April 21, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Okay. Alright, welcome to the City of Boulder. planning board meeting on Tuesday, April 21st. 2026. We have two members of the board present in the room. We have Board Chair Laura Kaplan and Board Member NL Robles joining us online tonight. And we have 3 board members absent, that is Mark McIntyre, Kurt Nordbach, and Mason Roberts. Because our experience is that facilitating a hybrid meeting while attending remotely is challenging for everyone involved, I'm going to be serving as chair tonight. And we have a relatively short agenda, and I'm just gonna review that. Quickly for members of the public who are with us. We will be starting with public participation. That's an opportunity to comment on any issues that are not the subject of a public hearing later in the meeting.

[1:00] And we'll then move on to a public hearing on an annexation proposal for the Spring Valley Estates subdivision. And then to conclude the meeting, we have some administrative matters for the Planning Board, appointing liaisons to other city boards. And planning our annual board retreat in May. So that said, I… we get… well, I… excuse me, I will get us started with public participation. Again, this is an opportunity to comment on any issue other than the Spring Valley Estates annexation. If folks are here in the room or online to speak to the annexation, please hold your comments until that specific public hearing. Later in the evening. And for open comment now, our commenters will have 3 minutes each, and I will hand it over to city staff to review the rules and get folks queued up. Thank you, Claudia. So, I'll just… my name's Vivian Castro-Woldridge, and I'll just run through these rules for public participation, and then we'll move on to open comment. So, first of all, the City is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations.

[2:07] 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 a lot more information about this Productive Atmospheres vision 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 this vision, and all of these will be upheld during the meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And we ask that all participants speaking tonight from the public introduce themselves using their first and last name. Next slide, please. And if you are online, you can let us know that you would like to speak by clicking on the virtual raise the hand button, and you can get to it by going to the bottom of your screen on the menu bar, or also going to the reactions button.

[3:17] There's another slide that shows that, if you can click over. So hit that, and then you can find the raise hand button that way. So as the chair mentioned, the open comment, this part of the meeting is, for anything you would like to speak to planning board members about that is not part of the Spring Valley Estates public hearing later on in the meeting. And… this would be the time, if you're online, to raise your virtual hand so that we know you'd like to speak. And Amanda. You can maybe start in the room, see if anybody there would like to participate in open comment, and then we can move online. Sure, thank you, Vivian. We do have one, member of the public signed up to speak tonight, so that's James Pollack.

[4:04] James, if you'd like to come on up? And… James, there's a… oh, there you go. trans… Paula, last time I tried to give a speech, I failed because of my speech. Deficit? So now I've recorded it. One thing is, when I recorded it, the snowpack was… 62% of median, now it's 19. And I know that the City Council is Doing something about it, but… Now I'm gonna play my speech. If it will. Derves… Good evening. It is my understanding that Council is already considering a vacancy tax for 2026. I urge you, don't limit.

[5:05] it to residential units. Hold commercial owners to the same standard. Boulder is losing revenue because of vacant retail and commercial spaces. It is my understanding that many commercial property owners are refusing to lower rents and keeping them artificially high. They believe doing so would devalue their properties, decrease the value of their portfolios, and hurt their ability to borrow money for new projects. They would rather take a total loss on rent than risk the paper value of their holdings. That's their problem. These owners contribute only property tax, which leaves the city short on revenue. I propose a method, something like a rolling 6-month vacancy period, where these owners should pay the taxes that a functioning business would have generated, including sales tax, employee taxes, and all applicable fees, at the rental rate they demand. Here's some simple back-of-the-napkin math. Boulder has roughly 2.5 million square feet of vacant commercial space. If we charged a commensurate tax of just $20 per square foot, an estimate on the lower side of the market. equivalent of what an active business pays in sales and employee taxes, that would generate about $50 million in annual revenue. We also need a complete moratorium on new commercial or mixed-use construction, until the vacancy rate stays below 5%.

