thank you. I'd like one, too. We'll sell… Okay. Alright. I want one, but I want it framed. But, okay, okay, matters from anyone else on the board? Okay. Matters from the director. Well, hello again. Hello again. I don't have any new matters, but at one point, you had wanted me to talk about the Council priorities, so I can do that now, or… We can circle back around after the other folks have spoken. I, I, maybe we can… You know, cut a few of them loose if we see if…

[280:04] KJ or Hela have any comments? Okay, so… Wait, you're proposing… Yeah, why don't I do my matters less, so that we can… Okay, great. That matters from the… from other planning staff or the city attorney. Nothing from me, thank you. Okay. Alright. Okay. Nothing from us as well. Great. You are excused. Thank you, and again, thank you for, The work on this, and For being responsive to our confusion in the, agenda meeting today. So, thanks for that. Okay, Brad, and you guys can walk right in front of him, feel free to. Discreetly or not so discreetly leave. And… Thomas always is the good-natured one to stick around, no matter what.

[281:00] So, I'll give the short version, but I'm happy to answer, you know, longer questions as the board might like. So… I would say that there's been an evolution of the city council priority making. It was fairly informal, as I understand it, before I started three and a half years ago. I've seen it go from fairly, deliberate but very oral discussion to a little more kind of written, advanced, discussion to this year. an actual request of… or a refined request of council members to really try to write out their, their thoughts of what priorities they might have. I think they were given… you know, up to 5 each, and then those were sorted and things like that. So, going into the retreat, there were 30 different Council priority, potential priority items. They were preliminarily ranked, Just as a starting point for the discussion, and then there was 2 days of retreat discussion.

[282:01] That certainly the council members took that into consideration, but also. you know, debated among themselves about which ones might be priorities. There were a lot of questions, too. About trade-offs. There was a clear reminder from the city manager on a regular basis that this year was unique, and that it being a one-year set of priorities, which really was more like nine months, recognizing there's another election here in the fall, so… So scope was a big part of what they talked about as well, and… and back and forth in that regard. Just so you have them kind of top of mind, the 7 that were ultimately decided on, which was a decision itself rather than the traditional 10, Was bicycle security and theft reduction. Cost-benefit list of measures to become a fire-adapted community slash wildfire home hardening implementation hub, which is a, like, envisioned as a web hub.

[283:06] That certainly got the word for the longest name. Hopefully that'll get refined down as we… move forward. Third, exploring our new authority to modify the tip credit lead. For power resiliency, including the timing barriers, that's the Excel power item. 5 sister city language updates, and then a continuation of the long-term financial strategy, and to nobody's surprise, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. So those ultimately were the ones that were chosen. There is a summary memo that gets produced, and of course, we'll be happy to forward that when it is done in the next, I want to say, 2 weeks. I'm happy to elaborate on those 7 things, too. Happy to elaborate on the process, as at least I observed it. I do want to… circle back to a comment that I made about your letter.

[284:05] and consideration of priorities. We at the staff level, considered that that's an open conversation we need to have, as I mentioned in an email correspondence to you, and we've scheduled that as an extended matters discussion. I don't… I'm looking at Thomas to see if he remembers what that date is. It's not too far out. Is that ringing a bell for you? No, I remember that we had some. Well, I want to say within the month, because we recognize that there's nuance to the discussion that happened both after the one hearing item on, Arapahoe Road, as well as the larger questions that you've all raised, or… well, yes, all of you have raised. about the East Boulder sub-community plans, so we want to be able to speak to you, you know, deliberately about that, as opposed to a quick, you know, reaction right now, or something. So, why don't I leave it at that and see if you'd like me to expand on anything?

[285:06] I have a couple questions. So, you're saying that at a future meeting, you will… We'll have a discussion, and you'll address the letter that we sent to Council. Yes. Yeah. Okay? Yep. And when you read the list of the seven council priorities. Are those a unprioritized list that just happen to be numbered that way, or is that the priority? They're un… Prioritize, priority list. Okay. Yes, they're all equal priorities. Any other. questions for Brad. Thank you, Brad. Laura. Thank you, Brad. Sure. So, my understanding, what I heard from a couple of council members was that there was great interest in Updating and fixing loopholes in the form-based code, but that they heard from staff, that that would not be a one-year project item.

