March 3, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Good evening, all. Welcome. to the March 3rd, 2026 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. I'm going to call the meeting to order, and before we go to public participation, it was noted that none of us have names, so I should always take a roll call anyway, so we're going to start with a roll call, and we're going to start with George, Good evening, George. Hi, George Boone. Kirk? Kurt Nordbeck? ML Robles. Party a Hansen theme. Laura Kaplan. Mason Roberts. And I'm Mark McIntyre. Okay. Got that out of the way. Next, on to our second item, which is public participation. This is the opportunity for, you to speak. on any matter, Other than, our, public hearing item.

[1:01] That is Agenda Item 5A, that's the, 1128th Street project. So, any… if you want to speak, we'll have, Vivian give us the guidelines for public participation at a planning board meeting, and then you will be able to, speak for 3 minutes. So, I'm gonna have Vivian take it away. Good evening, everybody. I'll just run through these slides, and then we'll open up for open comment for people joining us, either in the room or online. So the city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. And we have more information about this vision and the community engagement process on our website. Next slide, please. And I'll just share some examples of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support the Productive Atmospheres vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business.

[2:14] 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 all participants identify themselves by first and last name, introducing themselves when speaking. And if you are joining us online, you can let us know that you wish to speak when we ask for public participation, and you can just click on this raise hand icon that's at the bottom of the screen. Doesn't look like anyone's joining us by… from their telephone. Next slide. You can also find that same raise hand button from the reactions button at the bottom of your Zoom menu.

[3:00] Great! So maybe I'll start with in person. Thomas, is there anybody signed up to speak in person? Thank you, Vivian. We didn't receive any signups, but if there's anybody here that would like to speak for the open comment. Please go ahead. Otherwise, we'll move to online participants. And in the meantime, I could just ask online participants to go ahead and maybe raise their virtual hand so we have an idea of how many people wish to speak in the order. Thank you. And seeing none in person, Vivian, so we can move to the online. Okay, great, we'll start with Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you have 3 minutes. Please go ahead. Where the heck is everybody? As usual. You know, this town's going straight to H, and nobody ever comes to talk about it. I hear about complaining about it all over the time, you know, but this is utterly ridiculous. We've got, like, 60,000 people set up to come to this town, including Sundance, CU South, Area 3.

[4:04] University. University is the big elephant in the room. This is utterly ridiculous, all of this development. During World War III, like, oh well. Transportation The today, Vivian was there, I think, or someone. Why am I paying for… all of the use of all of these entities that are coming to town. Sundance is no panacea. Sundance is going to be the destruction of Boulder. You know, as if we don't have enough here already, we need to have Sundance. these expenses are much more than our economy can accommodate. You know, we can't even rebuild our South Boulder Rec Center. We can't plan for M&O. No, we don't do that. You know, what do you think I'm doing with my place and my deferred maintenance? I'm paying a transportation fee?

[5:11] When I need to work on my house. And Boulder can't develop enough, and no development No impact fees for these developers that are bringing these contracts in, and that are just raking in the dough. Why? Don't you see it in Trump, in our national… Agenda here? With the wealth spread? Nationally, and now we have to have it locally, too? What gives? With you people. You all know this! I'm not telling you anything new. So why don't you do something about it? Why do you sit here and approve these projects? Height limits, FAR! Laura can't even,

[6:04] oppose her own… I mean, she opposes her own form-based code on 55th Street. You know, there's… there's Glen… Glenwood. There's the Millennium. there's Area 3, there's CU South, there's Constant, constant papillios. The Millennium 28th Street. Just anywhere you point into town. Boulder Junction, nobody is living there. No one is filling up these, these, commercial spaces, and these are not vital, you know, vitality. Thank you, Lynn. Please, please wrap it up. You've taken the 3 minutes? Think about what you're actually doing, and how worse you're making it every night. Thank you, Lynn. Great. No other hands raised. Give folks maybe a couple seconds, in case anyone wishes to speak.

[7:07] Okay, back to you, Chair. Great, thank you, Vivian. Okay. We do… item 3 is approval of minutes. We have no minutes to approve tonight. Agenda Item 4 is call-up items, and we have Agenda Item 4A, which is a possible call-up, a use review. For a government facility use, fire station number 2, in an RH5 zone. The proposal includes the replacement of the existing residential building at 2207 baseline and the existing fire station at 2225 baseline with a new fire station. The call-up period expires on March 9th, 2026. So, this is an opportunity for any board member to ask questions of staff, and

[8:04] And that might, help them decide whether or not to call this up. So this is not a hearing, this is a time to ask questions, that might facilitate a decision on whether or not to call it up. Are there questions? Kurt? Thanks, Mark. So yeah, this is a use review, and one of the use review criteria. There is a presumption of, against conversion of residential to non-residential. Certainly there are, good public safety reasons for, you know, providing, an improved fire station that would Supersede this presumption against conversion of residential to non-residential for anything that's directly related to public safety. But in that context, I have questions about the turnaround, the… so the… the driveway that goes to the back, and then drive… and then comes through.

[9:12] And so my question with regards to that is, is that a public safety benefit, or is that more of a Convenience for the public benefit. Allison, do you have any… Input on that, or any other staff members? Oh, hi, this is Allison Blaine, Senior Planner. Are you asking about the site circulation? Yeah, so currently the design is that the fire trucks back in to the bays, right, and then pull straight out. In this new design, as was the design with Fire Station 3, they pull around to the back. Oh, great, there you are. And, so the question is…

[10:00] Does that provide a measurable public safety benefit. Yes, hi, good evening. My name is Adam Goldstone, Facilities Principal Project Manager for the City, representing. project manager for that, and also representing FIRE, although they are listening in if it gets too technical of questions for me, but… with that question, yes, their preferred design on all fire stations is to do what's called a pull-through design, right? Currently, right now, they all have to… they jump off the truck, turn all the lights on, stop traffic, and they have to back into the bays, which is dangerous for them, and obviously causes traffic issues. That occurs at many of their fire stations, and we're trying to, you know, rectify that as we build new ones. So by being able to pull through, it's safer for them and everyone else. Okay, so it's mostly about the safety for the firefighters who are getting off the truck.

[11:01] And backing in. Yeah. Okay. you know. accidents with everything happen, right? When you're backing one of those big things in through the little doors, right? It's a little challenging, so this makes it a lot easier and faster for them to kind of get things squared away. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other… Questions? Okay. Okay, any, any other questions, concerns, or any move to call this up? I'm looking everywhere, I don't see any. Okay, on we go to the next item. We appreciate, the staff that came, Anyway, appreciate your presence tonight and answering, those questions. Item 4B is a call-up, a final plat for the 3300 Penrose place project, including the elimination of an existing parcel line and a dedication of easements on the 4.75-acre property at 3300 Penrose Place.

[12:09] This approval is subject to call-up on or before March 10th, 2026. Any questions about this final plat? Okay. Great. That is also not called up, and we're moving on. We move on to… are, public hearing item of the evening, agenda item… 5A. I'm going to read the title, and then we'll talk about it for just a second. This is a public hearing and consideration of a site review to redevelop the site at 1128th Street and 2895 East College Avenue into a mixed-use student housing development with 149 units in 3 buildings, reviewed under case number LUR

[13:03] 2025-00037. So, the way this will go is, We will have an initial presentation from staff that Shannon will, give us tonight. We'll have clarifying questions from the board to staff. And I believe staff's presentation is going to be about 15 minutes. Then we'll have a presentation from the applicant, also 15 minutes, followed by clarifying questions for the applicant from the board. We'll then go to a public hearing, where any member of the public can speak for up to 3 minutes, on this agenda item. And then finally, we'll close the public hearing, and the board will, deliberate and eventually make a motion. So, having said all that, Am I mis…

[14:01] Did I miss something, Yashauna? Thank you for allowing me to interrupt, Chair. I was going to bring to your attention the need to inquire about. the board's, Conflict of interest, and ex parte communications. Thank you. If I remember to do a roll call, then I forget that, whatever. So I'm… anyway, I always need a little reminder somewhere along the way, so… Does any board member have, any conflict of interest, or potentially perceived conflict of interest, or ex parte communications, on this particular application? Okay, George, I can't see you, but I'm assuming you're a no. That's right, no. Thank you. Okay, alright, now back… Deshauna, thank you, and, Shannon, back to you. All right, good evening, Board. I'm Shannon Moeller with the City of Boulder Planning Department, and I'll take you through the staff.

[15:03] presentation tonight. So we'll take a look at the planning process to date, the site and surrounding context, summary of the project, some key issues, and conclude with the staff recommendation. So Planning Board discussed a concept plan review for this item in January 2025, and provided helpful feedback. Since that review, the proposal was updated to bring the property at 2895 East College Avenue into the proposal boundaries, and to incorporate feedback shared by the board. The concept plan review was not called up by City Council at the time, but Council did refer the item to the Design Advisory Board, where it was discussed in August, and DAB's feedback was then also incorporated into the proposal tonight. So, a decision on the site review is the next step for this proposal.

[16:00] So again, the board is considering a site review under the criteria in 9214H. A site review is required based on the size of the property, and because modifications are being proposed, which include height, the number of stories, and a setback modification. The proposal requires a decision by the planning board because of the proposed height modification, and because it is requesting vested rights. The site was posted, and public notification provided per code. Some public comments were received on this item, which included concerns with parking, traffic, and the proposed building massing and design, and those written public comments were included in the packet. So, moving to the site and surroundings, it's located just southeast of the intersection of 28th and Colorado, and just north of College. It's along the 28th Street Frontage Road, and is about 1.96 acres. The… ugh…

[17:04] 1128th Street property includes 51 apartments, the Boba's Market and Grill, and the Boulder Property Management Office, and the 2895 East College Avenue property includes the Bruce Blue Spruce Apartments, a 36-unit condo property. And these buildings are mostly two stories in height, with sloped roof forms, and here you can see there's, surface parking located along the multiple frontages, with multiple vehicle access points. The university main campus is just to the west of this property, and it's accessible via the pedestrian underpass just to the west. And the areas to the south and southeast are largely developed as housing for university students. To the south, along the frontage road, are several properties, such as the landmark lofts, on this slide that were redeveloped following rezoning of this area to RH3. And north of the site, across Colorado, there are some office buildings, as well as single-family homes further to the east.

[18:11] The site is located along several major transportation corridors, where the city has made investments toward alternate modes of transportation. This continues to be a focus for this area, guided by the City's Transportation Master Plan, and by the 28th Street Frontage Road Transportation Network Plan. As can be seen on this slide, the planned improvements adjacent to the property have been implemented, such as the existing multi-use path and bike lane along Colorado. And an on-street bike lane in 28th Street. The site's walking distance to several bus stops and routes, and is served by the Buff Bus, with a recently updated stop along the property on Colorado. The VVCP land use designation for this property is High Density residential, which is generally located close to the university, planned for transit-oriented redevelopment.

[19:08] Near major corridors and services. It's intended for attached residential uses and complementary uses, and it's planned for higher densities, more than 14 units per acre. The property and the adjacent properties to the south are zoned Residential High 3, RH3. This zone was created in 2004 to implement strategies at the culmination of the jobs population study for higher densities, next to the university. The intent was to provide redevelopment opportunities for areas in the process of changing to high-density residential uses. and to allow for limited pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail uses. So, residential uses, like attached dwelling units, are allowed by right, as well as complementary non-residential uses, such as restaurants and convenience retail.

[20:03] So moving to tonight's proposal, this is a proposed redevelopment of the site as a mixed-use, student-oriented housing development with 149 units in 3 buildings. There's one level of underground parking, and 5 levels of mostly residential space above, organized around central open spaces. The first level also includes some non-residential uses in the westernmost buildings, such as a cafe at the northwest corner, and a restaurant and market, for bovas at the southwest corner. Access and circulation would be, significantly updated with the proposal. Vehicular access would be limited to one entrance to the underground parking garage from College Avenue alongside the trash and recycling area, and this would significantly reduce vehicle access points and surface parking. There would be pedestrian and multimodal circulation improvements and enhancements throughout the site.

[21:02] Including updates to Colorado Avenue, with updates to the multi-use path, the protected bike lane, and new street trees. The existing bus stop there would be retained, and a new B-cycle station in Lime Grove. E-scooter parking would be added near the bus stop. There would be updates to the 28th Street Frontage Road and Colorado Avenue to provide detached sidewalks and street trees, on-street parking, a relocated bus stop along 28th, as well as loading zones for food, delivery vehicles, and pickups and drop-offs. And a proposed north-south pedestrian route is proposed between buildings B and C to provide access from the neighborhood to the south up to the bus stop along Colorado Avenue. In terms of vehicle parking, there's no longer a minimum vehicle parking requirement for any uses on the site, but the proposal provides for 134 spaces in the underground parking garage designed to serve the residents, and the small ground floor commercial uses are designed to use on-street parking along the perimeter of the property.

[22:10] The proposal exceeds the minimum bike parking requirements, as listed on this slide, and provide bike racks near building entries throughout the site, as well as internal bike parking rooms with a mix of horizontal and vertical bike storage, bike maintenance stations, and e-bike charging. And the applicant's TDM plan includes additional measures to encourage alternate modes, including those listed on this slide, like the infrastructure improvements we talked about, micro-mobility enhancements, the relocated bus stop along the frontage road. The bike parking and bike amenities, as well as eco-passes for residents and employees of the property. In terms of open space, the proposal provides a mix of usable open space areas, including the outdoor gathering spaces, outdoor seating for the ground-level commercial uses, a rooftop amenity deck, and private decks and patios for the individual units.

[23:11] There are on-site amenities throughout, like a pool, hot tub, outdoor fitness area, grilling area, and outdoor seating at the gathering spaces throughout. Proposals in the RH3 zoning district are also required to provide an outdoor garden or a landscaped courtyard. that meets certain dimensions and design elements, which are similar to the requirements that also apply to this project, because it's requesting a height bonus. This proposal provides this courtyard area between buildings A and B, And it also provides additional outdoor spaces throughout the site. Overall, this proposal provides 33% of the site area as usable open space, where a minimum of 30% is required. In terms of the building design, this proposal positions the buildings toward the street and provides a strong relationship between the buildings and the public realm.

[24:06] Building floor plates have been refined since the concept plan review to address staff concerns at the time regarding partially submerging the commercial spaces, and these are now provided with entries at grade. The ground-level commercial and amenity spaces have been designed to provide a high degree of transparency and create visual interest. High-quality materials are provided across the site, including 3 colors of brick, fiber cement panels, and metal panels. And the massing and scale of the proposed structures are similar to adjacent buildings, in particular those along the 28th Street frontage road. that have been redeveloped to 55 feet in height in recent years. Variety and relief are provided in the building form with upper-level stepbacks, and feedback from the Design Advisory Board was incorporated into these designs, including material applications, details, and into the massing.

[25:02] As noted earlier, the proposal does include some modifications for height, the number of stories, and a setback modification. The proposal is eligible for and has requested a height modification. It's eligible for a height modification under Criterion 8, which applies to proposals seeking a height bonus for a fourth or fifth story. The bonus floor area in the fourth and fifth floors are assessed additional inclusionary housing fees or impact fees for that bonus floor area, and that's calculated at the time of building permit review. The site review criteria was updated in 2023 to include additional criteria for buildings requesting a height modification. The proposal has been designed to comply with the applicable criteria shown on this slide. Which include requirements for facade links and variations, and for providing open spaces and gathering spaces on the site.

[26:03] So staff found the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, which includes similarly sized and heights of buildings, in particular, along the frontage road. The proposal, again, is requesting that modification for stories up to 5, where a maximum of 3 are otherwise permitted in the zone. The proposed stories vary from 2 to 5 stories across the site, and they meet the requirement in the RH3 zone to provide a maximum of 70% of the third story floor area in the fourth and fifth stories. So this results in providing variation and relief in the number of stories across the site. So staff found the proposed stories compatible with their area, and were supportive of that modification. And the proposal also includes a modification to a north front yard setback to permit a 4-foot setback.

[27:00] along a portion of Building A, seen here, where there's a minimum 10-foot setback requirement by right. Some additional right-of-way, shown in the gray shaded area, will be dedicated to accommodate the multi-use path along Colorado, and this would reduce the distance between the building and the future property line. So, the setback modifications proposed for that small area in the light blue for the corner of Building A. Staff found the proposed modification consistent with the intent of the zoning district to provide buildings close to the street. And it's only necessary due to a technical change to the property line location, so staff was supportive of that modification. Moving to key issues, there was one key issue tonight, which was if the proposal is consistent with the site review criteria. So overall, staff found the proposal to be consistent with those site review criteria, including with the underlying BBCP land use designation of high density residential, and with many policies of the BBCP supporting the mix of land uses, higher density development, providing a high-quality design.

[28:10] and locating infill inappropriate locations. As noted earlier, staff found the requested modifications, met the associated review criteria, and were appropriate for the proposal. So with that, staff recommends, a motion to approve this site review, and happy to answer any questions before turning it over to the applicant team. Great, thank you, Shannon. That was a… Excellent presentation. And, George is first one up tonight with a clarifying question. Thanks, a great presentation. Quick question, this is in regards to the commercial… And the parking in the spaces, so… so I saw the… I saw the… out of the 123, I saw the ADA spaces. How… how, is ADA accommodated for the commercial space?

[29:08] As it relates to parking? Yeah, as it relates to parking. I believe the… ADA is based off the number of provided on-site spaces, so I don't believe there's a requirement for a street space to be ADA, but the applicant may be able to clarify in their response. Right, I guess my question is more as it relates to city code and how the code works relative to the federal mandates around ADA accessibility. So the project is providing parking. How do… how do the… how do the people that need ADA access for parking access the retail facility? And because the project is providing parking, is it required to do so? And if it is required to do so, what is that path of accessibility for those people trying to access it?

[30:17] Yeah, that's a great question. I can try to look that up while we're going through the questions to figure that out, yeah. That'd be great. Thanks. Okay, who's next with questions? Mason? I have a potentially quick one. The new TDM policy… When did that go into effect? Or when did it go into effect? It hasn't gone into effect yet. It'll go in, I believe, April of this year. April of this year. Okay, great. That's actually my only question. Okay. Laura? Thank you, I have a few.

[31:01] Shannon, did I hear you say that the courtyard requirements That are in the. site review criteria, that there are similar criteria for courtyards in RH3 that are mandatory. They're similar, they're not exactly the same, but they're similar. Yeah, and they're mandatory, they're not flexible. Yes, that's my understanding. Thank you. In your comments, you talked about cargo bike spaces and asked about that. How was that resolved? I don't believe there's any specific cargo bike spaces. I believe the applicant chose a different, configuration of the spaces, and I think they could go into a little more detail about… How that went. Okay, I can ask the applicant. Thank you. The Paseo between buildings B and C, is that publicly accessible, or is it gated off in some way? It is publicly accessible, yes. It's not gated off.