[6:11] This brings me to housing. Building more units for people who want to move here is well-intentioned, but it is not a real solution to the housing crisis. It only makes the crisis bigger. Boulder is already nearing its practical maximum density. There are no drive-in movie theaters or dark horses to tear down. Adding more housing creates a temporary fix that eventually demands even more units. It's an Ouroboros, a snake eating its own tail, a self-consuming cycle that slowly changes the character of Boulder with every turn. More people means more problems. Our infrastructure, like roads, is already at its limit. Adding density often leads to more commuting in and out of Boulder. Because most people cannot live and work in the same place, the idea of perfect 15-minute neighborhoods is a utopian idea, not reality. The reality is that there will always be a net increase of traffic, coupled to a net increase in housing. Not everyone can choose where they work, so they will commute. Our roads, services, and water systems are already struggling to keep up. Also, I'd like to bring attention to what they're building.

[7:11] Look at the development at 30th and Pearl. It feels like a little New York City, made out of stacked, recycled shipping containers. It's the ugliest architecture I've seen in this town. It's not bolder. Finally, we must face our water reality. The snowpack this year is 60% below average, and climate scientists suggest drought years like this are becoming more likely, not less. The city says we can survive 2 or 3 lean years, but what if that's the new baseline? In a decade, we may not have enough water for our current population, let alone a larger one. Why would we deliberately build ourselves into a water scarcity trap? Stop this cycle before our infrastructure breaks and our water runs dry. Thank you. Thank you for coming, Mr. Pollack, and thank you for sharing your comments. Do we have anyone else in the room, Amanda?

[8:02] We do not. Okay, let's go to online, then. Great. I don't see any hands raised online, but I'll just give folks a few more seconds, just to double check. And thank you again, everybody, for being here tonight for this… Planning board meeting. Okay, looks like nobody online, So, over to you, Chair. Okay, thank you, Vivian. So, next on our agenda, we have item 3, approval of minutes. From previous meetings, we do not have any meeting minutes prepared for review tonight, so we will move on to the next item. Item 4 on our agenda is call-up items, potential call-ups. Again, we have no potential call-ups at this time. So we will move on to item 5. our public hearings. So our main business for tonight is Agenda Item 5A, and I will read that into the record now. It is a public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on a petition to annex approximately

[9:04] 43.194 acres of land generally located within the Spring Valley Estates subdivision. Including properties along Linden Drive. Cholla Court. Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, and rights of way into the City of Boulder, with an initial zoning designation of Residential Estate RE. ACE number LUR2023-00001. So, our task as a board tonight is to review the proposed annexation agreement. and make a recommendation to City Council on whether and how to proceed with it. So City Council will be making the final decision on this item. Later on. And so that folks understand the process here, what we're going to do is we're going to start with a presentation from city staff, followed by a round of clarifying questions from board members. Then we will hear a presentation from the annexing properties, or their representative.

[10:05] Followed by another round of questions from the board. And then we will have a public hearing where we can take comments from the public, and finally we will deliberate as a board and vote on a recommendation. Before we start this process, I want to give board members the opportunity to disclose any ex parte communications. Or conflicts of interest related to this annexation proposal. Do any of the board members present have any disclosures to make? And if you're online, I invite you to make a little bit of noise, because I cannot see you on the screen at the moment. Sorry, my screen is off most of the time here. No, I do not have any disclosures. This is ML. Thank you, ML, and welcome. None from me, Claudia, this is Laura. Thank you, Laura. All right, we will proceed then with the staff presentation.

[11:02] Okay, thank you, Claudia. Good evening, Planning Board. I'm Chandler Van Scott, Principal Planner with the Planning and Development Services Department. And I'm here to present. the Spring Valley Annexation and Initial Zoning. So just to jump right in to the executive summary, what you are being asked to consider tonight It is a petition to annex approximately 43.194 acres of land within the Spring Valley Estate subdivision, with an initial zoning designation of RE, a residential estate. The area proposed for annexation is comprised Of 36 lots, generally developed between 1966 and 1977, with detached dwelling units. It is located in North Boulder, along the western city boundary. Adjacent to the Wonderland Hills neighborhood. It is within Planning Area 2 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. All developed portions of the property are below the 2016 blue line. Planning Board is required to hold a public hearing and to make a recommendation to City Council on whether or not the annexation and proposed initial zoning should be approved.