[286:01] And one council member said that staff in that meeting committed to doing some scoping or something like that, even if you can't commit to a priority item. Did that… did that council member misunderstand? Yeah, I think what we, explained, and again, I think this would benefit from the larger discussion, and we'd have some of the other staff here too. was a couple points. One, as we reported to you already, even that evening or shortly after, we identified Being green at going through this process, and it being the first one, we identified some things that could be cleanup items. That type of thing. that might be what a council member was calling scoping. I, you know, I can't… I can't read their minds, so I don't know that for sure. And then the first one you mentioned was… oh, more than a year, and that probably speaks to the fact that we… said that while discrete, and this is what I would want to talk, you know, we will talk with you more about, while there were some discrete

[287:08] Solutions, if you will, offered up by you all. There's no way to know whether there's consensus even among the board, because we haven't had that conversation, let alone with the community, and so that would take time. Thank you. I look forward to the fuller conversation, and I won't prolong it here tonight. Thank you so much, Brett. Okay. Anything else from the director? No, we're off and running this year. This is a very, very administrative item, but it's just… one of the many things that we work with that I will share with you. We are extraordinarily behind on building inspections. It came about very quickly in the last 6 weeks. We had the highest level of… the highest number of building permits

[288:02] submitted ever in the city's history, near as we can tell, in both October and November, and maybe December. I'm waiting for numbers. Which is kind of boggling and kind of goes contrary to everything else we're feeling about the economy and activity and such. But nonetheless, that is the case. There's no clear trend, either. I'd gladly tell you what it was, if we could discern it. But we've had two inspectors then, just perfect storm. Have major family emergencies or health issues. And then the power outages and such. So, our normal service standard of a day Has been slipping steadily to, to almost, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and we recognize that's not acceptable in the community, so we're doing everything we can to turn that around. But you might hear things. out in the community, and it would be true. It's probably going to take us another couple weeks, best case scenario, to get that even wrangled into some…

[289:07] something reasonable. We've, brought somebody… we're bringing somebody out of retirement where we were in the hiring process. We're unfortunately having a couple people that have turned down the position, but, So I just will bring that to your attention in case you hear that in the community. And I only bring up an operational item like that, which… You know, we normally wouldn't do, because it's fairly extreme, and you may hear things. Actually, I really appreciate you acknowledging your situation, letting us know. because we do hear things as community members, as, you know, oh, you're on Planning Board. Anyway, we appreciate that, and it's helpful. To know about it in advance, so when we do hear about it, we've got we've got some things to say about it. So, yeah, a little bit of explanation. So that's great, thank you. It's not great that you're in this situation. No, it's not great. Well, I appreciate your… I appreciate your candor about it. Yeah. Thanks. Okay.

[290:10] Last call, I have a calendar. Shepard. Okay, alright. We've identified a date for the spring retreat. We are planning for that on May 19th, which is in place of your regular third Tuesday of the month meeting. I… I need to check. I might be out of town and having to attend remotely. Would there be a remote option? I… I don't believe so. We haven't really discussed that many… Not that far ahead. …details, yeah. about May… May 12th? No, 19. No, May 19th. Oh, 19. I have to check my calendar, I'm not 100% sure, but I might be in Greece. Yeah, if you could let… you're… let us know your dates, I… we… You know, we can't promise we can work around that, but…

[291:00] But we can try and… I would, I would… Hate to miss the retreat. Yeah. But obviously, you know, I understand. If it can be, I'll let you know, and then we'll talk about it. Yeah, if you've got the date. parameters, that would help. And or bring us all degrees. Fred, do you happen to know when… When Council has scheduled their board appointments. Or Thomas. I… can. See, I mean, I don't think our flyer that we have for that has the… - appointments. scheduled on there, because that… I'm not sure if they normally determine a date for that before the interview process. Okay. Alright. Okay. Okay, alright, now. Typically, beginning of April. Okay. Based on the past. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Thank you all.

[292:02] Thank you. Good night, everybody! Thanks, everybody.