[32:02] And is there any signage associated with that Paseo? No, not that I know of. Okay, thank you. And then… Oh, nope, that's it. Thank you. Claudio? I'm gonna continue along on the Paseo, so nice place to end there, Laura. So, yeah, thank you for clarifying that that Paseo is open. Could that Paseo. be closed by the property owner during construction or at a later time? That's a good question. I don't believe there's, a requirement. It's not a… it's not a public access easement, so it's not something that the city can require to be publicly open through, like, an access easement. But I don't believe that there… I think the intent is to meet the… the guidance that Planning Board provided at the concept plan to look at providing, that access through there for the public.

[33:07] Okay, yeah, I'm curious about this because, you know, if we're approving site plans and so on, obviously, if there is restricted access shown on a plan that can be built, should be built, the question is, could something like that be added? Afterwards. And I guess a related question, the TMP actually shows a planned multi-use path connection between College and Colorado to the east of the subject property. And I'm curious if that… if that connection still stays on the books, as it were, even if this Paseo is constructed, is there any intent that this Paseo meets that requirement? No, there's no requirement for this property, and so we wouldn't be… moving it, or anything of that nature. Okay. Great. Bobby, can I just…

[34:02] Yeah, please. Just to wrap that one up with a little bow, so… If this site plan were approved as it is, and if a future property manager did gate off that Paseo, would that be considered to be in conflict with this site plan? Could we prevent that from happening with the site plan as it is? I could try to think that through for a minute. I… I don't know the answer right off the top of my head. Okay, thank you. Can I also colloquy? So, is there a possibility, legally, could we require a public access easement on this Paseo? Is there any kind of structural reason why that would not be allowed, like the fact that there are the bridges or anything like that? My understanding is we cannot require a public access easement because it goes over an underground parking garage, and because we don't show that on the TMP, so it's not…

[35:11] Something that we would typically be able to require, that easement. Even though it's on-site… okay. Thank you. ML? Claudia. Did you have additional? Yeah, no, no, you go, and then we'll… yeah, we'll make a whole nother round here. If I can maybe just add to the last conversation, Brad Mueller, Planning Director. We do want to make sure you don't, conflate situations like a subdivision or a multi-property Or multi-building property, that type of thing, where there can be requirements for, walkability and access and pedestrian access and such, where we could, in some cases.

[36:06] require… that form of public access, but this is not one where we would do that. It's not of the scale or type that would allow us to require that. Great, thank you, Brad. Thank you, thank you for your presentation. I have, a number of just clarifying. things here. I was not at the concept review, but there were a number of questions that I'm not sure have been addressed, so I just want to see where we're at. I'm assuming… The historic review was done. Yes, that's been… that's been completed. No requirements from that perspective? No. Okay. There was also a question about, groundwater issues. Did that get… Resolved, or what's the conclusion about that, given that we're now putting 260% more housing?

[37:01] Then what… what's on there now? Yeah, this has been reviewed during the review process for drainage and utilities, and so they were… That's been going along through the process, so there… there wasn't any additional, like, restrictions or anything of that nature. So there's no outstanding concerns regarding the burden on the groundwater. Okay, the mature trees along college? Are they being retained? Nobody's spoken to that, it doesn't appear. Yeah, that. was looked at, more closely during the site review. The locations of those trees are in conflict with the public sidewalk improvements along college, so that was why we didn't feel that it was possible to keep those, because of the necessity to update the sidewalk and streetscape along college.

[38:03] Okay, let me see… the, open spaces, So one of the criteria requires, southern exposure and sunlight. And the, shadow… drawings. Show them completely in shade in the winter. And mostly in shade in the summer. What was the staff's thinking about complying with that criteria about outdoor space in Sunshine? Yeah, I think the orientation of this, it was not a big concern in terms of providing both the shade and the sun, since it is a north-south oriented space. We felt that the way it was designed met the criteria.

[39:11] So it provided ample exposure to sun. Yeah. ML, could I… That's my last question, go for it. Okay, alright, well, I want to add on, so… The… ML, you ask about, sun and shade. Were you referring to the Paseos and the walkways between A and B and B and C, or were you referring to the. private courtyard within B. All 3 of them. Okay. If we pull up this, the shading, sheet, which was… maybe that's part of the applicant's presentation and not yours, but it showed them they're pretty much in shade 90% of the time, so I was just curious About that requirement, saying we want sun.

[40:00] Showing that they're not innocent. May I ask? Sure. So, Shannon, that requirement for a courtyard that has access to sun, does that apply to all three of the courtyards, or just the one between buildings A and B? Well, there's a general requirement for open space, just generally, to provide shade and sun. in the site review criteria. And then there's the more specific standards in… the requirement for a building that's requesting a height bonus to provide an outdoor courtyard-type space. And I could try to pull up the language for that. I don't have it right in front of me. But I believe it's to provide Southern exposure, or some type of language like that, so… And so that specific piece about the height bonus, and also, I guess, the RH3 just applies to that one courtyard between A and B, but then there's a general requirement on the property

[41:02] that every open space provides sun and shade, or that as a whole, there is open space? Just that there's, as a whole. that there's… it's not all sun, it's not all shade, it's… it's more of a general requirement that they could meet in a variety of ways. Okay, thank you. Okay. Claudia, back to you, if you're ready, and then back to Kurt. Okay, Laura covered my question about open space sun and shades. Thank you again, Laura. I had some questions about the… the Neighborhood Green Street designation for College Avenue, and… was wondering what this project will contribute towards, or how it's going to interact with that vision and designation for College Avenue. Yeah, let me see… My recollection of the neighborhood green street is that there was not any additional infrastructure improvements that this property specifically needed to install to meet that Neighborhood Green Street. The property is,

[42:18] updating and continuing to have the bulb out at the corner of 28th and College, and the Green Street is more intended to just be, like, a slower movement type of street. So the addition of the detached sidewalk and the street trees and the bulbout was really all that transportation staff were looking for to kind of meet the intent of the Green Street. If you take a look at the garage entry and the kind of service area entry. a bit to the east on College there. Is that designed in any way to protect, pedestrian movement, bike movement, etc? Like, is that… is there a raised condition or anything there? Any features?

[43:07] I'm not super familiar with how that is designed. Maybe the applicant can speak more to… If there's anything specific they did around there. Thank you. And then, my last question, if I could, Mark. So, in the review comments and in our packet, there were several rounds of them, back and forth with the applicant. There was a lot of back and forth between staff and the applicant about the design of the rain gardens. And in particular, their suitability for supporting the required street trees. Could you kind of summarize the outcome of that discussion? Because it wasn't clear to me if maybe they solved one problem by creating another. Yeah. Yeah, no, that was… that was dealt with on the last round of review. The applicant, created a different way of incorporating the street trees by providing notches, to provide adequate growing space for the trees and adequate depth for the medium.

[44:05] So that was… that was satisfactorily… satisfactorily resolved, on the last round. Okay, thank you. Kirk? Thanks. I have one question prompted by a statement in the TDM plan, and really it relates to CU, so I apologize if it's not something within your Realm of knowledge. But the TDM plan says every student is offered to pay a transit fee, is offered to pay a transit fee to have access to all local, limited, express, and regional transit services. So, in other words, to get an EcoPass. My understanding had been that everybody… that it was just part of the student fees, and if you wanted an EcoPass, you got an EcoPass, that there was not a…

[45:01] An optional portion, really. Do you know the status of that? And I can ask the applicant, too. That may be a good question for the applicant. Yeah, I'm not sure the status of that. Okay, thank you. Okay, last call for… Clarifying questions for staff. Okay, oh, Laura? Well, just if there's any follow-up on that question of whether the site plan as Britain would prevent future gating. And, and maybe, maybe we follow, circle back on that after the applicant presentation and Q&A. Thank you. Okay. So, now it's the applicants' time for their presentation. So, you guys have 15 minutes, and

[46:01] I want two things, two kind of points of business. That have come up recently. One is, you've got 15 minutes, use your time to get through your presentation, and don't try to answer all the questions you heard that you're anxious to answer. Go ahead, get your presentation done, and We will remember our questions, and we will be asking you them after your presentation. The other thing that I haven't discussed this with the board, but in our last application, the applicant team also used some time in public comment. And so, if you have that as a strategy. I would rather you ask for more time and not have your applicant team speak during, the public comment… the public hearing, okay? So, having said all of that, turn on your mic and get things, squared away, and we will, start a clock when you're all ready.

[47:21] And the button for the mic is just the long one on the unit there. Should light up red. Why not? There we go. There you go. Okay, great. Well, I wanted to start by thanking everybody tonight. My name is Andre Sahaki, and I'm the Development Manager for LV Collective. I also wanted to thank you. all for all your comments during the concept review. I really think that a lot of those comments made their way into this site review and made it far more successful. I also wanted to thank Shannon and the rest of city staff for shepherding us through the process and really being collaborative throughout the whole process.

[48:01] So since the last time you've seen the project, we've expanded the site, as mentioned, to acquire the property adjacent on the east, and that's helped us do a couple things in addressing comments such as connecting north-south, adding more housing units, which helped us raise the retail up to street level. We're also working with the city to vacate that right-of-way and use it as a mobility hub, working with Lime and B-Cycle, sandwiched between the existing bus stop and our cafe. So we are building the cafe and owning and operating that, as we do in a lot of our properties. We're also working with Bovis to bring them back into the space, and help them, during the kind of lapse during the construction. I think that's enough for me, to dive deeper into the planning, we have Danica Powell, and in the design, we have, Mr. Matt Post, and then we have a few more members of our team to help answer detailed questions. Oh, yeah. And I mentioned it before, but this is one of our Daydreamer cafes. We have a few examples here from Athens, Georgia, and in Columbus, Ohio.

[49:11] Great, good evening, Planning Board. It's Danica Powell with Trestle Strateg. strategy group. Appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. We were back in front of you in January of. 25, so it's exciting to be here with our final presentation. Along the way, as Shannon mentioned, we had 5 site review rounds of review with the city, as well as a visit to DAB, which I think helped refine this project and make it a better design. At Concept Plan, I'm just going to quickly summarize the high level of what we heard. We have watched the video many times and took copious notes, and Matt will be going to more detail on the architecture. One of the big things we heard was this connectivity through the site north to south, and so with that additional property that we were able to add on, we were able to actually create a real Paseo that connects more closely to the bus stop.

[50:00] And provides that connectivity. We created more usable open space and courtyards. We were able to… we were really focused on architectural articulation. TDM was a huge topic of discussion at a concept plan, so we've spent a lot of time on that. And we really work to better engage with College Avenue and the underpass. It's a significant, passageway for a lot of people on bikes and walking, so we really wanted to create a nice commercial hub there and, civic experience. One of the big things that, we really heard, both from planning board and staff, was get the commercial spaces up to ground level. It was a really technical, challenge because of the grade change across the site and all the other things we wanted to do. But we were able to do that for both bovas and the, cafe space. On the northwest corner. This letter came in today. It was past the deadline to submit public comment. We did share it with, Shannon, but Bovis.

[51:00] did write a letter of support, you know, being… stating that they do want to come back, they really like this location. They were also displaced once before by the Moxie Hotel redevelopment. They were offered relocation assistance at that time, but this is a great location, it's kind of a food desert here, and so we've, LV has worked out an agreement with them to subsidize the loss of revenue, the The equipment storage and the relocation costs and come back at a rate that is similar so that that displacement doesn't happen and it works for them. Again, we also really heard about breaking up the elevation and really thinking about the north side. We spent a lot of time working on this elevation. You can see on the bottom our current elevation that also shows the additional property and, the distinction between the buildings. This is one of the first projects I've brought through under the new site review criteria, so it was really, You know, interesting to really apply these new criteria and see them in building design process.

[52:04] We also went to the Design Advisory Board and had very specific kind of things we wanted to work on with them, and so we really evaluated the portions… proportions of the entries and awnings. And the storefront, we spent a lot of time on this corner, really thinking about the awnings and the storefront. We talked a lot about materiality and simplifying. And also, really, the stepping and massing on the north and east facades and this awning, along Colorado and the frontage road was… was a point of quite a bit of discussion at DAB. As, has been mentioned, we also submitted a right-of-way vacation. This yellow triangle was super confusing to us when we started the project, so it is a kind of a leftover right-of-way, so we have a vacation application in that's moving forward through the process. We're also dedicating the land. This allowed us also to clean up the property boundary to really, create that mobility hub that you see along Colorado Avenue.

[53:04] We also have a robust TDM plan, with a lot of programmatic elements. As you can see, we are doubling the bike parking requirement, on long-term bike storage. that we're meeting the requirement with horizontal bike parking. That was also a point of discussion of creating as much horizontal bike parking. And we have a dedicated B-cycle spot that they want to put their facilities in, and a lime grove. I'm gonna pass it off to Matt. Thank you, Danica. Matt Post with Oz Architecture. Thank you so much for your time this evening. It's been about 13. months since, last presented, and I think what we're going to just go through more is going to represent really what we see as a vision for the community, the neighborhood, and really just our city in general. It also represents, like, a great partnership. Shannon has been amazing and is kind of guiding us through this process, and then we've looked to really incorporate so much of the feedback that we got from DAB and from this board as well.

[54:03] So we see this project really as a gateway, as a gateway to campus, as well as, really, to the city in this zone. And it's also situated, in this view, you can see specifically, kind of a bookend among these high-density residential developments across from campus, with this really amazing connectivity through pedestrian and bike access. So, looking… zooming in a bit to the building, and this view is meant to represent, kind of, that distribution of that 70-30 kind of split, and how we are looking to bring density to the area, situating the majority of the mass to the north, where there's the high traffic. Louder Colorado Avenue, and then stepping down towards the south. And then strategically, as we worked with the board and Shannon and Dab to articulate the north side as well, which I think has come up and we'll look at again, and seeing how we can strategically articulate Components of the building to really add interest to the overall form, as well as bring it to that human scale.

[55:06] So, connecting to the, the, underground, underpass, excuse me, along 28th was paramount, and seeing how, really, that Building A can become this active component to the overall development, and seeing, on the north side, that main entry, component here, and then, the Daydreamer Cafe, as Andre highlighted. And then, of course, bovas. So, really bringing that entry up to grade, looking at the corner component as the prime visual access as we traverse underneath the underpass, and then providing a, you know, highly exposed patio for bovas to utilize as a public component, and you can kind of see Overlooking that to the private courtyard beyond that is secure for residents. So zooming into that, you can start to see kind of the distribution of the overall access points, inclusive of that north-south connection, where we see kind of a canyon that opens up into an open.

[56:06] courtyard that allows for kind of a surprise moment as you head north towards that great connectivity. So we're taking the block and really splitting it up, so it's not just the entire development, but really that connection becomes crucial as we move to… Really break up this overall, length of the buildings. So again, kind of raising up, just to really demonstrate, the action, the activity that's happening along the perimeter. So that multimodal path, being a real driver of, connection along the Colorado, where we have removed several curb cuts and allowed for that seamless activity to occur there from a pedestrian and bike perspective. And then. along the 28th Street frontage, navigating about a 5-foot grade change, we're still able to bring, to grade both of those connection points for the lobby, and then for the entry point for Bovas.

[57:05] So looking at that north elevation, we've really looked to carve out the corners, utilize material transitions and the depths of the balcony recesses to define these individual massing components, utilizing the corner as really an iconic moment that you'll see from, the vantage point of the intersection at Colorado and College… or, excuse me, Colorado and 28th. And then, as has been outlined, strictly adhering to the criteria required, so, demonstrating, kind of, the compliance through a series of diagrams that define, really, this dominant material at an iconic corner, utilizing these, these breaks and In depth, allow us to really articulate the building in an intentional and thoughtful way. And what we'll do now is kind of walk along the perimeter of the building, so starting at that northwest corner, seeing that main entry, and really turning what was just a public sidewalk into a real opportunity to have gathering space.

[58:07] Utilizing open space all around the perimeter, as highlighted earlier in Shannon's presentation, to see areas of gathering, because that pedestrian access is on the north side with the multimodal access. So that Daydreamer Cafe, is situated at the base on the northeast side of Building A, and really begins to engage, both from a transparency perspective, as well as the opportunity to spill out into some usable open space adjacent to that, that transit hub that we have here to the left. So, zooming into the building, kind of looking at those stepbacks, and then also some of the articulation that we are focused on in defining different roof components, breaks in the building that extend from the ground to ceiling, as well as defining, based on some of Dab's comments, a base that's a 2-3 ratio, where we're looking at really defining an upper-level Almost penthouse kind of look in differentiating itself from the adjacent material treatments.

[59:07] So I'll look back to, to where we see the Daydreamer Cafe Beyond, that mobile hub here, with a lot of gathering opportunity, and then utilizing kind of that focal point as an opportunity to carve out, bits of that north elevation. And as we head farther east, seeing just the activity here along the multimodal path, and then the transition between two buildings, where we're defining different, facade treatments in order to define those… that as an entry point, for that north-south connection that you'll see here. And then looking to the east elevation, so really stepping the mass on both sides of this building, Building C, where we're looking to that neighborhood scale to the left, and then also just articulating that entry sequence as we see this as I mentioned previously, as a gateway, and so seeing how that can be, kind of cascading up towards the higher density that we have articulated to the north elevation.

[60:09] So, looking at the south, in contrast, where we do have, kind of, that three-story component, utilizing these breaks in the building to, incorporate open space for Bobas, for instance, and then that multi, access, excuse me, that access path, between the two buildings on the right, and then the… really bring a lot of transparency and visual connection to the Bovas, retail space here on the left. And this kind of gives you a little sense of what we anticipate this to look like, that connection between that north and south, between buildings B and C, and where we can provide that access for the public to the, the links that exist on that north side. Kind of rotating a bit to the left, looking towards campus, the underpass here in the distance, and then the Bovis Cafe, with a door exiting out onto the patio, and then seating opportunities there along the south elevation.

[61:08] And so a view kind of coming up just to get a better sense of what's happening, where we have tables, a lot of activity, and then that access point from, from grade, and then we do have, you know, we're navigating a bit of grade change, so there'll be a step up here, but you'll be able to come onto this patio from elevation to the left at the main entry point. And then incorporating rain gardens in a way that they become buffers so that they provide almost an amenity for both the patio as well as the residents beyond, giving extra privacy. And then coming, finally to the corner. We've got one minute, so… And I'm right there. Thank you. So really, you know, coming to the corner, seeing this as a bookend, as a scaled, development that is in kind of sequence with what we're seeing. It's a gateway, an iconic corner that we're seeing here.

[62:03] And really, it's bringing the density that is needed for this area. So we really see this as in alignment with the needs of the community, the city, and the neighborhood, and it's been, you know, developed through partnership with this group, DAB, and to the city group. So, thank you so much for your time. Great, thank you for your presentation. Okay, we are now, into the clarifying questions phase for the applicant, and We ask a lot of questions, some of which are going to carry over into this, and I'm sure we have some more. Who's ready with their… Questions. Laura? Thank you so much for the presentation, very informative. Cargo bikes. What is your thinking on cargo bikes, if students have them? If your residents have them?