[12:07] So just to get a little bit more into, the details on the process… So we received this application in 2023, and have been working with the applicants, the Water Association, and across city departments to negotiate the terms of a potential annexation. The petition submitted is for an annexation by election. I understand that an annexation by election process has only been conducted once in the city since the 1970s, for the Knowlewood neighborhood. So there are a couple of extra steps involved that we want to review with you. There are two major phases of this process. The first phase confirms that the applicant has submitted all of the required materials and sets the terms and conditions of the annexation. First, City Council reviews the petition for substantial compliance with state law. This took place by resolution on April 16th of this year. At tonight… at tonight's public hearing, Planning Board will make a recommendation to Council on the annexation and initial zoning of the area.

[13:04] Then on May 21st, 2026, at a second public hearing, Council will review your recommendation, the annexation and zoning, and make findings on whether the proposed annexation is in compliance with state law, and determine the terms and conditions and initial zoning of the annexation area. Sorry. So, the first phase allows for the city and the applicants to move forward with an election. Council will order that an election will be called, and will nominate an election commissioner. There will then be an election where both registered electors and landowners of the area will vote on the annexation. A majority is needed for the election to pass. If the outcome is positive, the area is considered eligible for annexation, and finally, Council may annex the area by ordinance. So, a couple more steps than usual, and if you have questions about this process, we can discuss at the end of the presentation, but I will now move on to some of the existing conditions in the area.

[14:04] So, as I mentioned before, the area proposed for annexation is comprised of 36 lots, generally developed between 1966 and 1977. They total approximately 43.194 acres of land. Generally, it's located within the Spring Valley Estate subdivision, including properties along Linden Drive, Chola Court, Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, as well as the rights of way therein. The lots range from approximately 0.43 to 2.5 acres in size. As I mentioned before. The entire area is located within Boulder Valley Comp… Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, Planning Area 2. Area 2 refers to land now under county jurisdiction, where annexation to the city, can be considered consistent with policies 1.08, adapting to limits on physical expansion, 1.10, growth requirements, and 117, annexation.

[15:04] Annexation is required before adequate facilities and services are furnished to properties in Area 2. The developed portions of the lots within Spring Valley, as I mentioned, are all located below the blue line, which is shown here. The portions lying west of and therefore above the blue line are not eligible for water or sewer service, and are therefore undevelopable. The area is currently served by a city sanitary sewer. The city currently manages the water system, and serves as the water provider for the neighborhoods that border Spring Valley to the east. The primary purpose behind this petition for annexation is the petitioner's request to have the Spring Valley neighborhood connected to the city's municipal water system. And in the case of an emergency, to have access to fire hydrants and reliable water service and pressure. So the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the area is Very Low Density Residential, or VLR.

[16:03] This has an anticipated density of 2 dwelling units per acre or less, and anticipated uses are primarily single-family detached dwelling units. So, to jump into the proposed annexation, a majority of Spring Valley landowners have petitioned to annex into the City of Boulder. As I mentioned, properties currently receive water from the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association, or SVMWA, but already receive city sewer service. Annexation is being pursued to connect all the properties to City Water Service and constructing required public infrastructure. Requested zoning designation of RE, or residential estate. The existing number of dwelling units would remain. There will be no ability to subdivide or add additional principal dwelling units. This is listed in the terms and conditions. No development allowed on portions of the property west of the blue line.

[17:01] So, just to clarify, there is no annexation agreement with this, because they're going through an election, and because not all property owners, have signed the petition to annex, we are creating terms and conditions for annexation, which is similar to an annexation agreement in terms of what it contains. But, slightly different, process-wise. So, in this case, yeah, I just said all the property owners have not signed the petition. And not all of them were willing to enter into an annexation agreement. Annexation by petition requires persons comprising more than 50% of the landowners in the area and owning more than 50% of the area to petition for annexation. We have met this requirement. Under these circumstances, the City may impose additional terms and conditions upon the area proposed for annexation as part of the ordinance. The terms and conditions must be approved by the voters in the election, along with the annexation. So I'm just going to go, briefly over the main points that are contained in the terms and conditions. These were included in the packet as Attachment C.

[18:06] So there are required public improvements. This includes connection to city water, meeting of city infrastructure requirements, requires construction of the Spring Valley public improvements, which would include… Water mains, service lines, meters, hydrants, valves, an off-site booster pump station. Roadway upgrades to the Troya Court and Spring Valley Road to provide improved access for fire department vehicles and equipment, easement dedications and acquisition of any necessary rights-of-way. These will be designed and built to city standards, subject to limited variances. In terms of the obligations for the Water Association, An agreement must be executed prior to City Council's hearing on the annexation petition. The draft of this agreement has also been included with the packet. We are in the process of finalizing that currently. Svmwa must continue to provide water service until all properties connect to city water, provide and or assign design work for the Spring Valley Public Improvements.

[19:05] Provide necessary utility and flood control easements. Convey the parcel owned by the water association to an adjacent owner after removing the structures. And then work toward dissolving the association within 2 years of project completion, aka annexation. So, the city manager is also proposing forming a local improvement district to finance and construct the public improvements. Property owners would pay 100% of preliminary cost estimates, plus up to a 15% overrun. Certain costs may be excluded, for example, costs already paid by, the Water Association, grant contributions, etc. A $1 million DOLA grant is anticipated if annexation occurs by November 14th, 2026. Assessment methodology differs per improvement type and aims to equitably assess the costs among properties. Staff continues to work on finalizing the assessment methodology to be included in the terms and conditions with the applicant team.

[20:02] Owners may pay assessments in full or in 30-year installments. For utility connection and fees, upon completion of the water system, properties must connect exclusively to city water. Certain work on private property, such as service lines to the home, pressure-reducing valves, is the landowner's responsibility. Property owners are required to pay plant investment fees, or PIFs. The water PIF is payable at 2023 rates, which includes a 10-year payment plan option with a 30% monthly surcharge. Similar options for stormwater PIFs. And, wastewater is not applicable, as the City Sewer service already exists. Vacant lots will pay PIFs at the time of future building permit issuance. For water rights, the City does not intend to acquire SVMWA's water rights, and we can talk about why that is later, but may monitor related water court activity.

[21:00] There are also environmental and regulatory requirements, including requirements for wetland stream mapping to be completed, and adopted with annexation. Properties must be included in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and sub-district before water connection. And existing wells may continue to be used for irrigation only, no domestic use, and must follow state regulations. And then there are also, some land use and zoning conditions, essentially requiring them to comply with, city land use and zoning law once they are annexed. So, in terms of public comment, We sent mailed notice to properties within 600 feet of the area, and posted signs. Around the subject area, Staff did field some questions, but no comments pertaining to the actual proposal have been received at this time. So there were four key issues for discussion that I outlined in the memo. One and two are very similar. One is whether the annexation petition is compliant with state annexation statutes. Two is, does the annexation request comply with applicable state annexation statutes?

[22:08] 3 is whether the proposal is consistent with city annexation and Boulder Valley Comp Plan policies. And 4 is whether the initial zoning of residential estate or RE is appropriate for the subject properties. So, I'm kind of lumping key issues 1 and 2 together here. But in terms of state law, staff has reviewed the annexation request for compliance with Sections 3112, 104, 105, and 107 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and with Section 30 of Article 2 of the State Constitution. And finds that the petition to annex and the annexation application are consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. You can refer to attachment F in the packet for staff's analysis of the state annexation statutes. For key issue number 3, in terms of policies on annexation, the subject area may be considered for annexation due to its designation as Area 2.

[23:07] The Area 2 designation refers to the planning area now under county jurisdiction, where annexation to the city can be considered, consistent with BVCP policies. Pursuant to BVCP Policy 117C, because the developed portions of the properties are located within Area 2 and were moved east of the Blue Line in 2016, the properties are considered substantially developed, and no additional dwelling units may be added. Otherwise, the area does meet, Boulder Valley Comp Plan policies with regards to annexation. And then finally, key issue number 4, which is whether the zoning is appropriate. Initial zoning is established pursuant to Section 9218, Zoning of annexed Land, in the Boulder Revised Code. If a property is annexed. Zoning will be established consistent with the goals and the land use map of the BBCP.