[63:00] That's a great question. We… that was, like, we knew that was going to be the bingo question of the night. When we submitted, the code was different for bike parking, and so we were evaluating that right before we got here, and I think we can add cargo bikes. That seems feasible. I'm not sure how many students use them, but we are able to accommodate cargo bikes, I think, per the requirement of the current code. So, like, a percentage of our bike parking could be for cargo bikes, if that makes sense. Great, thank you. Yeah. And we'll have to talk about how we would include that in a motion, but it's good to know that that can be… submitted before the bike parking code changed, so… Yeah, well, I appreciate your flexibility to thinking about it, because I do think there may be some students that want to, you know, do their grocery shopping with a bike, and they want more than one bag at a time, so… The Paseo, you know, you talked about having wayfinding signage on the property, and I wasn't exactly clear where that would be, but did you consider having wayfinding signage for the Paseo? To say, you know, this way to college, this way to,

[64:05] The underpass. Colorado. Yeah. This way to the underpass, yeah. It's interesting because you're not really allowed to show signage in site review, so you kind of are not… you don't show the signs, so I think that's something we would be definitely open to. It's just we can't… we don't show signs on our site plans. Yeah, hi, my name is Brittany Sanders. I, lead entitlements for LVA. So, LV. specifically, we have an in-house design studio, that works hand-in-hand with Oz, our architect, that would absolutely develop a very intentional signage and wayfinding program. I think it's both in the best interest of the pedestrians that don't live in the building, that need to make their way through there, and also our students, our residents as well. So that's an opportunity we would welcome. And if that's something that we could work with staff, if that's a requirement, we are very happy to do that. Great, thank you so much.

[65:02] I did have a question about the roof forms. In the packet, it talks about the south elevation of Building B as having different roof forms, and I wasn't quite sure what you folks were talking about with that, because they all look kind of flat to me. So what is the different roof forms on the south elevation of Building B. Sure. I could bring something up if you'd like, but I… what the intention was, is to define… and maybe I will bring that up so we can see it. So looking at this south elevation, what the intention was is to define a different treatment. So we have, on the left side, this is Building B, and it extends from this, gray wall here to the brick on the other side. So the intent is to define, the treatment of, essentially, the parapet and the

[66:00] as different components, so distinguishing what's happening on the left and the right. Okay, thank you, and I don't know that this is make or break for me, but maybe it's just a point to talk about with staff, about whether staff considers parapets, or caps, or different kinds of decorations along the roofline to be a different roof form. Maybe I have a different definition of roof form. But thank you for that. I did want to ask about, along 28th, it looked like some of the amenity space was underground? Am I reading that right? There's… there's not underground space, it opens up to the courtyard. Is that along… you're saying along 28th? Along 28th Street. Right, so we do have a transition of the lobby that, becomes somewhat below grade, but not fully. There are windows that access that space, but in order to get the connectivity that was required for the lobby to grade, we did have to navigate that transition.

[67:00] Okay, so it's not, like, in the garage that you have amenities. No. Okay, alright. I'm glad I read that wrong. Thank you. there is some program in the ba… sorry, just to be clear, there is some program in the basement, but the lobby space typically… well, the lobby space is in that space that we just described, with windows that face E… face west, and then spills out into the courtyard, but we do have some program in the basement, correct? What is the program that's in the basement? So right now, we have, like, weightlifting, and it connects through, kind of, a Clara story, to, kind of, the ground level that overlooks, so functions like that, or, package, mail, things like that are located in the basement to save space on the ground floor. Okay. Alright. But it's not, like, in the garage. No, no. Holy Conditioned space. All right, thank you. I'm not an architect, so I'm not the best at reading plans. And then I do have one more question, if that's okay?

[68:03] Do you have any… oh, actually, I have two, if that's okay. Do you have any, images of the other two courtyards? Maybe I missed that in the packet. Illustrations, rather than planes. Just of what we have in that, passage space, both on the north and the south. So there's, like, the one that's in the center of Building B, and there's one that's off of the Paseo. Oh, yeah. This is still… yeah. I do have… This is still the… Courtyard A, but we have another image of it here. This is the… between buildings A and B, so I think you are asking for the other two, but this is another view of it, of the… between A and B, so I do not have the other views in this packet. Okay. Could you perhaps, if I could be indulged, could you perhaps describe to us what is in those courtyards? It was a little hard to tell.

[69:02] It's funny, I'm… one of my questions was. what is it like, and how do you access, especially the center courtyard in B? In Building B. And how do you, more pointedly, how do you keep that from becoming just kind of a windblown, leafy. desolate little… cold spot. Yes, I'm checking. Sorry, I'm trying to… get you to the other courtyard for a second. I do have a model that I can share here, just to… It's not showing your screen. Yeah, I'm just trying to get to the… can I ask… Can I ask a question about, since we have this image up, this is at the same grade as Colorado, or is there… are there also steps on the Colorado side? On the Colorado side, there are… is a ramp leading down to this space. Oh, it leads down from Colorado. Correct. To get a full height that we're looking to achieve below where Bovis comes in at great. Yeah, okay, great, thank you.

[70:09] Did you have something? Yeah, while you pull that up, I do want to speak through, through this. I'm sorry, you would need to speak into the mic so it's on the recording, but thank you. Is that better? While he pulls up that image, this courtyard condition is something that we have absolutely done across the country, and I think the animation that you'll see here We have spent a lot of time when it comes to a balance of both landscaping, hardscape space, and how you actually program that. And we've been very intentional about how we go about including our outdoor space. We find that people like to gather in smaller spaces, not large spaces. Smaller spaces where they still have ample opportunity to kind of meet in groups of two or three. And then in centralized spaces, so that's why we've focused all of our outdoor spaces in really four distinct areas. You've got the rooftop space capturing the mountain views, and that's really, of course, where you're going to get all your sun.

[71:08] And light that's coming in. And then the space that's off of the workout room. serves both as a secondary opportunity for that light space, but it also allows additional programming off of the fitness space. I think that's what Andre was trying to get to. So that's really a multi-purpose space for events that our property management team, we manage our own properties. We will throw, it's also, multi-purpose as it relates to sports and fitness. And then the smaller area is more of that quiet study. space, right? That's where you want to go when you just want some fresh air, and you don't necessarily want to be on your balcony, but you still want to be amongst others, right? Maybe it's early morning, maybe you don't want to walk past the… beyond the property, and you just kind of want to be outside. That's really what that space is… is for. And then what I really like about the third space, which I believe is what we're looking at here with… with Building C, I think it serves

[72:06] two purposes, both in terms of creating that sense of relief from your Paseo that's connecting through there, so that it's not… it doesn't feel like an alley. Essentially, for the public that's, transgressing through there, then also creates just one more moment of outdoor connection, really, with more opportunity for light than you're going to see in that smaller, kind of four-sided courtyard. And so this is the one that's by Building C off of the Paseo. Correct. And there's no… no seating? Yes, there will absolutely be seating. Yeah, okay, there will be… There will be seating, okay. modeled in here. It's really crafted for the views that you saw, so… Okay, so all three courtyards include seating? Yes. Okay, alright. You got one more? For the record, ML wants the colloquy on the courtyards, I think. Okay, yep.

[73:01] So just to clarify, There are 3 courtyards. And… or maybe… and then the roof. The question I have is regards to the, requirements. for height modification. So, I am looking at the open space. Requirement under that. And, which of those… all of those spaces are you identifying as the open space that this one is referring to? Because it's got some specific requirements that I want to talk about. Okay. Is it that big, long one? Sandy on the floor. Yes, so it is… the courtyard that is… is the courtyard that we're utilizing for the height requirements is between A and B. Which is the long one that you can see from the bova's patio. Okay, so there were. Requirements, then, for that. Open space Are that it has southern exposure and sunlight.

[74:03] And the second one is that it's visible from an adjoining public sidewalk ground level. And it's not elevated above the building's first story. So, can you talk about both of those? Because it looks like the sun exposure is not… You don't have the sunlight. And I'm not sure what the view would be from the adjoining public sidewalk, because I think it's not at the same grade? I'm just gonna run to the, landscape plan, cool reference. Sandy Gibson is on the call. Sorry.

[75:06] Okay, I think I'm on. Am I? Yes. Okay, First off, Shannon, great review, thank you very much for that, and these are important questions to ask about these courtyards. So. Can you introduce yourself, Sandra? Oh, sorry, Sandy Gibson, landscape architect, outside LA. Yes, this main courtyard between buildings A and B, meets the requirements of the length by width. That I think you're asking about? No, what I… oh… I'm asking about the requirement of, The southern exposure and sunlight, and the space visibility from the adjoining public sidewalk. Okay, so, that courtyard, the main courtyard between A and B is very viewable from Colorado Avenue. It's only about a foot, maybe a foot and a third below that, sidewalk, so it's…

[76:13] you can definitely see in there. From the south side, if you were up on the bova's patio, you can definitely look in there, and overview that whole courtyard. Obviously… I'm sorry, did you… maybe I misunderstood, but did you mean to say college or Colorado? The wide entrance is on college. Correct, and that's a… that's a raised patio over the courtyard, but from Colorado Avenue, the courtyard is only down about a foot, 1.3 feet. It's not… really depressed. There's a ramp on the side there and a few steps just past the cafe doors. Cool. They get you down there. Can you pull up the shadow analysis, and we can see what kind of sunlight we have in there?

[77:07] Matt, that would go to you. Yes, I've got that. Thank you. So, we have, the summer… Solar analysis on the top of the page and the north, or the winter on the bottom of the page. am I looking at this correctly? Is this gonna be in significant, shade… Most of the winter. And some of the summer, You're talking about the main courtyard here? The one that was… That is being considered for the open space, yeah. So, if you can see the line here, is in the… this is the winter midday, there's the… the shadow line where my mouse is here. And then, towards both those extremes on the… on the morning and evening, yes, it will be, more shaded, just…

[78:10] Are these at specific… there's a lot of little type up there. Are these at specific times? Yes, so 10 a.m. on the left, noon in the center, and 2PM on the right. Thank you. And… Can you describe the same way you did for winter this summer? Or, sorry, everything of the three on the bottom are representing the winter, and the three on the top are representing the summer, again, 10 a.m, noon, and 2 p.m. Right. And so, really, the focus for that courtyard, seeing where we see, you know, even at 2PM, we've got an amount of sunlight on the The, east side of it. Correspondingly on the west side, in the morning hours, and then full exposure, for sure, in the midday.

[79:02] Thank you for that. Yeah, okay. Okay, thank you. And my last question, I did see the rooftop deck, thank you, that looks like a very nice amenity. You have a lot of other, roofs, because of that 70% massing requirement, that don't appear to have decks or green roofs or anything on them. Did you consider doing something with those other rooftops? solar is definitely a focus, so as we head into the next phase, we're going to be utilizing as much as we can for solar, this being an electric building. The other is really prioritizing the views, both to the mountains, to campus, and that corner element. And really, that Building A, as mentioned, is really our public building, where we have amenities, we have, the two commercial components, and really focusing the amenity on that gives privacy to the residents that are on those upper levels of the subsequent buildings B and C.

[80:02] Thank you, and did you consider the idea of green rooftops, planting some things up there to help with urban heat island effect and aesthetics? We have. It's something that, right now, our priority is absolutely meeting solar. So if it's to be determined after we don't meet solar, that another… I don't want to say use, but another treatment like that is, a possibility. That's something that we would absolutely consider. Okay, thank you. Okay, Kurt? Thanks. I had the question about the, statement from the TDM plan that says that not all students get Eco Passes, at least automatically, it's not included in their fees. I'm just trying to ensure that somehow all of the residents end up with EcoPasses, at least for the next 3 years, and without paying extra. So, do you know…

[81:03] Yes, I was researching that. I think… and I actually see you, Boulder's, I think, changed their… their rules. It used to be, like, a fee that was, like, opt-in, and now it's included, and you have to get a waiver to opt out, and there's 5 very specific criteria, like, you don't live in an RTD district, you're… already have an RTD pass. I think there's 3 others. I can share the link, but I think that changed, between when we submitted and now, so it's very difficult to opt out of the program. It's now just part of the full tuition. Okay. That's what was my understanding, and that's what I was hoping, so… Probably wrote that before that change happened. Yeah. Great, thanks. ML, yet another one. Yeah. Okay, cool. Thank you. Let me see, I have… just some clarifying questions here.

[82:00] I know we don't have any parking requirements, but you are hopefully right-sizing the parking. My question is. Do your parking calculations calculated by the units, or by the actual, residents, i.e. bedrooms? So we look at it both ways, and we recognize the, the fact that there are no parking minimums. We know that this is a very centralized location for multimodal transportation. However, we also recognize that that is a transition, both for the city and the residents of the city and the residents of our building. So, we do still want to provide some amount of parking. So, our team does pretty extensive research both on this market and comparable markets to make sure that we are meeting not only the city's requirements for parking, but what we require to be market. And that looks at both per unit and per bedroom. Ultimately, the decision is per bedroom.

[83:02] We also… one thing… one really cool thing that we… we do, we actually send a swath of people out to the market, and we actually set up a camera all day, and watch how people come and go through the site, and whether it's vehicles, whether it's people. And whether it's bikes, and it is very clear that the mode of transportation here is people and bikes. But you still have those cars for weekend trips, you still have to ski, etc. clarifying the way you provide the right… Of course. Can I… while you, go to your next one, I have a parking… Go for it. while the city has no parking requirements, we do promote unbundled and managed and paid parking, and I assume with the value of parking, you would unbundle and charge. And no bundled parking. Yeah, okay, okay. Alright. So my next two questions are architectural questions. You talked about the, walked us around the building, and kind of talked about the heights and all.

[84:07] am I understanding on the, top floor… Public, or… Outdoor space, open space on the roof. Are those false fronts? Yes, only where the pool is located. So I can… I can pull up that elevation, but there is a unit directly above Bova's that faces over the patio. Right. But on the other side, because of the depth of the pool, we cannot put a unit there, it's only pool equipment. Right? So your key. Keeping the full height, even though you don't need it. Right. Meaning, well, we need it, but that's how it's structured. I guess maybe I'm confused by that question. building behind it, it's just a facade, right? Right, it's a facility. A lot of notes that… that literally… The patio. It encloses the patio. So let me, let me pull up the other. Just to make sure we're looking at the same thing.

[85:01] Wanting to understand How you are articulating the building heights. And that one was… was interesting, because. So, I believe this is what you're talking about, right? Yes, I am. So, the only area where we have a quote-unquote false front is where we have the depth of the pool that doesn't allow for any program other than the, you know, actual pool equipment to be stored within this space, but we are utilizing, you know, both sides here. Okay, so there's buildings behind those. facades up there? There are… Units, units behind here, yes. And so… You… the building… On the, northeast That's where the R1 district is. Can you talk about what the building heights are? Yes, this is, approximately 36 feet.

[86:00] At these, at these corners, and then we go up to the 55 max at the parapets as, you know, as required, as limited, essentially. So, for just this length is the 55, where we're down around 36 is, you know, the majority of that, east elevation. Okay. And then my last question… And I could be confused, maybe staff needs to speak about this, but balconies. My understanding in looking at the site criteria is that balconies need to be integrated into the form of the building. Did that criteria go away? Under Building Design. V. So… Oh. May I answer that? Yes. So, we do look at these as integrated balconies, so what we see as, they're essentially split. 50-50 into the facade. There's a series of three balconies here. These are also engaged, they're not tacked on. It's engaged into the building, which we see as integrated into the building.

[87:08] Do you have a closer detail? Yeah, let me second. integrated… Yeah, so, for instance, these corners… Yes. But I'm talking more about the ones that look like they're just, Projecting away from the building. Sure. So, here's a plan view that kind of captures each balcony is recessed, into the facade. So there's some percentage of it that's in the building, the rest of it is… Yes. And… and staff, is that considered integrated? Yes. Yeah. Great. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. I just wanted to clarify that the zoning, I think, to the east of us is RH5. I think you… Set R01. to the north… oh, to the north, there's some R01, on a… about half of the north side across Colorado. Okay, thank you for that.

[88:10] Oh, Mason. Yeah. So, I believe there was… there was a staff comment about how the SkyBridge might… make the buildings considered as not separate from each other? Was that resolved? I didn't see that mission anywhere else, so I assume it is, I just wanted to… solved. Yeah, that was an error, so they're separate, yeah. No big deal. I also saw a discussion, and this is kind of getting to a little bit what Claudia was asking about earlier. That there was potential conflict between bikes and vehicles. Entering the garage. How is that being addressed in these plans? We have… So there's several ways to access the bike rooms. One is right along 28th, and let me pull something up here.

[89:07] Yeah, into the garage specifically, yes, thank you. Right. Sorry. I understand the question. And I'll bring Cassie up. I mean, I don't know if we actually looked at specific technology or anything, or raised sidewalks, So I don't know if that's your question of how to alert… Pedestrians that a car's coming out of the garage? Is that… Yeah. Your question? Well, Joe. Both of your questions. I'm sorry. Yeah, if there was, like, I could see that being one way to address it. I just… there's also, I'm sure, many A number of ways to address it. Yeah, cool. Cassie Slade with Fox Tuttle Transportation Group. Great question. So, we worked. hard on that design, knowing that they're, you know, we don't want anyone. kind of weaving in and out on that ramp. So on the east side of that ramp, there's gonna be a 6.5 foot bike lane that's gonna be striped, it's gonna be green, it's gonna be separate from where cars are allowed to go. And then they will be led to the bike room.

[90:05] To be able to park in, and we're gonna be putting in mirrors to make sure that everyone can have visibility of each other. Okay, great. Thank you. And then I only have one more question, and that was about the vesting. For what time period? And for… for what purpose? Can we just get a little more detail on the vesting being requested? Yeah, there wasn't, a longer time period, so it's just the 3 years. Okay, so, nothing obvious. ordinary. No. Okay. Cool. Great. Thank you, Mason. George, if you're ready. George, just so you know, you're… we're… Sorry, sorry, sorry. It was around, my previous question at the front end of this, which was, vehicular handicap access for the commercial space, the lobby, etc.

[91:07] Maybe you can explain how you've, set that up. Yeah, I'm happy to take that. So, Shannon was exactly right. So, all the parking in the basement is for residents, and so those, accessible parking spaces serve as residents. All the commercial would be, there is no, dedicated commercial spaces to to drive to the site, other than, street… on-street parking. So that's not controlled, by… by us. However, is there any on-street parking that is, ADA compliant, handicap accessible, on the street, now or planned? I think we could work with staff to integrate a detail. I think it would have to potentially replace some of the green stripe along the street to… I think we'd have to look through details and see how to figure that out.

[92:04] I think currently all of, you know, all of the cars, are kind of 6 inches, you know, off curb on the street, and I don't think that there's currently a ramp onto the sidewalk, but I'm sure that we can work on a detail during the technical document process. Okay. Yeah, that's helpful, yeah, because I'm seeing things like loading zones and other things that you have, but I just didn't see that called out. And then… George, I don't know if you can see, we have one other person standing here at the podium. Introduce yourself again, and, yeah. Cody Gratney, JVA Civil Engineer. One thing to note is that the street is actually exceeding ADA slopes on… on 28th Street frontage, so we wouldn't really have the ability to do any. the ADA parking on that side. I think we could work with staff to identify if there's a good place along College. ADA parking is really difficult in a public right-of-way, as you can imagine with,

[93:09] access only on the pedestrian side of your car. If you're, able-bodied, that's great, but if you're not able-bodied and you're operating your vehicle, it's really difficult to get out of your vehicle if it's on your pedestrian side, so I think there's some things to… Think through. There are ways to do it, it's just not as accessible as a flat in the parking garage kind of access, though. Yeah, I appreciate that, thanks. I'll get that in comments, too, but thank you, I appreciate it for the clarity. Okay, I'm gonna ask a question. In your statement, early on in your statement, it was stated that the building is… is all electric, I got that. And then it says the building is 100% fossil fuel free.

[94:03] And I'm just wondering, is that kind of a misstatement, or is that a goal, or is that an actual plan? Because there's a lot of electricity that is produced from… fossil fuels. Yes. Do you remember where we said, or you saw that? you know, so, as I moved the packet over to my laptop, it was in the first couple pages of your, your statement, which is the second… the second PDF we received. Okay. Go ahead. And I'm not trying to go with a gotcha question or anything, but it was just kind of like. Did they really mean to say that? I think the intent is on-site usage of fossil fuels. The means in which that electricity is provided is outside of our control, but the only reasons we would have gas serviced is the fossil fuel that we would use, is to service the kitchen at Bovis, commercial usage. And then potentially a generator, for backup power.

[95:03] Okay, but in that case, do you have a generator for backup power, and does bova's… will bovas be all electric, or will Bovas have gas? Bovas will need gas. Okay. Those kind of fryer operations, commercial kitchens, need those, and there is a variance allowed in Boulder for that. And then we do have a generator located on site, an area for one. It's at the very south, east corner. Okay? And… Yeah, I think that's… that's all for me. Any follow-on or final questions? Kurt. Hi, did you need to say something? No, I was gonna ask. him a question if we… but go ahead. Okay, I had a couple… additional questions about the ramp down to the garage. So, there's really… there's a couple of, bike-ped interaction issues there. One is where the access to that ramp crosses

[96:11] the sidewalk along College, right? And so I think maybe the original question was, will that crossing be raised? In other words, the sidewalk will stay at the same level. Okay, great. Yep. And then the second… Yes. Yes. That's what I understood the question to be. Yeah. Yeah, great. And then the second question is about the actual ramp and the… sort of bike lanes along there. So, on my screen, I tried to measure that ramp, and it came out to me to be maybe 26 feet? From edge to edge, right, which is… pretty wide. And then, on the diagram, on the multi-use, or the traffic flow diagram, it actually showed, sort of, a shared space for the down, so both cars going down, potentially.

[97:05] crossing into the bike lane as if it was an advisory bike lane kind of a design. Is that what's intended, or is it intended to be more of a hard separation to say. The cars are gonna stay out of that bike lane, that 6.5 foot bike lane area. Yeah, and I think Cassie spoke to this a little bit. We have 26 feet wide, and so we're… really, in the city of Boulder, you only need 18 feet wide for two-way traffic, so our thought is that we have at least 6.5 feet for the bikes to be on the right-hand side, I think is the right side… going down, and so I think that's what we're intending, is that space would be striped out independently of the cars. They don't need that space, that would be specifically for the bikes themselves.

[98:01] Okay, and the separation at this point is just straight. It's just striping, similar to what you'd have on a street where you have a, you know, striped bike lane. Okay, thank you. Okay, last call? Oh, okay. I just was wondering if we could provide a clarification on a question you asked earlier about the creating public access through the Paseo. One of the… There's very many complicating issues, but one of them is there's a parking garage underneath, and it's… you can't put public access easements, that would be an encroachment, over… so we can't do that, and it's a… it's a very technical issue, and there's also issues of… just, you know, having a public access easement. We might have balconies, like, so it creates all these encroachment issues that we weren't… planning on. I think the intention was for this to be ungated and open to the community, so I just wanted to clarify that putting a public access easement would create probably a…

[99:03] Cascading waterfall of other issues that, if you want, we can get into, but… Is that right? Okay. Great, thank you. Sure. And Mel? Can we look at the elevation… 28th Street elevation? and I'm looking at this… In regards to the criteria about building form and massing, the building length. So that, facade along 28th Street. how… Long is that? Let me jump to… the elevations here. Cool. So this is a 200-foot, approximately. elevation overall, and we've defined.

[100:04] Kind of a distinctive transition of materials. at the midway point, where we have this, essentially a two-plus story mass… Got it. Transitioning to that 5. Okay, so that… that, with the patio, public space on the top, that's a shorter building, and then the rest of the building is the five stories. Yes. And that breaks up that… Yes, correct. I just wasn't quite sure… Sure. …about the materials on it. Thank you for… for putting that up, thanks. Absolutely. Okay. Alright, we're going to… stop here, and we are going to, open the public hearing. So my suggestion is we do the public hearing, close that, that'll put us right at about 2 hours, we'll take a quick little break, and then we'll deliberate. Okay, so we'll, go to the public hearing, and I think Thomas is gonna help us with that.

[101:05] Thank you, Chair, and we have nobody registered in the room to speak, but if there's anybody here who would like to speak to the public hearing, this is your opportunity. Otherwise, we're gonna move to online participants, and… If you're joining us online and would like to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand. on Zoom… And we will start calling on you. I'm seeing nobody signed up in person, so we're gonna move to online. Our first speaker is Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes to speak. Please go ahead. First of all, I didn't notice there was any, discussion about the contralateral corner, diagonally, which is up to a 7-story CU facility, going the whole block up to the football stadium. It's on the… north side of Colorado.

[102:04] from Hillel. To the football stadium. That's a lot of housing. And one thing that I'd really like to hear from now on in these projects is what's a unit and what's a bedroom, because CU is going to, like, the millennium, went from 256 hotel rooms to 930… Rent by the bedrooms. there's a lot more impact of 900 people than there is to a couple hundred people, and so it's hard for folks to understand the impact on the population of Boulder without knowing the bodies involved versus The beds, or sometimes if you have two people per bedroom, then that gets to be an issue, too.

[103:01] But I don't see anything, any reason here. It's a beautiful design. But it just needs to be shrunken down to the limit of 40 feet, and that means… I love your articulations and everything, just shrink the whole thing down to what the city requires. And how can our staff Boulder City staff be promoting these projects after project after project that are going over the limits, which is 40 feet for us. I thought it's 35, but in this project, I guess it's 40 feet. So. Stick it to 40 feet. And as to that open space area on the north side, on Colorado. That's not a problem of there's a, you know, there's some sidewalk amendment there that causes that open space to have to be filled in. No, it's that the building has invaded into the public's realm, and

[104:10] you're asking for a variance. That's not the city that's having to do that, that's you Sticking your building into space that shouldn't be there. So, it's like, great, do these projects, go ahead, you know, we're stuck with it, because it elevates my property value, and it makes life unaffordable for me in Boulder, but no variations, no height amendments. Thank you, Lynn. Thanks for joining us tonight. And I'm seeing no other raised hands online at the moment, but if anybody else would like to speak to the public hearing, this is your opportunity. And I'm still seeing no raised hands, so I'm gonna pass it back to you, Chair.

[105:01] Great, thank you, Thomas. Thank you for the public for participating. Shannon? Oh, no, I'm sorry, it's funny, Lynn's hand is still up, and it was right below your… I was like, are you raising your hand? Okay. How do people feel about a break, and then we'll come back and deliberate? Yes. Okay. Alright, so, it is, 7.45, and we'll come back at 7. 56. Thanks.

[117:02] Welcome back to the… March 3rd Planning Board meeting, we're gonna call this back to order. And, one little piece of business was, we typically, if the applicant wants to respond to anything they heard in the public hearing. We give them a brief moment to do that. If not, Go ahead. Okay, great, thank you. Okay. We, now… move on to board deliberations, and, Shannon, if you could put up… Our key issues, and I'm going to… Propose a… A brief round of commentary, and it seems to be working the way we've done it the last couple times on site reviews, is a brief round of commentary in relation

[118:04] to the, key question, and I will note, it seems as though our key questions have kind of been condensed, and it's like, does it meet the code and the BBCP, where it used to be broken out into several key questions? But it's like, okay, that is the question before us, is, so we have one… Key issue. Yes. Okay. May I jump in first? Yes. I'd just like to note that if we leave the key issues slide up during the board deliberations, the board likely will not be visible in the video recording, so just something… I really appreciate that note, and so, do people have, take a gander at that, take note, 9-2-14H, which is the site review criteria, and, and then we can actually drop that for now, and we'll have a round… again, a quick round of commentary, and then any motions, and any amendments to motions, or proposed conditions, etc. But let's just start with a brief round of commentary. Does anyone

[119:13] have, thoughts, and ready to state them. Okay, Mason, I'm… Laura, I'm gonna look right past you and go to Mason. Mason, you go. So, I just wanted to start by saying that I appreciate how responsive the applicant has been to city feedback, most significantly in bringing the commercial entries to grade, which is essential to creating a vibrant pedestrian experience and positive public realm interface. The accommodations of Bova's market, I think shows… Just a commitment to the community, and… you know, its use as a neighborhood-serving convenience, also reflects the mixed-use intent of the RH3 district, and is consistent with, many of the BBC policies.

[120:04] And I'm just gonna stop there. Okay, You know, I, I, I, I'm gonna go next, and just… just because, Mason, I, I, I, I concur with your comments, and I also appreciate the applicant's While sometimes it's hard to manage 3 50-meg PDF files and everything, the completeness of the application, was really helpful, as well as the, the various views, the illustrations, the amount of work you put into the 3D renderings, from various elevations and angles, makes for the non, design professional makes understanding the, elevations easier. And, so, anyway, I, I appreciate that, and the responsiveness to…

[121:02] R and, DAB's, design concerns. And, so I, I also agree that it is, It supports, 9-2-14, the code, and both that as well as the BBCP. policies. George has his hand up, and then I'm gonna go to Claudia. So, George? Great. Yeah, I'll echo what both you and Mason said, especially around the completeness of the package. I thought it was really impressive, and also the responsiveness. I have two things, that I've kind of written as we've seen this, that I want to share. So I'm going to read off what I've written. It says much to city staff and our board as it is to the applicant. So the first is on the ADA issue, because I've seen this as a recent trend, and I think it's something we should consider. So, since Boulder has eliminated the parking minimums.

[122:02] A project that chooses not to provide parking for commercial uses. may also avoid providing ADA-accessible parking. This creates a clear gap in the current framework. Because ADA accessibility requirements, are triggered when parking is provided, and developments that provide no parking at all can effectively bypass accessible parking requirements for public-facing commercial spaces. The result is that new businesses open to the public may provide no accessible vehicular access for people with disabilities. While the goal of eliminating parking minimums was to provide flexibility and reduce excess parking supply, it should not come at the expense of accessibility. This is not a theoretical issue. It means that someone who relies on accessible parking may simply have no practical way to access a new business. As able-bobied members of the planning board, this may not always be top of mind for us, but it's exactly the type of equity issue we should be attentive to. As the city continues to implement its revised parking framework.

[123:08] we should address this gap directly. If a development includes public-facing commercial uses, the city should ensure that accessible vehicular traffic access is still being provided in some form. Eliminating parking minimums should not inadvertently eliminate accessibility. And again, I don't side that totally on the developer. It's also a city issue that I think we need to work through that, may not have had full understanding, because ADA is a federal requirement, is triggered off of parking requirements. That's number one. Number two, I reflected on this project as we were going through it, and more to echo, sort of, Mason and Mark's comments around its completeness, around the constructive back and forth that you've had with the boards. And so, going through concept review, design review. Referral to the Design Advisory Board has clearly produced a better project than the one that we first saw. I appreciate the applicant's willingness to engage with the feedback from the various boards and continue refining the design. It's not perfect.

[124:11] But it's a lot better than where we started. This stands in contrast to a recent project where the form-based code limited the board's ability to weigh in on design, and in my view, allowed for an inferior project to move forward with little opportunity for meaningful input. I'd encourage my colleagues to reflect on the differences between these processes and outcomes that they produce. To me, this project is a good example of what our design review process can accomplish when it allows for thoughtful iteration and constructive feedback. So those are my two comments, and I appreciate everyone's, time and attentiveness. I'm usually not that long-winded. Thank you. George, those were excellent. Thank you very much, especially about the accessibility… all the way through. Thank you very much. Claudia?

[125:01] also appreciation to George. I'm going to be very brief here, in part because I am having trouble getting back on Wi-Fi after our break, and have not been able to update my notes. So, here's what I have. In response to the key question, yes, I think this project is consistent with BVC policies supporting compact, mixed-use and infill redevelopment. I think it also meets the intent and requirements of high-density residential and RH3 zoning. Continuing to redevelop this area immediately adjacent to the CU campus for high-density pedestrian-oriented student housing. Like my colleagues, I also appreciate the significant Changes to the project since concept review. In particular, design changes to elevate public entrances, and to improve the interface between ground floor units And the change in grade, particularly on the south side of the project. I think that grade change

[126:01] is a site design challenge. I think you've risen to it on a lot of levels. And I also think it has the potential, in addition to being a challenge, to really create some kinetic and visual interest in the project, and I think the terraced nature of the rain gardens you've designed the remaining stair and ramp features, actually, balance embracing some of that, movement and differentiation on the site with accessibility requirements. I think there's a good balance there. In terms of the height modification that the project is requesting, I think it meets the requirements in our code for views. I think it, in fact, helps create some of them on the upper floors where they might not otherwise be available due to a topography and the elevation of 28th Street and existing buildings on CU campus. I think the project also meets requirements for on-site open space, including that courtyard with southern exposure and some visual permeability, and I don't think that's interest… I don't think that's easy to do in this particular,

[127:04] Location. And I think, again, you've done a good job of working with the site and the slope to make that a useful and interesting space. I think that permeability for both lights and views and pedestrian mobility, as we've discussed with the Paseo, remains a bit of a challenge, but I think we as a board have limited tools in the code to ask for much more than is being provided here. So, happy to support this as is. Thank you, Claudia. Laura? Thank you, but before I do, I did want to ask Shannon, is there any follow-up from staff on that question of the ability to Would the site plan prevent the closure of that Paseo? No, without a public access easement, we wouldn't be able to prevent closing off that Paseo. Okay, well then we will rely on the goodwill of the applicant to keep that open. Okay, so, so my comments, again, thanking the applicant team for all of your hard work on the project and the presentation.

[128:06] As I try to do with every site review, I just want to note for community members that Planning Board does not approve or deny projects based on our personal preferences or desires for the site. Applicants have a right to develop their properties in accordance with the code, and our job in looking at these large projects that go through site review is just to provide an additional check and balance along with staff in determining whether the code was met. So that's what we're looking for, is the code met. Responding briefly about height limits, I've said before, and I'll continue to say, that our language about height variances can be misleading and confusing. The height limit in the city, per the city charter that the voters approved, is 55 feet. That height is available for developments that meet the requirements that are specified in the city code. So, again, that's what we're looking for here. This project is eligible for 55 feet. Does it meet the requirements in the code that are designed to give these taller projects… make sure they have more community benefit, and that they're better projects? So, did they meet those requirements, is what we're looking for.

[129:04] So I read with great interest the multiple iterations of staff comments. I want to thank staff, and especially Shannon, for your diligence in making sure the proposal meets the criteria and honors the comments provided by DAB and this board. Your efforts to make this process transparent and accountable are noted and sincerely appreciated. Overall, I think this project is an example of successful design. It does a good job of meeting city goals for resident quality of life, as well as pedestrian and bike-friendly living, lively and friendly streetscape design, and community-serving amenities. I commend the project team for bringing us a project, that pretty clearly meets the criteria, and that makes our job so much easier. One thing I especially want to point out is the building massing, which can be an especially sticky problem, because we're trying to achieve a couple of things here. We both want to have a high level of site utilization, so that we get the housing that we want from this site across from the university.

[130:01] But we also want building architecture that is not just a series of very large, plain boxes. So I appreciate that this project is a great example of how to marry those two goals up. The site massing is broken up into three separate but connected buildings with corridors in between. And I appreciate the pedestrian access for the public. And furthermore, each building's massing is broken up on the upper stories on all of the sides that front busy streets or other residential properties. We don't always get that from our applicants, and you did a good job with that. I do attribute much of that success to the specific requirements of the code for RH3, which were different than almost every other zone in our city. I think RH3 is one of maybe just one or two zones that requires that the upper floors have less massing than the lower floors. So that's part of why we're seeing a really good design here, and I think we should note that if that's a result that we want in other parts of the city. For example, as George pointed out, areas that are subject to our form-based code in East Boulder. I do have a couple of just small quirks of this project I want to point out. I don't love the way the main courtyard has been narrowed at the southern end since the concept review, and it's also now recessed, below that bova patio.

[131:12] These factors compromise the access to sunlight, southern exposure, and visibility from a public street, as ML has noted, but I don't think it can be said it does not meet the criteria, so I'm not going to be proposing any conditions based on that. And as Claudia noted, this site has challenges, so you had to work with that. I also feel the project was a little bit less successful at breaking up the appearance of long frontages into what appears to be at least two distinct buildings. The use of different elements feels a little bit jumbled to me, and I don't really see a coherent visual appearance of two distinct buildings in the long frontages. But I am not an architect, and again, reasonable minds can disagree, so I'm not going to be proposing a condition based on that. In my view, the design is still doing a better job of meeting the criteria than many, and maybe the majority, of the projects that come before this board.

[132:02] But I will listen to the remaining comments of my colleagues with great interest and remain persuadable. I might have some language to propose regarding wayfinding signage for the Paseo cargo bike parking that the applicant has indicated can be included. and accessible on-street parking for the commercial uses, as George has, very aptly led us in considering. Great, thank you, Laura. Kirk? Well, one of the problems with going so far towards the end is there's very little to say. So I will just say that, I feel that the project does meet the site review criteria, including the requested modifications for height and stories. and the minor setback modification. I do agree with Laura about the design, the… of the facade, and that it is more complicated than ideally, I think would be, would be appropriate, and… and would be, what is really asked for by the site review criteria. But again, as… like Laura, I don't feel that it's…

[133:12] rises to the level of problem that, that I think it justifies a condition. But in general, I think the more simplicity we can bring to our facades, and the more unity, the better. So, I will be supporting this. Oh, ML? Okay. Thank you. First off, ditto to the colleagues' statements. It's great to be on this board with all these thoughtful people. I appreciate, Your concise and clear, response to this key question. So I have no cons… no concerns with it meeting the site review criteria as… as the rest of my colleagues did as well.