[24:02] As described above. The area is designated as Very Low Density Residential, or VLR. Which anticipates a density of 2 dwelling units per acre or less. And anticipates predominantly single-family detached units. The requested zoning is residential estate, which has a density range consistent with the land use designation, and would be compatible with the adjacent area to the south. Which is also zoned RE, and is developed with similar lot sizes and densities. That's shown here, the existing zoning map surrounding the area. So overall, staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the underlying land use designation, as well as the community's desired future character for the area. In conclusion, we have a motion here. Which, I'm happy to leave up. This is basically that we are recommending that

[25:00] Planning Board recommend approval of the annexation to City Council. And now I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chandler. So board members now have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions about the proposal. I'm gonna look online first, so I don't lose track of our board members there. Laura or ML, would either of you like to start with clarifying questions? None. Amy, thank you. I, I do have questions. Alright, go ahead, Emil. Thank you. Thank you, Chandler, for your presentation. I have some general questions, just starting where you started with the vote. This isn't a City of Boulder vote, is it? It's just for the residents there, or how does… what's… That's correct. Yeah, the property owner's vote. It's actually property owners and registered electors who live in the annexation area.

[26:00] In the proposed annexation area? Yeah, in the proposed annexation. Okay, so, regards then, it talked about… If… The majority votes against annexation, or if the vote is tied. there's… There's no, it doesn't move forward, or the council Would part of it be annexed? Is there ever a situation where the people who voted yes would still be annexed? No, not under this petition. Okay, so it's all or nothing. Yeah, that's correct. Okay, so let me see my other general questions. Now, I'm sure that everybody… water's on everybody's mind these days. We are in a significant drought and all, and we're having what… I can't remember how many properties wanting to tie into the city's

[27:04] water. Are we… has that, analysis of availability That we have spare water? For this annexation? We don't have any issues with capacity, and it has been looked at by utilities, yes. Okay, second question in regards to… So, because we now have all these WUI requirements, How does that work when the significant number of existing houses are brought in to the city, and they are… in a WUI, you know, whichever map, whether you look at the state map or Boulder's map. Are they subject to up… dating their properties to our RULI standards.

[28:08] What are the status of all these houses, regards to fire hardening? So we're not requiring them to perform, like, proactive upgrades to meet WUI standards, but they would be subject to all of our… WUI regulations moving forward. So, any remodels or work that they do on the land would be subject to those regulations. I'm a little bit of a colloquy on this issue? Absolutely. Yeah, I had some similar questions. Was… was, fire mitigation discussed at all in terms of the terms and conditions? Yes, for sure. And what did those discussions look like? Like, what led you to the decision to not require any upgrades or compliance as part of the annexation? Ella, do you wanna… I think… excuse me, I think.

[29:01] of the requirements is to upgrade, I think it's Spring Valley… is it Linden Avenue? In Charlotte Court, there's a couple of streets that have to be upgraded to make The more accessible for fire apparatuses. That's the requirements that I recall. The properties would be subject to WE requirements, just like any other homes that are existing in Boulder right now, that are also in the WUI, so they would be subject to exactly the same standards. Okay, so things going forward would be subject to our new building codes and landscaping rules, etc. Is there… could the city require that properties come into any form of compliance on WUI codes as part of the terms and conditions? I… I wouldn't say that they're not in compliance with MUI code, because the triggers for compliance, come in with changes being made to the property. Okay. Thank you. And I'll get back to you if you have more questions. I do, and just tell me when to stop, because I have a number of questions.

[30:04] So, those are general questions. Looking at the, draft annexation terms and conditions. Number 4. the local improvement district, So, it mentions property owners pay finance and construction pay, finance, and construct the public improvements, on and on. The property owners pay 100% of preliminary cost estimates, plus up to 15% overrun. What happens after that? After that, the city would be responsible for the costs, and these terms, while they are in here, the terms that you just read come straight out of the Boulder Revised Code. So that's what the city can impose under those standards in a local improvement district. I guess this is troublesome, because we know how volatile the construction industry is.