[134:01] But I do want to make one statement. What I… what I most appreciate in the approach here is that none of the solutions are one-liners, right? They offer layers of response to complex criteria. We don't see that very often. So thank you. Thank you to the design team and their consultants. Another thing I have particular appreciation for is that you provided ground-level pedestrian views, and those are critical for understanding how the project meets the human scale and experience, and not everybody brings those, images to the table, so when we're looking at a project, and one of our consider… part of our considerations are the human scale, those are the kinds of drawings that we don't have to ask questions. We can just see it, it's there, it's evident, so thank you for that. My one, remaining concern, it's unfortunate that the healthy, long-lived trees aren't being protected. We often see sidewalks across the city that work around trees, so I don't know exactly what the issue is here, but I would like

[135:10] have a conversation with staff and see if there is any way to, protect those trees. We got some input from the public around the trees not only providing all the things trees do relative to the environment, but they also provide specific habitat. And these kinds… you can't replace that. You know, once they're gone, they're gone, so… I would like to see if we can explore any way to retain, those trees, or some of the trees. So, those are my comments. Thank you very much. Great. Okay, A great round of comments. Mason, you look like… okay. Shannon, if you could put up motion language, And, So, we'll put up the motion language and, allow, time for…

[136:05] Anyone to make a motion, and then, as we do with site review, if there is any, amendments offered. We don't have to make this motion, but if we do make this motion, and if there is any other condition or anything proposed, then it would be, as a modification to this main motion. So… Yes. So… Regard to the trees and the sidewalks, is there any input that the staff would like to give. to that… consideration, because all over town, you see trees being accommodated, along sidewalks, so I'm just curious as to whether How far you went to try to protect these trees. Yeah. the… there… it was discussed during the review, mostly through our landscape architect, who's not here tonight. So if there was further questions or discussion about the trees, I… I would probably ask that the applicant team

[137:11] be allowed to speak a little bit more to those, because there may be more to the story that I wasn't aware of regarding the trees and the difficulties with keeping those. In your understanding, is the issue with the trees the sidewalk? I believe it's the sidewalk, the changes to the infrastructure in that area, is my understanding, and I don't know if there's more to the story, so… Okay, thank you. Okay. Laura. Just to note that on the Zoom, I sent a proposed, amendment to this motion regarding the wayfinding signage for the public pedestrian paseo, cargo bike parking, and accessible on-street parking for commercial uses, that we could consider as an amendment.

[138:02] Unless, George, you had your own language about the parking for commercial uses that you wanted to use. Nope, nope. Would you like me to put this condition on the screen at this time, or wait? Let's… I want to wait on… if… yeah, until we have a motion and a second, and etc, and then we'll… Allow for any additional commentary. Mason? I would love to make a motion. Please. A motion to approve site review application under LUR 202500037, adopting the staff memorandum as finding of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. Second. Okay, we have a motion, and we have a second. Mason, if you want to speak to your motion, you… if you want to add anything to what you've already said, now's your time. Sure.

[139:03] Just something brief. So, I find this project is consistent with the site review criteria section 9214H, BRC 1981, including the requested modifications. The height modification of 55 feet meets the additional criteria of Section 9214H, including building form and massing, open space, and views. The staff noted the height's compatible with the surrounding context as well. And the north setback modifications and Colorado Avenue right-of-way vacation are both minor and appropriate. The TDM plan is sufficiently robust, incorporating eco passes, significant bicycle infrastructure. exceeding code minimums, and I'm sure, we'll… Hear more about this with, the amendments. Great, thank you, Mason. Claudia, second, you're next if you have anything else you want to say. Okay, now would be the time. Does anyone else have anything to say about this main motion? And then we would open up the floor, Laura, if you want to propose, your condition, and then we would discuss and debate

[140:10] condition. So I sent some language to Thomas, if you want to put that up on the screen. tried to keep it pretty, simple and clear, and leave it to the satisfaction of staff at the time of TechDoc, as we usually do, but it would read… I guess… I'm just… I'm just wanting to explain it first, and then I… should I just go ahead and make the motion? I would prefer you actually.

[141:00] We make the motion to amend, and then we would… then you can speak to it, and then we would, See if we have a second, then you get to speak to it, and then we would debate it. Okay. I move to amend. the approval… Such that the applicant will include, number one, wayfinding signage for the public pedestrian paseo, number two, cargo bike parking, and number three, accessible on-street parking for the commercial uses, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Talk. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second, and Laura, the floor is yours to speak to your motion. I mean, I think we've already discussed these, and the applicant did indicate that including that wayfinding signage for the Paseo could be possible, and the cargo bike parking is something that they could work with staff on. I see some nodding from the applicant team.

[142:01] I would invite the applicant team to let us know if they see any issues or problems with including this as a condition. If that is appropriate, and to the chair? And I see Brad coming up, so before we open it up to applicant team or anything else, let's hear what our director has to say. Yes, you may have noticed I'm not with the applicant team, but I did want to interject real quickly on number 3 in particular, so Brad Mueller, Planning Director. We don't know for certain that that technically is going to be possible on the site, so if there could be language Added something, well, maybe to the satisfaction of staff. Acknowledging that that may mean it's not possible, so if you wanted to add… Accessible parking as possible, or something like that. I think that is a great clarification. Thank you. If my second is amenable, ML, could we add… Accessible on-street parking for the commercial uses, comma, if

[143:04] Feasible, comma, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Talk. ML, are you okay with that as the second? I see ML is saying yes. Yes. And now, if appropriate, I'd like to invite the applicant to let us know if there's some complication that you foresee. Hi, it's Deanna Capell. I want to say to George, that was… that's a really… you got us all scratching our heads. I think it's a really big loophole, and something we… none of us have thought of, so thank you so much. It's… as a planner, it's important. I think we're okay with this, because it allows us to explore options. That will include trade-offs, most likely, with landscaping or other things, so I think we can have that discussion with staff in tech talks. Great, thank you. Thank you, Danica. No further comments from me.

[144:02] ML. I'll simply say that my, I will speak to this motion. I will be supporting it, this amendment to the main motion. Initially, I was concerned with the, lack of specificity, in this. When we're conditioning, conditions that are soft, sometimes can be avoided or whatever, but in this case, I think that with the clear intentions of the applicant combined with our clear concerns, I'm going to go ahead and support it. And I think this all admirable things, again, the, The generality of it is concerning. I think if it works for everyone, We'll let it go. Does anyone else have comment? I'm also going to support this condition, and I, in particular, want to call out and appreciate the,

[145:05] number one here on Wayfinding signage for the Paseo. I think this is an interesting way to… encourage the project to continue to have that public access that we are not able to get through the code, and through public easement accesses, public access easements. So a way to encourage that… I had another thought on that, and now it's lost, but that's… that's the key of it. I think that's a good… a good mechanism. I'll just respond briefly to say, I also find that this is really important just so that the public understands that they're allowed, right? Like, it can be very intimidating to walk through something that looks like a developed property. You don't want to be trespassing, so knowing that you're invited is important. pay. Any other comments or discussion?

[146:02] If not, we're going to vote on this amendment to the motion. And we'll do it. I'm gonna start on my left with Mason. Yes. Laura? Yes. Badia. Yes. ML. Yes. Kurt. Yes. George. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay, so now we have, an amended motion. And, we should put… Thomas, is it… is it too much to integrate this into the, main motion? Copy and paste that right below the main motion. I don't have the main motion pulled up, but I could get it in a couple of minutes if you… Okay. We all know what the main motion is, so, now that we've amended it, is there any additional, debate… ML? Well, not debate.

[147:01] Okay. emotional. Oh, you have a… okay. Wait, thank you. I'm glad you… glad you raised your hand. We were… I was moving past this point. Okay, you have a motion to amend. I do. Okay. Go ahead. to put out the idea, because, you know, I'm not, like, I'm not Laura. So, here's what I'm interested in doing, and it may not be possible. I'm sure Brad will come up and tell me that I don't have enough specificity, but… I'm interested in… so here's what I'm thinking. I move that the staff and applicant revisit site review criteria, 1 BBCP criteria, G, environmental preservation, I, The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees. To consider sidewalk design to meet that criteria.

[148:01] Is that specific enough? Sure. Well, and Brad or staff can weigh in. I have a question, and I didn't realize that you were going to make a motion to amend, but I'm going to ask you a question about your thoughts about the trees. When I think about the site. And the… the mature trees is pro-pro… most prominently on the north edge and the south edge. Is that… is that where you're… I'm thinking primarily about the ones along college. So that would be the south edge. The north edge, the north edge. No, I'm sorry, I… college, Colorado, I'm like, yeah, alright, the south edge, okay. Yes. I, I, I, I am… I acknowledge that many places in the city, we have trees in sidewalks, and the sidewalk meanders around them, and that sort of thing.

[149:00] I don't know that when we redevelop a property and our DCS applies to sidewalk design, and on the… on the north side, along Colorado. Where they have that big multi-use path. How… if our code actually allows for the accommodation Like, in some of the older areas where we've done this, on the hill and so forth. and this is a question I'll ask staff. Does our code and the DCS allow for this sort of accommodation We've been talking about ADA stuff tonight, and bike infrastructure. So, is that something that we can actually specify, and would it be allowed by our code? Right. I'm thinking primarily about the ones on the south. So, but there's a lot of complexity on the north. I… I understand that with all the…

[150:01] With the bikes and the shifting of, you know, what's open space and what's given back to the city, etc, etc. So I'm… I'm primarily concerned with the ones that… and it didn't sound like there was a lot of Kind of knowledge or information around what exactly is… Determining that those trees are gone. And so I'm just thinking, well, maybe we just need to put some spotlights there, and if it's possible to save the trees by doing some sidewalk navigating. Let's do it. also, I wonder about, and again, maybe this is applicant, maybe this is staff, the gray… so… the viability of trees, once you start doing much of a grade change, in my limited understanding, is… is not much. That once you start

[151:00] lowering or raising grade around an established tree. You're talking about the roots? that, that it can… it can be problematic, and again, so replanting trees. I've looked at their landscape plan, Which is… Seems… beyond sufficient. Anyway, I'm wondering if we can make your motion to just that the applicant will do their best to preserve trees. Again, kind of the soft language we used in this last amendment. Upmark and ML. in the interest of, perhaps, efficiency, I have put some language forward and sent it to Thomas. That hopefully captures, Emil, what you want, and then also responds, Mark, to your concern that it may or may not be feasible. And it's very similar to what we did with the previous one. And I'll just read it while Thomas pulls it up. It says, move to amend to include the condition that applicant and staff will work together to re-examine whether it is possible to preserve any of the healthy, mature trees along College Avenue to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Talk.

[152:14] Thank you for that motion. Would you… Would one of you want to actually make that as a motion, please? A motion to amend? Is that it? Are you highlighting it there? Thomas? Can you make it big? Should we? Okay. move to amend to include the condition that applicant and staff will work together to re-examine whether it's possible to preserve any of the healthy, mature trees along College Avenue to the satisfaction of staff at the time of Tech Talk. I'll second that. May I invite the applicant again to respond if you see any issues or problems with this condition? That we should be aware of in our consideration.

[153:02] Yeah, I think we're okay with it in the effort. We're all trying to, again, scramble to understand what, this is, so I think it's just about, we'll reexamine and work together. And we did, and we will con… we can continue to do that in tech talks. I don't know if Brad has… Anything to say, but… We're okay with it. Sure. Okay, Kurt. I just want to observe that Figure 5 in the memo provides a pretty good view from the south. It's an aerial view from the south that shows the trees along College that I think are the ones that ML is particularly concerned about. So, just if we want to visualize it. Do you have a pay… is… that's in the… in the first… Of the 3 PDFs. That's page 10 of 353. What?

[154:01] It's in the staff presentation? Correct. Oh, oh. That's not the PDF page, that's the memo page. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, PDF page 73 of 434. Okay. Can I ask a quick question about this? Please. And this is perhaps just me being a little bit ignorant, but in my experience with trees is they don't live forever. And I know that… I know that… like, what I've seen in these designs is that there will be replanting of trees. Allowing for the improvement of infrastructure. sidewalk, etc. Why not replace the trees with new trees and let them grow? Trees take a long time to grow, especially, evergreen types of trees, the trees that these… the kinds of trees that are here, there, habitat will be lost, and, you know, we're losing habitat everywhere, so in… in my… and the carbon sequestration that is already in the trees.

[155:16] the existing, big, bountiful shade that's already… there's a lot of benefits that you will get decades down the road with new plantings, and to me, if it's possible to move a sidewalk and to work with… what exists, I think that's a noble cause. Like, trees need champions. We need trees. We have to, like, work with things, and not just assume that, They're dispensable, because they're not all dispensable if we have a choice. How old are these trees? Mature, long-lived, healthy. Mason, could you please turn your mic on?

[156:00] 100 years? I… disease. applicant know? Okay, yeah. Do we need to know that? I don't need to know that. I'm just, I'm, Laura helped us get efficient, and I want to get us back there. So, we have a motion, we have a second. Ml, do you want to say anything else to your motion? No, I think I've said, you know, what needs to be said. Thanks. Okay, any other… Debate on the… this motion to amend. Okay, let's go back to a vote, and we're gonna begin with Mason. Sure, why not? Okay, count that as a yes. Okay, Laura. Yes. Claudia. Nope. ML. Yes. Kurt. Yes. And I'm a yes. George? Oh, George. I'm a yes as well. Yep, no problem.

[157:00] Okay. Alright, so that passes 6 to 1. Alright, now we have that as… An amendment… an additional amendment to the main motion. Are there other conditions or amendments to the main motion? To be made. Okay. Then, we have now come… any… now we're back to the amended main motion. Any final comments on the main motion as amended? I think we just have to make sure that the language of the motion does say, as amended, but yes. Right. Well, and in fact. So, if we could bring… the… Original motion language backup.

[158:04] Oh, look, here it is. Okay, I believe that I need to, read this, and then we'll… Count the votes. motion… so we are, about to vote on a motion to approve site review application under LUR 2025-00037. Adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. And, as amended, the applicant will include one way… number one, wayfinding signage for the public pedestrian paseo. Number two, cargo bike parking, and three, accessible on-street parking for the commercial for the commercial uses, if feasible, to the satisfaction of staff at the time of tech docs.

[159:08] And, as amended. to include the condition that applicant and staff will work together to re-examine whether it is possible to preserve any of the healthy mature trees along College Avenue to the satisfaction of the staff at the time of TechDocs. Okay. That's our, motion, and, just to be consistent for the evening, I'm gonna start with Mason. Yes. Laura? Yes. Claudia. Yes. ML? Yes. And Kurt? Yes. And I'm the… George. Yes. Right. George, I'm… I'm counting you out before… Anyway, okay. George. Yes. Yes, okay, and I'm a yes. Okay. So, congratulations to the applicant and their team, and,

[160:03] That's it for you guys, so thanks very much. Okay. We now, move on to, are, item number 6, matters. And, we have, item 6A is, Gonna be just as… Little thing. All things affordable housing. Okay, did everyone bring their sleeping bag? This is a, you know… All things affordable housing. I don't know, we've, Okay, this is a presentation by the Department of Housing and Human Services, as well as a question and the answer period. So, Brad? Yes.

[161:09] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to introduce this item, mostly to emphasize our just deep appreciation And partnership with the Department of Housing and Human Services. It's not always apparent, because all this happens kind of behind the scenes, but there's just a vast amount of coordination on both information and, relevant cases, and… just awareness of the state of the state, and also fully appreciating that housing of all types, but various segments of housing, too, are of great interest to both this board and City Council, and really the community at large, so… just deep appreciation. I'm gonna… start by introducing Kurt Fernhabber, who is the Director of the department, and

[162:00] We've got a robust group here and discussion, as you indicated. Good evening, Planning Board. So, it's been a while since we've been in front of you and City Council to talk generally around affordable housing, but I think the timing is very unique. You've just had a lot of discussions, the community's had a lot of thought around the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. The Dr. Cogg study, was done, last year, and so we have a better picture of what the gaps are, what the trends are. And so we're gonna talk a little bit about, many of the programs, that we have to provide affordable housing in the city, so it's not just about having a variety of housing types, It's meeting a variety of housing for people. And so that, you know, people are an important aspect of what we're actually trying to accomplish, and ensuring that they.

[163:06] are successful, in our community. And there's lots of different housing needs that we have as a result of that. With that, I'm going to, introduce, Jay Sugnett and Holly Hendrickson. Who, worked diligently on the, on the memo. That I know you read 3 times, and, will bring us through the presentation this evening. Thank you. Great, thank you, Kurt. Hold on. Alright. This is the hardest part, is making sure you can see the slides. Okay. All right, so I'm. Holly Hendrickson, Housing and Human Services, thanks for having me here tonight, it's my first time.

[164:03] In front of planning boards, so thank you. Holly. You gotta really lean in. Really lean in. Yeah, I'll do it. Use an outside voice, at least for me, so… I have an outside voice. Okay. That's okay. And Holly, welcome, we're glad to have you. Thank you. Thank you so much. And, the presentation's only 20 minutes, so you don't need to bring out your sleeping bags, as far as… Okay, so tonight we'll just talk about just some definitions and history, just to kind of get on the same page of what we're talking about. Dive into the current state of the rental and homeownership housing market. a brief discussion about those policy interventions. We wanted to highlight a few of our, programs and innovations, and then, briefly touch on, kind of, the next steps that we're proposing. So, one thing we'll say off the top here is that, we just wanted to, like, recognize the fact that from its founding, Boulder has always been shaped by exclusivity, and the real estate market and the real estate prices have just reflected that exclusivity, that history of exclusivity.

[165:08] In 2021, the city hosted a Boulder Housing, Boulder Housing Equity Symposium, which dove into the history of all of this, and it's been. Helpful for us, like, framing out this issue in terms of, like, the historical context. And the other thing to point out, it's an attachment in the memo, but we have a pretty robust timelines of our… the city's affordable effort… housing efforts, affordable housing efforts over time. you know, we won't get into it here, but we just wanted to point out a few things. So, since the 1960s, the mid-1960s, our… the Housing Authority was formed then, so, like, more than about a half a century ago, and just a general recognition that way back in the 60s, the city had recognized that there was an affordability problem in the city. A few other things to highlight, in the 2010s, we passed the inclusionary housing ordinance.

[166:05] We were one of the first communities to do… do so in the nation, and it's a, you know, foundational aspect of our program. And then one thing I wanna… I wanna point out, the… in the 2020 is kind of the last bullet point here, is just the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership. And just in recognition that it's a way… we have been, working with regional partners to look at this issue, not just, like, as a city-specific issue, but really kind of trying to take a regional focus, a regional approach to solving some of these problems. All right, so, definitions. Back to the basics and definitions. So, again, just to get on the same page of what we're talking about here. So, when we're talking about affordable housing, it really means that we're it means housing is affordable when households are paying no more than one-third of their income on housing. It's like the one-third rule, 30% rule. That's what we use when we are identifying or finding what is… determining what is affordable and what is not.

[167:06] Permanently affordable housing in the city has a very specific meaning. So when we talk about housing units that are affordable, permanently affordable, it means ownership units or rental units that are… have a deed restriction that protects that affordability in perpetuity. And then area median income, like it or not, it's everywhere, and we use it in this presentation and the memo. And it just means that house… half of the households are making less than that 100% area median income, and half are making more. In 2025, for a household of 3, the area median income was, just over $135,000. So, this is a handy graph to just kind of, like. show you the problem that we're trying to solve here. So, this graph shows, you know, over time between 2010 and 2025, three data points. The first one is the AMI, the area median income number, the median price of an attached home, and the median price of a detached home, or, you know, single unit home. So, we can see that over time, that area median income has stayed relatively

[168:16] Stable, stagnant over time. But those home prices have skyrocketed. And so we're trying to really solve the problem of how do you make sure that those folks making that 100% area median income and below can live in a community where housing prices are this high? That's the problem to solve. In the memo and in this presentation, we just wanted to provide a kind of, like, a point-in-time look at the residential real estate market in Boulder. So, we did this by taking MLS data on this point in time in January. So, this graph shows that each dot represents a house for sale on this date. Middle-income ownership is a huge conversation in this… in the community right now, so those red lines, the red dashed lines, between $400,000 and $700,000 indicates what is generally, affordable for a middle-income family, kind of like general affordability in that range.

[169:16] And here we can see two trends emerging, really, that detached home or single-unit home, market is just unattainable and unaffordable for middle-income households. At this time, at this… on January 8th of this year, there were more households… more houses for sale at $20 million sale point than there were in, like, the middle-income range. Alternatively, the other trend we have… we can see here is that there are a lot of options, affordable, affordable and available options, for middle-income households, for attached homes, condos, or townhomes. So those are the two, kind of, like, distinct trends that we can see just from, like, this point in time.

[170:00] This point-in-time survey. at this point in time, data. But we also know that, while those choices and, like, the condos, the attached units might be abundant, those choices are certainly constrained by. the different groups that are looking for homes. So, fam… you know, that graph, or that data looks much different if you have a family with young kids, looks much different if you're a young professional, looks much different if you're an older adult household. So, middle-income buyers in the, in the, In the city are really faced with this choice of having to compromise the housing type, the actual house they live in, to purchase. To access the city amenities to stay in the city, or to exit the city to find that actual housing type they… they desire. this… this last bullet point, we… I just… we just wanted to provide a sense of scale, like, what that shortage is, in… when we're looking at, like, a 10-year gap.

[171:05] So, Kurt mentioned the Dr. Cogg study, so this… this data is for the Dr. Cogg needs assessment, so it's what the 10-year gap or 10-year shortage is for these home ownership units. So that total gap in the next 10 years is estimated to be 3,500 homes, but for that middle income range, it's, between, you know, between 80% and 120% AMI, the gap is, just under 700. Homes. Boulder's rental market is fun… Sorry? Yeah, sorry, sorry. Okay. Going back to that, so that's 3,500 or 682 additional over… the current market, I'm trying to understand. So, over the next 10 years, you're saying. That's the shortage. That's how many more ownership homes the city needs to meet demand. But we already have a shortage, right?

[172:01] So is this an additional issue? I don't… I think this is the additional shortage. I think that's, like, the shortage over time. Yeah. Thank you. That's a great question, thank you. Okay, so Boulder's rental market looks much different than the ownership market. Again, using that Dr. Cogg data. The largest rental gaps, that… in the next 10 years are those units affordable to households earning under 50% of AMI. In the 10-year… 10-year time period, again, that gap, is estimated to be a total about 6,000 rental homes. But the majority of those, so 77% of those homes, or 40, about 4,600 of those homes, need to be affordable for households earning 50% AMI. this, so this, this kind of gap of not middle-income rental options, but, like, the lower AMI rental options is really consistent with previous needs assessments that we've done. We did one 2 years ago, we did one 10 years ago, and it's kind of the same… the same trends have emerged over time.

[173:09] And one thing we wanted to point out is that this AMI range… okay, so the, the graph, this, this bar chart is the… shows the area median income distribution of current affordable housing renters, so who is living in affordable housing… affordable rentals in the city now. And we can see that the majority of rental… renters in the city are earning below 30% of the AMI. So… we just wanted to highlight that this 0% to 50% AMI has been a focus of our program over time, and, you know, the intention of the attention of a lot of the work is to target those lower-income households, you know, seniors with fixed incomes. People living with disabilities, people, exiting homelessness, like, it is an intention of the program.

[174:01] Yeah. I'm trying to do this math in my head. Okay. I might be thinking about this wrong. What percentage of Boulder is rental, roughly? The whole… the whole housing stock? Yeah. I don't know, I don't have… I'm not sure on the top of my head. It's on our dashboard. How much is it? right in the… between 50… it was right around 50 is what I remembered, yeah. That's what I thought. So, if right around 50% of our population is rental, and they're largely 30… 10 to 30% AMI… I'm just trying to think… Just for clarification, this isn't all renters, this is just renters in affordable housing. Correct. Oh, okay. Okay. That's it. Okay. Cool. Okay, so now we can just dive into the conversation about the policy interventions that the city has established over the several decades. So, a quick discussion of supply-side intervention, demand-side interventions, and

[175:03] We wanted to highlight those innovations. So supply-side interventions, simply put, just how do… how is the city building homes, building more homes? For this body, I won't review all of these. You're well aware of a lot of the stuff that goes on. we do want to highlight the top one here, the local housing trust funds, our affordable housing fund. So, our Affordable Housing Fund is the workhorse of our program. Our local investments… our local funding sources really drive those investments in the city and create those affordable units throughout the city. Over the last 10 years, the city has invested $140 million of local funds into affordable housing. Holly, could you go back one slide? Yes. And… I understand those words, but I see, I see, I see down under, under build homes, density, height.

[176:04] bonuses, versus… penalties. What I'm getting to is we just approved a project that has a fifth story, and they will be paying additional Income into the inclusionary housing. system. that the developer pays, and that, to me, that's not a bonus, that's a cost. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. What are you referring to with density height bonuses? This was the team I. What am I referring to? Yeah, sorry, Jay Segment with Housing and Human Services. So… I would say. It does help us build… not only are we getting additional units, but we're getting additional cash that we can then leverage for. Okay, so it's a bonus to the city. We're not offering it as a bonus to the developer to do higher density. I mean.

[177:02] I think you could probably substitute the word height exemption, or density exemption. This is stuff that we give people through site review to let them build more homes, is how I understood it. Yeah. They're commonly referred to as. Okay, so we… the intervention is we are… Through… The additional income received through height or density, increases. We… we count that as a bonus to us to produce more low-income units, not we're trying to increase the supply of houses by giving developers bonuses for additional density or height. I think it's both. Okay. Yeah, I think… I don't want to speak for staff, but the way that I've understood this is that the… when people say a density bonus or a height bonus, they're speaking of the exemptions that we give to the by-right

[178:03] allowances to allow the developer to create more housing. They get a density bonus on the site from what they would have been allowed by Wright. So I think they're talking about the exemptions that we give. Just in terms of a supply side, we're creating more supply by allowing more density, by allowing more height. Yeah, and I think… Yeah, team effort. That's correct. In the… planning industry. That's what that means. It's a… A project is getting a bonus of additional density by… or height. By doing the things that they do. In this case, affordable housing. Right. So, a bonus, kind of a… I'm not… I'm gonna let everyone go on here, but a bonus kind of implies an incentive. And, and… If you speak to the development community. They're not incentivized to add a fifth floor. Or how are they incentivized to add a fifth floor?

[179:04] Well, if they… you know, under… under the Boulder Code, for example, if they meet criteria XY, That's the incentive to do it. Okay. Yeah, I'm, I'm gonna… we're gonna go on. Yeah. But they pay in more money. They pay in more money, but they… presumably, I mean, they're only doing it because they're making more money, right? They also make more money. Okay. Alright, okay. Alright, okay, I'm sorry, carry on. Should we hold questions? Just kidding. Okay. Okay, alright, past 10 years, $142 million of local funds were spent, were invested in the community for affordable housing. The funding sources over the past… we just wanted to show the spread of funding sources over this 10-year time period, so the… the majority of the funding…

[180:04] Local funds are from our cash in lieu, our inclusionary housing. cash-in-lieu contributions, but local sources also include impact fees, property taxes, and short-term rental taxes. So when you look at this, 87% of our program's funding comes from local sources. So you said $142 million invested. Is that the same as received or spent? What's the difference between those two numbers? It's basically the same, so this… All the money that comes in goes back out. And I just looked it up, and the vacancy tax that's being talked about, explored, whatever, is between 1 and 3 million annually, which would be… Like, temper… would be, like, a 10%, assuming it went to this. Which is pretty wild. 10% increase. Right? Because on average, this is 10 years, so $14 million per year.

[181:00] And if you're getting another 1 to 3 per year, Anyway, that's enough. And the federal funds, there is… that's pretty much all LIHTC. This is not inclusive of LITTC, no. Oh. So that's just grants? Or what is that? Well, community development block grants, home funds, so that, you know, there's federal funds that have been sort of reducing over the years. But it's still a pretty significant portion. So, think about it this way, every local dollar that comes in, so of this pie, the $142 million, we can leverage that. That's how we leverage it. So we can leverage every $1 for 2, 3, sometimes even $4 through tools like LIHTC. Or state funding. That's separate. I'm just confused why you included the block grants in this pie chart, but not the LIHTC money. Because those are both federal… basically federal sources.

[182:02] They're federal sources, but they fund the project in a very different way. So the developer is the one that applies for the low-income housing tax credits, and it becomes part of the deal to develop that property. Whereas block grants are, you know, typically, we get that money. And a block, and then we distribute it. I see. Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Okay. So, these local funds are our best tool to support a wide variety of different housing types throughout the city, and really help support these homes being geographically dispersed throughout the city. This is one of my favorite graphics that we have, but it just shows the affordable housing units and where they're located out throughout the city. The darker colors indicate denser unit counts, and it just really shows that Affordable housing is in almost every neighborhood in the city.

[183:01] And it's really just a key part of our city's social and physical infrastructure. And then overall, we wanted to point out that our program is outperforming the IH requirement. So, inclusionary housing requires that 25% of new residential development to be permanently affordable. But in the recent years, for every 100 new homes built, 37 of those have been permanently affordable. Our totals here are on this slide. So we have over 4,300 permanently affordable homes in the city, which con- which makes up 8.9% of the total housing stock. And we're serving, over 9,000 residents in the city. This graph just shows, over time, the development… added unit counts over time, and by what type. The yellow is homeownership, and the blue is rental. We also wanted to.

[184:02] emphasize, this… this outperform… this outperformance. So we are, so this graphic, you know, this is, like, recent data that came out a few weeks ago, but it just shows the top producers of affordable apartments throughout the nation. You know, so… I'll… I wanted to bring your attention to, like, this yellow highlighted, column here. When you look at these… these top producers. we're still producing more as a percentage of total builds, affordable units of total builds, than any of these top producers. So you can see that San Francisco here is at 34%, Seattle's at 20… 24%, and we're at 37. So we're kind of outperforming the, the rest of the nation on this. An indicator as well. Alright, so demand-side housing inter… intervention. So, Supply side is… or… supply side is building the supply, building those homes, and demand side is really just figuring out ways to help households or support people to get in and to maintain their housing. Again, we do this in a variety of ways.

[185:13] vouchers, rent subsidies, the county does the property tax relief with income supports, and we have a very robust rental assistance and tenant protection program. But we wanted to highlight, two… two of our home buyer assistance programs. So the first one here is our house-to-home ownership, our H2O down payment assistance program. This is a down payment, typical shared appreciation loan structure. It's a known product in both the lending and borrowing world. This is… the city has invested $730,000 into this program initially, but because of the revolving nature of this loan. We've been able to serve 94 households, and, with a total loan amount of $3.2 million since it started back in the year 2000.

[186:05] We also have another down payment assistance program, the Middle Income Down Payment Pilot Program. It's just not proving to be as competitive of a product. This is certainly the more popular, more successful program. And then our homeownership program, our affordable home ownership program. We have 836 permanently affordable homes in the city. These homes are sold at below market rate, and there's an affordability covenant that limits the resale value of the homes over time. And we've extended the scope of this program. We have a… it's a regional home ownership program now, where we've expanded it to several neighboring cities. And then… to… in terms… for the… that Affordable Homeownership Program, we regularly survey the residents of our affordable homes to, you know, get their pulse, identify pain points, and we did this survey back in 2025, just about a year ago, and,

[187:07] homeowners are broadly supportive of this program, so 85% of homeowners would be repeat purchasers. The biggest pain point in the program, has and continues to be HOAs. We've noticed that in this last survey, they… there's been fewer, fewer households that have had special assessments, but, overall, there's higher monthly HOA fees. So that's the biggest pain point, as we've, in our survey. And then just, we wanted to kind of, lift up some of the things we're doing, the highlights of our programs and different innovations. So, The partnerships in our community, especially with nonprofit organizations, really make a lot of this possible. So, amongst our rental homes, our affordable rental homes, 74% of those were developed by a nonprofit organization.

[188:05] To highlight this point, last year we added, 186 new home… affordable homes to the portfolio, and 173 of those, were developed and are now managed by Boulder Housing Partners. So again, those partnerships are, super important for this program. And then we also, we've received… the program, Affordable Housing in general, has received broad community support over the years. I won't go through all of this for the sake of time, but, City Council has supported local impact fees over time. And the community has been willing to tax itself, especially recently in terms of the county tax and Proposition 123 to support affordable housing. So that community support, is… is key here. We have a middle-income scattered site acquisition program, so this program, kind of an innovation in our program, in our own… our homeownership program. We purchase… we're purchasing homes on the open market, rehabbing those homes, and then selling them at below market rate with the affordability covenant on those homes.

[189:17] So far we've acquired 20 homes this way, And we found it. it's the most cost-effective way to add new affordable homes in the program. The per unit subsidy is anywhere between $90,000 to $185,000, depending on the size of the unit. And we have received funding from Proposition 123 to, to help fund some of this. Both in the city and, like, at a regional level. And then Boulder… did you… okay. Boulder Mod, I won't go into the details here, as I assume most of you, know about it, and hopefully have volunteered there, in… in the recent few… recent here… days. But this really is the next frontier in the city's affordable home ownership

[190:06] portfolio, we're anticipating at 25 to 30 new affordable homes to be added to the City's portfolio through this, the factory alone. And won't say too much about it, except that it's a great partnership between the City of Boulder, Boulder Valley School District, and Habitat for Humanity. And then the final innovation that I will, talk about, and I know some of you participated in this work, so in 2025, the city… a city team completed this Bloomberg-Harvard City Leadership Innovation Track. We were brought along this very intentional path to public innovation, and the focus of the program was affordable and attainable housing. And HHS has taken the lead on, On pursuing some of the ideas that were brought up during that process. And, we've really tried to kind of integrate that innovation model in a lot of the work that we're doing in terms of affordable housing.

[191:08] In terms of next steps, so, I think the ask here is just, we're just seeking continued support for policies and work that expand housing choices to those households who are, priced out of our market. A few ways, a few, a few, we've just listed a few things that are particularly helpful. The continued zoning reforms, prioritizing those deep subsidies for those acute rental gaps that we see. Refining and expanding the down payment assistance program, maintaining support for IH, that inclusionary housing program is, a key, key part of our program. And then just sustaining support for our innovations and kind of our ways of coming up with new ways, new, new ideas to address and tackle this problem.

[192:01] That's all I have. Great. Excuse me, great, Holly, thank you very much, and Jay, we appreciate that presentation, and we're gonna… ask questions now. Sorry, we kind of got sidetracked there. I got sidetracked. I sidetracked us. Anyway, but, we'll open it up to, to questions. Kurt? We've heard recently, especially in the context of annexations, that we can't push as hard on the proportion of affordable housing as we perhaps once could. Can you give any perspective on that, and what the implications are Both for the amount of affordable housing that we can potentially get through annexations, and… Potentially also the ramifications of the 25% inclusionary housing fee.

[193:01] You didn't want to take that one, Holly? Yeah. Okay. So, annexations have, historically been a very important strategy for us in terms of getting ownership. So if you remember the bar chart, we were in the beginning of the program in the early 2000s. Almost, you know, a larger percentage was ownership. I would say things shifted, started to shift in 2007, when the housing bubble burst, basically. And the… the whole financing, the cost to construct, shifted dramatically. So the market shifted from primarily ownership to primarily rental, and it hasn't swung back. So that's sort of a long-winded way to say annexations today, and that's why you're seeing a lot of annexation agreements come back to Planning Board. Because they have to be renegotiated, because the terms that they agreed to 5, 7, 10 years ago, just aren't feasible anymore. So the cost of construction.

[194:01] And what they're able to sell the homes for, that delta just keeps growing. And that's been the biggest challenge. Claudia? This may be a follow-on question to Kurt, actually. How can we get reliable baseline data on housing production costs? So it seems like the city has decent data on the affordable housing types that you're prioritizing and that you're used to subsidizing. Often, we come up with questions, like, in the context of an annexation agreement, of what actually is financially feasible. Like, how do you collect data on those other market segments, and what can you share with us as a board? Yeah, it is challenging. So, and the market's constantly changing, right? So even if you had good data one year, it may not be relevant the next. So when we did the inclusionary housing update, back in 2022, Our consultant basically did go and look at what are the construction costs.

[195:03] To make sure that the changes that we were proposing were still… that made, the 25% requirement feasible. Because… Wouldn't want to bring forward a regime that was basically infeasible for a developer. We need to do that again, and it's actually on our work plan to hire a consultant. And look specifically at annexations, because it is a slightly different animal, because we're basically conferring a lot of value on that land by providing urban services to it, right? So… how much can we request in exchange? It'll continue to be more than the 25%, which is inclusionary housing, but the question is, how much more? Hmm. Yeah. some thoughts, so… This question has come up a lot in my career, just in various contexts, too, and… you know, I've kind of distilled it down to there's 3 main components to building housing. There's the

[196:02] land cost, which is a stack of things. There's the labor, and then there's materials. And to, piggyback on Jay's points, Each of those is highly variable for a lot of reasons, and can even swing significantly month to month. In the land area, land speculation is all over the map, and sometimes has no rhyme or reason. It is baseline high in Boulder Valley. But then the cost of materials to that even, often get forgot about, and a lot of times raw water costs, which are actually built into plant investment fees and such. The cost of, if there's a subdivision, putting in the roads and infrastructure, that's all part of the base land. And I know for single-family detached homes,

[197:01] 8 years ago, I used to tell people, like, the baseline was about… 80,000, it's probably 100, 120,000, just… just to have a piece of land you can build on. for a lot. And we're going to talk probably a lot at the end of this year and into next year about development impact fees. That's in there, too. Just know that that's the per capita cost of adding one additional demand person Onto the system, sewer, streets, whatever you want to pick. And then there's materials, and, you know, those will swing like lumber, you know, we'll see it be super high, and then 6 months later, it's lower. And then, of course, labor's just been going up and up. So, those are… that's one way to think about it, and… None of us are trying to obfuscate the issue when we talk about it in these generalizations. It's just super hard to generalize.