[31:09] And I don't know that there's any project in the last 5 years that has kept To fifth… within 15% of its preliminary cost estimates. So, how was… This… particular term. reviewed. What, what process, what process does the city go through to, take on an unknown liability. Again, just given… The state of the construction industry right now? And has been. And to incur onto the city, which is all the

[32:03] Current residents and taxpayers the burden. of this… overrun? What kind of… what was the process to come to that conclusion? The way this is anticipated to go is that the design is completed by the time an LID would be created, and that the city would have Estimates of the cost of construction and any other costs that would go into this. So that… The city would be in the best possible position To estimate the cost that it would have, but there is a risk associated with that. Yes. That's… So, preliminary cost estimate is, I think, the sticky point here. Because preliminary could happen today, it could happen, as you say, at time of… is that specified? Is that… is the best known cost specified to be after tech docs, or after we have all the details in, and there are maybe even signed

[33:14] bids. Is that specificity included to protect the city residents from taking on these costs? That's… the agreement with Spring Valley Mutual Water Association states that they're responsible for completion of the design to 100%, and it's anticipated that the design is completed at the time of annexation. But then afterwards, the LID process is under the city's control. So, I think it is possible to have Bids in at that point in time. And to be as far along in the process as is possible under this construct. And how would that be accommodative, what you just said?

[34:05] Is there some specific mechanism to, get the actual costs As validated and verified and even agreed upon. Prior to, the city agreeing to Cover anything over 15%. I think the city would just have to have the design Essentially completed, so that we could go through a bidding process and a construction contract, and… Have obtained all easement that would need to be obtained? And try to get as close as possible in that regard. So, could the, A signed construction contract.

[35:02] be part of the… A part of the… of these terms? To establish the cost. I think it potentially could. I… I don't think it's necessary, because the city is going to be contracting with the contractor, so it's… it's under the city's control on whether or not that con… there's a bid at that point in time. for the work. Who determines the preliminary cost estimate? I think the preliminary cost estimates we have right now have come in through the consultant that the applicant team has hired. But I'm going to turn it over to Chris DeVille with Utilities. Great. Thank you. Hi, Chris. Planning Board. Hi, can you hear me okay? Yeah, so Chris DeVille, I'm a Deputy Director in our Utilities Department. Glad to join you today.

[36:03] tonight. So just to, compliment what Hela's been sharing, we've been actively working with the Spring Valley team on establishing what I'll just refer to as cost surety. The design is not 100% done. We're very close. And, Spring Valley has, on their own dollar, been working with an engineer to develop the design, and along the way, they provide cost estimates, opinions of probable cost. So they are just engineer estimates, they're not bids. But as Hela was explaining, I think as we move through the second and additional steps in this anticipated process, there's a few ways we can achieve additional cost surety. We could choose to get our own, contractor opinion without a formal bid, or, you know, if there's time, I think our view is to, officially bid it so we have actually a known cost. Right. Before the terms of the LID are officially established, in terms of the final costs.

[37:02] So… on the In the current agreement, is what you just said. a requirement? Well, I… the other nuance here, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to dodge your question specifically, but I'll just, for context, share that there is a lot of steps, as Chandler explained. And, you know, the city, to your point, to protect the city, we need this to make sure this is approved and going forward. So we're not gonna, obviously, hire a contractor or take on new debt to finance these costs until we know this is approved 100%. So there are these, these extra steps envisioned and planned that we can share a little more about, if that's helpful. I see that Laura has her hand raised. Laura, do you want to get in on this conversation? Yeah, I just want to colloquy and acknowledge… what I think I'm hearing ML doing is trying to see, is there something that we, as a planning board.