[198:01] Unless you all are thinking differently. Yeah, I'll just add, a couple of data points. So the, amount of local funding that we put in to subsidize to make a affordable housing work for rental. Ranges from about $120,000 to $140,000 per unit. Also depends on what the area median income rent will be for that unit. For a BHP project, it costs, I think, about $450,000 to build a two-bedroom apartment. The subsidy needed by a private developer to do a home ownership unit, like a two-bedroom apartment, is about… $300,000 to $350,000, if you're doing an ownership-type approach. our Boulder Mod units are about $350,000 to build. So that just gives you, you know, some of the…

[199:02] Some of the data points of where that lands. I've got one. In the next-to-last slide, or the last slide before the question slide, the top item under activities was, continue zoning reform. Whaa… what are you talking about there? Are you talking about Title IX? Are you talking about actually changing zones? I'm… I'm lost as to what you actually mean. So this is maybe… just a poor, poor title on a slide, and I think the memo goes into it a little bit more, but the RAD's department has done a lot of work over the past few years in this space, and this So I would… I would assume that support for that kind of work going forward is… Helpful for increasing that supply. Actually, we're all out of ideas, so… pretty much done.

[200:04] No, I mean, you know, we constantly try to… think of things. I mean, I will, all joking aside, I mean. We were way… we were way higher in the tree than the low-hanging fruit, and have been for several years, so… It gets more and more. hard to identify things to do. Some of it's processing, some of it's… efficiency, but there have been big swings, to your point, in the last couple of years with opening up what has been traditionally single-unit zoning and the many things you all are familiar with. Okay. But I don't think any of us have anything specifically in mind, just acknowledging that's an area for constant vigil. Okay, Mesa? Yeah, when… when… We rarely have a project come before us where they want to build affordable housing on site. They generally always go cash in lieu.

[201:00] I think I see nods, so I'm not way out in left field on that statement. And… maybe it's my simplistic mind, but I would think that if the cash-in-lieu rate was at an equilibrium. We would see… a balance between the two. Some folks choosing to build, some folks choosing the cash. Why aren't we seeing… Is… is… am I thinking about that incorrectly? Like… What am I missing? Yes, intuitively, you're correct, but unfortunately, the reality is that's not the case. So, if we were to charge the equivalent, or if we basically said, you have to provide it on-site, and we charged what it would cost them to build. Our cash in lieu would be make the project infeasible. So, it used to be when we started the project, or the program in 2000, they were somewhat comparable, but that gap started growing within the first couple of years, and it's been growing ever since.

[202:05] So, you're right, I mean, in an ideal world, they would provide affordable… those same affordable units mixed in with, a market rate project, right? So that's… that'd be the ideal. Unfortunately, you know, it doesn't create the best dynamics. Not everybody wants to live in a community, with people that earn significantly more money than they do. They would much prefer to live with others, of similar socioeconomic backgrounds. And then… The basic fact is we can build more affordable housing if we get the cash in lieu. Because we can leverage those dollars. So every dollar we get in, we can leverage with those federal funds and those low-income housing tax credits. Yeah, those last points make a lot of sense to me, and I've thought about that also in terms of the HOA issue, where you… if you have some mixed, and then the HOA is high, it's harder.

[203:02] And there's many other that I'm sure you could… could list out. I guess what I heard you say, though, to my… to… More to the point of my question was… If it were higher, some… More projects would not be feasible, so you would actually lose out on more money. Because… so what you're actually… what the maximization problem is, is… Actually, to get the more cash, not to get the more… Yeah, okay. And if I could just, Differentiating between ownership and rental is really important as part of this conversation, because the economics are just… are vastly different. Laura? I have a bunch, but I'll just stick with a couple. So, when we talk as a board about trying to create more affordable housing, one thing that often comes up is use of city-owned land. And I know we've tried that a few times, like, with… Holiday was very successful. We've maybe had a little bit less success in Boulder Junction or Alpine Balsam, I'm not really up on those projects. We've talked about using city-owned parking lots, trying to convert them to housing.

[204:12] Area 3, city-owned land, the airport, like, it comes up a lot, right? And that was completely not anything that was mentioned in this presentation, and I'm sure there's a reason why. I also saw that you said that the most cost-effective strategy for expanding homeownership opportunities is the, the middle-income acquisition, the scatter site. So, can you just comment a little bit about, like, the economics of Trying to use city-owned land, are there any times and places where that would actually be a more effective use of city resources, or should we just allow… luxury housing to be built on city-owned land, and then use the money to build affordable housing elsewhere, and acquire it? Like, how can we be the most effective and efficient with the resources that the city has, whether financial or land, to get the results that we're looking for?

[205:07] That was a lot. So catch me if I don't answer your question completely. So, we do land bank. So, you gave some great examples. I think 30 Pearl is a fantastic example where the city purchased the old… the Pollard. use AutoPlace. that allowed us to, you know, basically what BHP did at Holiday, to recreate that model. We're gonna do it again at Alpine Balsam. They're, you know, the city… Housing and Human Services, we own 30 acres in the planning reserve. So that's another huge opportunity at some point in the future. Bhp is constantly looking for property. They have a parcel, land banked, in gun barrel. We have a parcel, that we are under contract in East Boulder. So, it's happening, we do it when it's mo… when, basically, we're opportunistic about it.

[206:04] Every city parcel in the city has a purpose, right? So… Housing and Human Services buys a parcel, Open Space buys parcels, Facilities buys parcels. All for a specific purpose, and they're usually using funding from a specific funding source that limits what that land can be used for, or how it's sold. So typically, if you were to use other city-owned land. For affordable housing, we would have to pay market value for that property. And that's not going to be a very good use of our resources. Can I add just one thing, too, that when I started, I… did not have a full appreciation of the relationship or understanding of how Boulder Housing Partnership fits into the big picture. I was familiar with housing partners… or housing authorities in other jurisdictions I'd worked into, and they were talked about

[207:02] In very clear terms as being the city or the county's housing authority, and so it felt very… Much like an extension of that. That is very much the case with Boulder Housing Partnership. They've identif… they've created such a brand for themselves. And such a large operation that I think the community sometimes forgets Word sees them as being completely removed from city functions, but they… They really very much are an extension, so when they go by land, when they go do things, it really is very much in the service of the city. And again, I think that's just a… oddity, or victim of success, if you will, that they have such a strong identity, and a positive thing, in a good way. I don't think any of us discourages that. But I know, for me, it felt like sometimes that goes underappreciated, that that really is the city doing these things, too, because we've got both a robust HHS and Boulder Park.

[208:04] housing partnerships. And can I just add one point about the scattered site acquisition? So, as Jay mentioned before, there's, like, the economics of the ownership, like, developing, acquiring, getting ownership units into the portfolio is much different than the rental, because of the partnership with… Boulder Housing Partners. the low-income housing tax credit, so those, those economics are, like, just need to be stated. They're, like, much different. Okay, I'm gonna go to ML, and then George. Oh, I had just a comment on the city-owned land versus private land thing before we get off that topic. Because from a… I want a little bit more clarity on it, because I hear it from the community all the time, and I want to understand precisely the city's perspective, because my… like… rudimentary economics.

[209:02] you know, background suggests that whether it's city-owned land or private land, the land has the value based on the entitlements that it has. And so the city has the ability to sell that land or use that land. But the economic value of that land is the same. So… and ultimately, that's… that value has to be recognized in one form or another, especially when Boulder Housing Partners develops on it. Is that correct? I think so. Yeah, I mean, it's largely also zoning, right? So, it's very different. Right, the entitlements, it's driven by the entitlements on the property. Correct. So, so just for everyone's clarity, the difference between city-owned land and privately owned land, from an economic perspective, if the entitlements are equal, the value is the same, and the value that we must recognize is the same.

[210:04] because it's $10 million to the city. It's not free to the city just because we bought the land 10 years ago for a million dollars. If it's got a value of $10 million because of the entitlements that are ascribed to it, whether it's city-owned or privately owned. It has the same economic value and the same cost, From a development perspective. I appreciate that. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Okay, Laura, I didn't mean to jump past you, I know you had another one. I'm gonna let ML go, and then we'll come back. Okay, all right. ML. I, I have a clarifying question. Because what we're… what we see come through Planning Board are all rentals, right? And that has to do with the construction defects. Nobody wants to build for market condos. And we're told that they can't do mixed-income rentals.

[211:03] On-site, because you can't charge some people a certain amount and other people a certain amount. And so that's why there is no affordable… Built on-site, because there is a logistical… legal… You can't have… is that… Can you explain that better than… I mean, am I understanding it? the gist of it, yes. So, Basically, the way that affordable housing… excuse me… affordable housing is financed, you cannot have a mixed income projects. You can't have a deed-restricted affordable unit next to a market-rate unit. You can separate them by buildings, and build one building that's entirely permanently affordable, and one that's market. And that's what BHP has done, basically, at 30 Pearl. All over the city of what we'll do at Alpine Balsam.

[212:00] Yeah, so basically, think of it as these are tax code rules, this is the IRS rules. It's not necessarily us saying that's the way it has to be. So, essentially, we… when we see market rate rentals being built, we're never going to see affordable rentals built on the same property, unless we have that differentiation, like, separate building. I guess that's a separate building. Okay, thanks. I'm sorry, a clarification on that. Is that… that's for rentals, not ownership? That you can't have them in the same building? Correct, because ownership is, you can handle it a lot. Well, there's also no federal funding for ownership. Okay, okay. Scotty, do you have… Nope. Have you gone? Okay. Well, you go, and then… and then we'll come back to Laura.

[213:00] I'll switch off with you, Laura. I think this actually follows on from what we were just talking about. What is the… what is the future of the condominium as an ownership structure? Are we ever going to see condominium construction again? And are there any tools that local governments can use, are using to revive and support condo production as kind of entry-level ownership? Yeah, I wish I had a great answer for you. I know the state, you know, periodically, every couple years. Tries to tackle reforming, counter-defect law. But… I don't know, so my personal opinion, that isn't… it's often… Consider the boogeyman of why we're not getting condos. I think it's part of the reason, I don't think it's THE reason. Because other states that don't have the same, condo defect protections are seeing similar trends, that most of the market is producing rental versus ownership.

[214:00] So… From my perspective, I don't think you can say that's entirely the problem. As a follow-on to that question. When will we see apart… you know, there was a… in, I don't know, 80s, 90s, a surge of apartments being converted to condos. And so, we're building apartments like crazy, and we're actually seeing rental rates decline, incentives increase. So, the whole supply-demand thing seems to actually be working at the moment, and like the rest of the world, you know, the apartment developers are overbuilding. Okay, my point is. When… because of the condo defects, law, and the insurance companies, Are concerned about the initial couple years. when, when, 30… when the private side of 30 Pearl, or whatever, is 5, 6, 8 years old.

[215:03] What's going to… will those start converting to condos, you think? That's definitely possible. I mean, that was sort of the original intent. It's not something that we can require. But they hinted at that. They basically said that's their goal. After 7 years, they would consider start… starting to sell those units. But it's all gonna depend on the market, and I don't know, your crystal ball is as good as mine. I can speak to a little bit of this, because I have some experience in this, is that the market shifted, right? So the conversion from apartments to condos, the conduits where institutional investors were investing in these large apartment buildings, the financing structures. The REIT frameworks are much stronger than they were in the 90s and early 2000s. which is a structural investment issue across the United States, right? This is not a… condo defect law is important, but to your question, Mark, I think

[216:03] That has more to do with it, is that these are attractive products to institutional investors, and they remain so. That's one of the reasons why, you know, you've got institutional investment companies actually buying up single families, because this is an attractive investment opportunity, and so we're seeing large institutional investors buy and develop more of these rental apartments. That's my real estate perspective and what I've been tracking in the market over the past Decade or two. Great, thanks, George. Laura? Thank you. So in the memo, you talk about the current pipeline, that there are 18 different affordable housing developments that are in the pipeline. that are expected to deliver more than 900 additional affordable homes in the next 5 years. And you said that 730 of those are rentals, and 155 are middle-income home ownership homes. Can you tell us more about those middle-income home ownership homes? Like, how are those… are those scatter site? Are those…

[217:04] Annexations, like, how are we at getting those? In those 18 projects. So. It's a combination. Kurt came up with a list. So I might put him on the spot, but I would say Boulder mod. is one of the bigger drivers, so 25 to 30 units. Every single year. So that's gonna help us, and that's why the city invested all that money in the factory. That is one, the scatter site acquisition, so continuing to provide, resources into that. So, like Holly showed in the, in the memo, we've acquired 20 in the past… is it 3 years? 4? 3 years? So, you know, you can think if there's a way to scale that up. And then I'm trying to think if there's… Oh, yeah, and annexations. Annexations are a little bit more unreliable. But those are the ones that, we're familiar with. Okay, so it's Annexations, Boulder Mod is a really big one, and then Scatter site. That's how we're getting them. Okay, thank you. How are we getting them now? That's…

[218:13] Okay, we still have other agenda items. Any, any other questions for our… May I ask one more, please? What, if any, work is happening around addressing maintenance costs for affordable ownership units? So maintenance is a big part of the HOA fee issue that you hear a lot about. The other big part of it is insurance, which we have less to say about, maybe, as a city. But in a real sense, a home isn't permanently affordable if you can't manage those kinds of… Long-term maintenance costs, or alternatively, if we're deferring maintenance on all of these affordable units we've created. they're not going to be usable for next generations, right? So, Does the city have any ways forward on those kinds of issues?

[219:00] Y-yes. So, we're talking about ownership, right? So, when you purchase a home, and it's in an HOA, many of the HOAs, basically provide for a lot of the, repair and maintenance, right? So… think of an HOA fee as sort of a forced savings plan. For when that roof has to be replaced, or there's significant work that has to happen. So we do factor in HOA, dues, when we sell the home, so that the current HOA at that time is part of your, sort of income and your debt-to-income ratio, what you can afford. So that's one way. It's also what we, in the last… it was, like, 3 years ago, I want to say, yeah, we started a, a program where the city, if you get a special assessment, and it's really special assessments that we found were the most challenging for affordable homeowners. Because that's when HOA hits you with a, you know, $5,000 or $7,000 bill.

[220:05] And most do not have the ability to pay that. So, we will step in, we will pay the HOA directly. And then they don't have to provide that cash up front. And then what we typically will do is, lower the future resale of the price of that home. So it actually makes it more affordable. But the city ends up paying for that special assessment. And then Kurt has more. Yeah, thank you. I'll just add one more about the rental. So over the last, 5 or 6 years. Boulder Housing Partners has renovated and upgraded a significant portion of their… of their housing stock. They do that, in a couple of ways. One, by re-syndicating their… their tax credit. So they can do that after, you know, 15 or 20 years. Also went, BHP, because it's, a non-profit organization, essentially, that,

[221:08] That development fee that they get when they create a, a new housing development, they invest that back into the community, and so they use those re… those funds, to, upgrade their properties. Over the last 5 years, Boulder Housing Partners has renovated and put more dollars into renovation than any other housing authority in the state of Colorado, including Denver. So they've significantly, invested, in the housing stock. Can I make? Can I make one more note on this? So for the… in our affordable housing program, there's also, there's, you know, there's, I think, 4 or 5 staff that help manage, like, there's a capital improvements policy, homeowners can make upgrades, and there's formulas to how it contributes to the appreciation or not. So there's… there's ways that homeowners can kind of make upgrades, and, especially around energy efficiency.

[222:10] In a way that doesn't impact, like, the long-term holding of the home. Just in terms of the Affordable Homeownership Program. Okay, Kurt and then Laura? just following up on these… this issue of the HOA fees, and specifically the maintenance costs, does the city have, or has it considered any kind of governance training, I guess, for HOAs about how to avoid, in particular, the special assessments and, you know, that they should be putting away. The general rule of thumb is 2% of the value per year, right, in depreciation, and so on. It seems like that could be useful, because it's something that a lot of people, I think. Don't have experience with, and especially people maybe who don't have a great, or a significant amount of

[223:06] Background in finance and financing, and so on. Yeah, absolutely. I guess a couple things to mention. So. In our homeownership training, so if you apply to the program, you basically are required to, you know, just get basic understanding of all the responsibilities that are going to be required of you. And we are very specific about the risks of purchasing a home with an HOA. So we really encourage them to understand what is the health of that HOA, What is the likely, what previous special assessments? We'll even list that. As part of the listing, what recent special assessments may have been livating against the properties. We, I had more, but now I just… It's getting late.

[224:05] Okay. Okay, so, my question is about the homeownership assistance programs, the down payment assistance. As I understand it, we have kind of do two basic types, the H2O, does not put a deed restriction on the house, but it's a shared equity. So when the house is sold, the city gets some money back. gets reinvested in the program, but it does not create new permanent affordability. Whereas the Middle Income Down Payment Assistance Program, DAP, so H2O and DAP, the DAP program does create a deed restriction, and basically you're not getting a lot of takers on that one. So that one would contribute permanently affordability… permanent affordability But it has not proved to be a successful mechanism for adding houses to our stock. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, I just wanted to make sure… sure that, like, so we're kind of ruling that mechanism out as a potential way to add to our housing stock is through that down payment assistance program.

[225:03] More or less, yeah. I think we'll still… we'll still play around with it to see if there's anything else we can do to incentivize it, but yeah, more or less, I think. Well, so it's been available for, it'll be 3 years in August, and not a single person has seriously considered it, so… And I think that's what we learned as part of the Bloomberry work, and innovation. you have to be willing to fail, right? Be willing to test ideas and let them go if they don't work, and move on to the next thing. So, I think that's really what we are proposing. Is basically, instead of people having to spend the brainpower trying to compare the two. Because we give everybody the option, just saying, this is the one we were… Okay, so you're not considering, like, trying to modify or tweak that program, it's probably going to be discontinued. Okay. Alright, thank you. Okay, last call? All right, with appreciation, thank you very much. That was super informative, and

[226:05] Yeah, we could probably do it again tomorrow and have a whole other set of questions, so… Okay. All right. Thanks very much. Hope we didn't keep you too late. Okay. on… we go. There is item 6B, which is an information item Proposed ordinance 8742, the vacation of the right-of-way at 1128th Street. Is there any… Questions, this is a strictly informational item, so… Brad's here to answer any questions, but… If there are any. Let's hear them. Okay. we are still under matters, and we do have another… Matter, from the board.

[227:07] And, in our agenda meeting, we discussed That we're going to discuss this. And this is, this is about the logistics of how the planning board the logistics and the timing of how Planning Board will respond to… Council's vote. to, move forward, with… the, Area 3 Service Area Expansion Plan. So, in this case, Planning Board and Council, like the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan, as an example, have to agree on, whether or not to move forward. If both bodies don't agree

[228:01] then it is paused. And Laura provided a very informative slide in her email, and I hope you all took a look at that. And that slide was what was presented to Council. Of a decision tree. So, laura has been… Focused on, more of the when. we consider this. And so, before I kind of open up to Laura, I just… I was going to ask Brad… Brad, can you tell us What staff's proposed schedule is. for, how this is going to be managed. So… so after Council, voted yes, they also said yes, but, and they said, we are going to develop some guidelines, guardrails, various words were used. So that, to inform how the service area expansion plan would go forward. That was done via a bunch of hotlines and information provided to staff.

[229:07] And so, staff has synthesized that into a resolution, which is different from the decision, the vote, to move forward or not with the service area expansion plan. So, having prefaced that, Brad, do you… would you want to kind of give us, what staff's current thinking is of schedule and how… how this might proceed? Sure, and… Without repeating all that, just a couple points of emphasis, and… Maybe a personal observation of the… council discussion and subsequent hotlines, is I… I perceive that as, and I… I think, you know, words were said to this effect of. recognizing the good input and debate that the planning board had around the issue, and expressing a desire to provide some deference to that. That led to the hotlines, and then, to be real clear, there is an item

[230:10] As was recommended out of those hotlines for a resolution that creates definition, that would create definition. around the intent, if it were to move forward this Thursday, so that's on Council's consent agenda. Just kind of playing out the sequencing of On the assumption that they do pass the resolution. And the fact that there's a spring break in there, and the comp plan, which was just, by the way. sent to the big, wide world today, being out there, and also for you all reviewing that and leading up to the special meeting that's scheduled on the 26th. We had anticipated or thought that it would be appropriate to

[231:03] Do that after all that… those things are happening. on April 7th. We acknowledge there are other meetings in between there, and… I understand that's part of… Your interest in discussing. Thank you. Right now, just to be clear, on April 7th. It would come back to Planning Board. And likely a… We would re-debate. this question with Council's adopted Let's assume they adopt, staff's Interpretation of their thoughts in this resolution form. It would come back to us on the 7th. We would debate And have another vote.

[232:01] On… on the actual question. of moving forward or not with the service area expansion plan, informed by Council's resolution, Yes, is that… Yeah, that's correct. So, to be clear about it, it is staff's recommendation, given that there is a goal to have a consensus around any of the comp plan decisions, two bodies and four bodies, to ask you to reconsider that. We've teed that up for April 7th. We do have one other hearing item that night. We presume that there'll be a resolution that Would make that discussion meaningful. as I mentioned before, we've got the… well, I didn't mention that next Tuesday we're inviting you to come be engaged, even though that's a normal Tuesday off for you with the draft release event, the 17th being canceled, traditionally because of, spring break, and lots of people, probably yourselves and staff out.

[233:04] We've got, the omnibus Code Amendment on the 24th, which I know Laura, you had sent an inquiry out to staff and got some clarification about both what that is and the fact that We do have that teed up to get, to Council on a certain time frame so that other work plan items can come in behind it, most notably things tied to Sundance, but not exclusively so, and then… One other item on the 7th. So that's what's teed up right now. We don't have a whole lot projected out beyond the other meeting in April, which is the 21st, and there's a… Annexation petition and, And we had recognized that if there did need to be more discussion, that would be an opportunity as well on Area 3. Okay, thank you. But that's obviously not the direction you're talking about. Great.

[234:01] Can I ask a question at some point? Yep. Okay, my question is, this potential reconsideration by Planning Board, this is not anything that's specified in the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, right, as part of the planning reserve, annexation process. This is sort of… It's a request… or perhaps a suggestion by City Council, right, that we reconsider this, but it is not required, and we… actually could… just opt not to reconsider. Is that not correct? Yes, I would frame it a little bit differently. The comprehensive plan itself, as you know, is a four-body review that has four bodies that would need to agree on a document for it to… be approved. In the abstract, one of the bodies could

[235:01] Not approve it, and that means the existing comprehensive plan would Remain in place for the next 5 or 10 years. That obviously is a choice, but I think in the case of Area 3, the setup of the three steps for consideration do contemplate and imply that there be an attempt towards consensus on any of those steps of the two bodies. So, so I'm agreeing, yes, that is correct. I think it's important to put it in the context of the goal of… of… both the process that's laid out, in this case for Area 3, and the goal of any update to a document that's foundational, like the Comprehensive Plan or the Area 3 process that's laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. So, I think now, it's appropriate. Laura has kind of led the charge, both behind the scenes and in our agenda meeting, etc, and sending out a very

[236:06] Careful and thoughtfully worded email about this whole kind of confusing process. So, Laura, I'm going to give you the floor, and, tell us your thoughts, and more specifically, what you might be proposing For us to make a decision on tonight. Okay, thank you for that introduction, Mark. So… I do think the question is… I think it's absolutely fair for Council to ask us to reconsider our vote on Area 3, right? Like, it is a vote that, Council and Planning Board need to agree upon. We voted first, and we said, no, we don't think we should expand the service area. But Council disagreed, right? And so… Can I… sorry, I just want to interject. It is proceeding with the service area expansion plan, to initiate a service area expansion plan

[237:02] Of which there are multiple steps Way beyond that. guardrails, stops, etc. Do you think that's a fair characterization? That's a fair characterization, forgive my shorthand. So, we voted to stop the process and not continue to consider expansion. Council said they would like to continue to consider expansion. Just in terms of process, and you all know that I am a facilitator by trade, I do think it is fair that since we were first out of the gate, the other decision maker hadn't had their say yet. it's appropriate for them to have their conversation and say, would you please reconsider? Right? That's a fair question, right? So I think I have no qualms about, this should come back to us. I think that's appropriate. And I didn't realize there was a question about that, but that, that, yeah. So… as I see it, it is going to come back to us. The question is just when, right? And so we've already had a hearing on this, as the seven of us. And unfortunately, we are butting up against a deadline, of the end of March, when we will lose one of our current members. And so, what I have been wondering is, would it be possible for us to reconsider the decision with the same set of members that made the initial decision?

[238:15] And in that way, you know. I think we… I think it's quite appropriate that we don't try to introduce a new voice. Into a process that's already underway, especially given that… and this is obviously no knock on the new board member, because we don't know who that person is, and I'm sure they'll be highly qualified and raring to go, right? But they will not have had the benefit of having experience on the board. It will be their very first meeting, if it is indeed April 7th. And I think that we can all remember what it was like. to have your first planning board meeting, it's quite confusing. There's a lot of procedure that you don't necessarily yet understand, and there's a lot of history to the question that's coming before you. And given that this is such a consequential and significant issue.

[239:01] And such a complicated issue, and we've already had one hearing on it, it seems quite appropriate to try to, if we can, schedule a rehearing with the same board members that made the initial decision. So that's… that is what I wanted to know from my fellow board members, is whether… and I think we should have a discussion about, sort of, the pros and cons of trying to move up the schedule so that we can have this hearing with our same composition of board members in the month of March, or if folks would prefer to just let it go until April and bring in the new board member. And I can see that there are pros and cons either way. I come down on the side of, it seems logical to have an experienced board, and the same people who heard it the first time, reconsider in light of new information. I think it makes sense to close the loop before we have our joint meeting with Council on the 26th about the larger BVCP, so that it doesn't become a distraction. And quite frankly, a lobbying effort of… that becomes the topic of conversation, is how are you going to vote on this when it comes back? And I would also, just to be very transparent, I would like to avoid any potential perception that,

[240:05] Folks would like the vote to happen with a new member in hopes of changing the outcome. And I don't think that that should be a question in anybody's mind, so I think that we would avoid having that be a question. If we have the same board composition. Those are, those are my reasons for wanting to move it up. And I believe that I would feel the same about this, regardless of which side of the issue I was on, whether I was in the majority or the minority. Just to… to a clarifying point. After our agenda meeting, The 24th is not a date. that… because of the omnibus schedule… the omnibus, review… anyway, that agenda is full. I don't know. necessarily agree with that, Mark. Yep, it's hard to predict. It's a full… It's a full item. And you… are sometimes willing to go fairly late, so… it's really hard to predict.

[241:07] I think that if… so what I would propose is that we test the board's, desire to move this up, and if we don't desire to move it up, then the point of scheduling is moot. And if we do desire to move it up, that we are creative to try to find a way to move this up, whether that means scheduling on the 24th, or calling a special meeting, which a majority of the board has the ability to do. Okay, other comments. I have some, but I want everyone to be able to speak. Are there any questions about what is any confusion about this, because I find it a confusing issue, but anyway, is there any confusion, questions, anything that needs clarifying for anybody? I just want to clarify one thing that Laura said, which I… towards the beginning you said. Planning Board and Council need to agree on this, and that is not…

[242:01] true, I believe. We need… they… we need to agree if it's going to move forward, right? Correct. And then the default, if we do not agree, is that it does not move forward. Right? Thank you for that clarification. Okay. I've thought about this a lot. Laura and I have talked about this a lot. And… I, I, I have decided that for me, the… Schedule is the schedule. And to try to pull it, back. is no different. Then, to try to push it forward to a later date for a new board member. That… that… so the out… the… the manipulation On the basis of… Wanting to ensure an outcome Whatever is,

[243:10] It's kind of the same to pull it in and to manipulate our schedule to bring it back to what would likely be the 17th. or is… is no different than trying to say, yeah, we don't… I don't want to hear this because, I want a new board member, just to be frank. So, I, I want to… I would like to hear, a straw poll. A nod of 4, whatever. Is there support for a special meeting? Let's assume that the 24th agenda is full, and Laura's contention is that she may… Her contention is that it's not. But in our agenda meeting, One option would be to call a special meeting on the 17th.

[244:03] That kind of assumption says all seven of us would what would… Commit to attending, because it would be foolish to have To call a special meeting, to, to ensure that we have all seven board members here, and then… One of us not be able to attend during that particular period of time. So anyway, wood. let's just ask a question, the most general one. Do you want to, attempt to… reconsider this whole structure in March. Yay or nay? Is that… Mark, can we… I'm not sure that we've made enough space if people want to have more of a discussion on the pros and cons. I don't know if anybody wants to talk about that. I know the hour is late. And I also just want to very politely and respectfully register objection to the idea that we're trying to manipulate the schedule to ensure a certain outcome. I don't know what the outcome's gonna be, whether it's in March or in April. I don't think any of us know that.

[245:11] I'm talking about process here, and I certainly am not trying to ensure any particular outcome. if I implied that what I was saying is that It's two sides of the same coin. to say, and not that you're… not that you're searching for an outcome. I sincerely believe you are not searching for a particular outcome, and that… and I think all of us, whether all the current 7, the new 7, will give reconsideration true reconsideration, and not be perfunctory about it. I was just simply saying that That schedule manipulation is scheduled manipulation,

[246:00] and in the name of whatever, it's still scheduled manipulation. So that was my only point, and I do not think you're advocating for a particular outcome. Okay. Are there other questions? And I don't want to stop people from asking questions. So the question that I put out there is, would you support… Or not. trying to hear this in March. Do you want a show of hands? Yeah, what's the, what's, Yeah, let's just do a show of hands. Would you support pulling it back into March? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Okay. That's… That's pretty clear. So… In that case, now we get on to… The logistics of that. of… Lori, you're, you're… yeah, please, you take, take this, take this part of it. Okay.

[247:07] So I think probably most of us would prefer to just have it on a meeting we already have scheduled, if that's possible. So I'm going to ask staff, Brad, is it possible to just schedule this as an additional agenda item for the 24th, or do we need to call a special meeting? Well, those are two different questions. I'll answer just the first one, which is, it's possible to add it. It would just come with the caution that the Omnibus is fairly robust, and While we think it could… Be, you know. Covered in a normal amount of time. it's a little hard to predict how much you all want to talk about it. We are calling it Omnibus, just for reference, as opposed to cleanups. Because we've recognized that some… cleanups may not feel like just cleanups, and they're maybe more substantive, so we don't want to… we don't want to color the characterization of it, so… that… that was not much of an answer. I mean, it really is going to depend on the board's appetite to talk through that, and I… unlike a typical

[248:09] land use case where you've got experience with other ones. It's a little hard to say with this. So, can you give us a sense of how many items we're talking about in this cleanup? Are we talking about, like, five, a dozen? 25. I… 100. Don't have a real good sense of that, let me… Let me see if I can… find a briefing that I've gotten on. It's not 5, it's more than that, it's not 100. So somewhere between 500. Dozen to 20 number, is my guess. Okay. We are a talkative bunch. So then I guess I would… I would throw it open to the board members. Do you want to call a special meeting, or do you want to try to put it on the 24th? What do you think? Can I ask a question? If we, if 24th looks like The date we're gonna have this.

[249:01] Can we schedule it before the omnibus, so that… The omnibus can take as long as it needs to, and maybe even get continued on to the next meeting? Where's this item potentially Doesn't need to be… Hi. I mean, I know we move things on agendas. It's by vote type of thing. Yeah, let me… What is your thought? Yeah, let me see if I can… I'm… I… For some reason. Can't seem to open my computer now. Look at the extended calendar on that. Bonnie, you have… look like you're. I mean, I'd just like to respond to ML's question about the sequencing on that agenda. What I hear from Brad is that staff is trying to keep that omnibus on a particular schedule, because it is scheduled to go to Council. So this idea of, like. Putting it later so that we could continue it if necessary. That doesn't actually seem to respect staff's needs out of this scheduling.

[250:00] So I would prefer that we keep that as the first item on that evening, and we talk about whether we can accommodate the changes we're asking for. In the later time. Yeah, we've got that teed up for Council on first reading on April 16th already. So that would probably be too tight if I went to the 7th. Well then, I'll just ask. it looks like that Spring Break Tuesday might be the most convenient date, and call a special meeting just for this item. Is everybody available on that Spring Break Tuesday? No. And it's… once we… after the agenda meeting, I realized, it's like, okay. Well, if we are calling a special meeting, and the whole point of this is to have the existing 7. Then that, that whole question, yeah, it's moot. So the 17th is, to me.

[251:01] is not a possibility unless all seven of us are fully committed, and it has… it has already been canceled, it's a spring break-y thing, so… That… the 17th is moot to me. But did we rule out the 24th? did not. I don't think we ruled out the 24th. We also didn't rule out the… we haven't even discussed the 23rd, which is a Monday that has no meetings scheduled. Would folks be willing to meet on the Monday, just for this one item? I would be. I would be… however, I… to me, it sounds like the 24th is possible. We've… We've stayed late as a board before to accomplish things. I don't see why… why we can't accomplish things, especially if we're studied ahead of time on… on both topics. So, that would be my preference, but I'm open to Monday as well.

[252:00] Does anyone recall how long we spent? On our first meeting on this topic. I don't either. It was, it was, it was over. It was, It was… it was over 2 hours. easily. But we do have all of that experience already under our belts, and so the new information that's coming back is basically, what did Council say, right? So I think we would all probably want to watch that council meeting, we'd all want to look at the results of the Council resolution, and ask any additional questions. I don't imagine it would take the same amount of time for a rehearing. It didn't, certainly in the case of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. And… And on the other side of that, we have Council's resolution spelling out all of these things to consider. It's not just like we're hearing the same question, we actually have new and additional information, kind of being the point of the rehearing.

[253:10] Well, it seems like perhaps the most feasible option is to add it to the calendar on the 24th. Is that… is that what I'm hearing? Okay. And I would ask for a commitment from everyone. Especially me included, to, That we would be hearing this as a second full agenda item, and… While we're dealing with the first one, and dealing with the second item, that we be, as brief as possible, question ourselves about our questions, and Suppress our curiosity and focus on Questions that are meaningful, and…

[254:02] Try to… try to get done. By, you know, 11 or something. But we would have two major agenda items. Yeah, and it seems like we could focus on the delta from the previous meeting resulting from the Council resolution, right? That, I think, will be… The sum of the new information that we have, and so… I don't plan to re-read my entire statement, even if I agree with it at that time. But, but the new… yeah, focusing on what… what is different as a result of the resolution. Okay, and I would also add that if we have additional questions we, like, information we want to ask staff, we could perhaps do that ahead of time, through email, as has been offered to us in the past. Okay. So, I would like to make a motion. That planning board add to its March 24th meeting agenda.

[255:04] The reconsideration of the… Community needs portion of the decision to Regarding the Area 3 Planning Reserve. Looking for a second. I'll second. Okay. Motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Okay, I'm gonna start with Mason. Yes, Laura? Claudia. Yes. Nope. ML? Kurt? Yes. George. Yes. And I'm a no. So, the motion passes. And, Brad, do we need to do… and Deshauna, is, have we… have we formalized this? Is this, what you need to, Proceed with a schedule adjustment on the 24th. We are good to go, unless Council… Nods otherwise.

[256:05] The only outstanding question that I have, and I may have misheard, but is it. still outstanding the order of agenda items? Or is the board comfortable making this item number two? I think it's item number 2, unless someone wants to move and we hold another vote about rearranging the schedule. Okay. Does anyone feel strongly about this? I'm happy to defer to staff's preference. But for the reasons that were discussed, it would make sense to have it second. Okay. Okay, that item is concluded, and again, it's… our attendance on the 24th and our, focus and brevity are going to be important. Okay, last call for other matters items, Mr. Director? I want to give short shrift to, the comp plan launch today. Big, big milestone, and hope to see you all next Tuesday at the launch party, and especially the opportunity that we've set aside for you to spend time with the other three bodies. If you can't make any of it.

[257:17] Hopefully you can make that one. And it's informal, it's not programmed, but it is designed and noticed for you to be able to talk about things with each other, so we hope you take advantage of that moment. Great, thank you. Any matters from our city attorney? No matters from me. Okay, great, thank you. And, any other matters from the board? Kurt. Just following up on the comp plan release, I had made a request a couple of times for a large-scale printout of the map. If we could… and since that's now been released.

[258:01] if we could get that… I don't know if other people are interested, but… Okay, if we could… those… those of us who want it, if we could get that, that would be really awesome. Thank you. I'd like one. Okay, sure. Okay. I don't need it. I don't know if anybody else doesn't want the paper, but… Okay. I'll… I'll skip it, too. I'm… I'm… huh! Yeah, none for me, please. Okay. Okay, any… any… hearing no other matters, if you have any other matters, raise your hand. Otherwise. a calendar check item. Hey, please. Also. that same week of March that we've just been discussing, the March 26th, we have the special joint meeting with City Council.

[259:01] And I've just… I've been asked to take a tentative headcount on that so that we can start planning for meals and other things, so if anybody knows at this point that they won't be present for that meeting, please let me know. Or if you know that you'll be online. Please let me know that as well. So… Anyone planning on being absent? Okay. Alright, we're all… we're all here for that. Okay, thank you, Thomas. Okay, alright, now we are adjourned. Thank you.