[38:01] need to or could put into the terms and conditions that would be helpful to the city in ensuring that we are not on the hook for cost overruns, that the estimates are as good as possible before Whatever that point in time is, that we have that preliminary estimate. So I guess, if that's okay with you, ML, I'd like to ask staff, is there anything we could put into the terms and conditions that would be helpful to the city to prevent that scenario that ML's talking about? Or is that not necessary, or since the city's in control of the process, like, what could we do to be helpful? Yeah, I don't think it's necessary, because the city will be in control of that process. I guess my only, if… if there were to be clarification, would be to establish when 100% of preliminary cost estimates… what… what… to define that precisely. And…

[39:02] You know, to me, that looks like, 100% of cost… I will take out preliminary cost estimates, because that is an open bag. I'm an architect, and I see these agreements, and nobody, nobody holds their budgets. Nobody. ML, could I make a process suggestion at this point? Yes, please. And that is that we can return to this issue when we deliberate. And if there are potential terms and conditions, or even recommendations for types of terms and conditions that you would like to see City Council ask to have added to this agreement, maybe that's something to think about, how you would phrase those. I appreciate that. Thank you. Sorry to get into the weeds here. All right. Did you have… Do you have additional questions beyond that, or shall we move on to another board member? I have two more questions, but I can come back… you can come back to me if you'd like.

[40:00] Let's come back. I want to give Laura a crack at things if she's got any additional questions. None for me at this time. Thank you, Claudia. Alright. Max? No questions from Max. Emma, I'm going to queue you up for your two additional questions, and then I have a few. Okay, perfect. Hi there, if appropriate, excuse me, ML, sorry to interrupt. This is Chris Still with the, utilities team. One extra piece of context I failed to mention, but I think might be Noteworthy is, as we work to refine this design and get it to 100%, there is a contingency line item that we've been working on, and that has gone from, you know, 30% down to 20%. I think right now, we can double-check, but I believe it's at a 10% level. So that's… that's some added, buffer to… to give us some additional cost surety, right? That's for the, kind of, these unknown items as we work to finalize design. And then, you know, so that's before that 15% overrun would be applied. So, just for context, that…

[41:00] That's an additional amount of, protection we have. Thank you. Thank you. So continuing to go through the, terms and conditions, I'm looking at number 8. Land use and zoning conditions? So, it says rental properties must obtain city rental licenses within 90 days. Initial energy efficiency upgrades are temporarily waived. So my question is, for how long are we waiving these? And why? They would be waived until there's a renewal of the rental license, and I think they are renewed every four years. And this is a pretty standard condition that we include in annexation, typically, agreements. Here, it's an election conditions to give,

[42:02] Property owners who live in the area and are renting their properties, time to bring their properties into compliance. Those are weeks. These are properties that have a current rental license. Yes, that's what it is. So anybody… okay, anybody applying for a new one would need to meet the, the energy efficiency. Yes. Okay, thank you. And last question. I know that Chandler kind of walked through the… the four questions and the BVCP, And I'm curious, BDCP 1.10 growth requirements, it talks about, growth must add significant value to the community, or improve quality of life. So, I'm curious as to how, staff

[43:00] what… What is the significant value to the community? I think it's really assumed that if it is in Planning Area 2, Where it says that the city is going to actively pursue annexation of those areas, and if it's below the blue line. It's essentially implied that annexing those areas would add benefit. There's no… Specific findings about… what they're going to add to the character of the community or anything like that. They are in an area that the comp plan designates as an area where we will actively pursue annexation. The city didn't actively pursue, is that correct? They came to the city? Right. And that doesn't mean that the city goes out and tries immediately to annex all, but when a request is made. They're considered eligible, and the city is, intended to actively pursue annexation at that time. So 1.10, the BBCP 1.10, must add significant value to the community, is basically, overlooked.

[44:11] We're just wrapped in. I would… I would say, maybe. Kind of included by the fact that this was, voted to be in Planning Area 2, and voted to be below the blue line by the people in the City of Boulder. So the… Anticipation or expectation that this would be an outcome. Yes. Okay, thank you for that. Those are all my questions. Claudia, if I could colloquy? Yes, go ahead, Laura. I think… I think I do remember reading in the memo that they talked about the benefits to the city of having these properties be on city water and having the properties improved for, emergency vehicle access helps to prevent wildfire spread in the City of Boulder, and having them be subject to our WUI regulations. The county is a bit,

[45:05] not as rigorous, let's say, than once the properties are annexed into the city. So, bringing them into the city helps protect the city from spread of wildfire, which I find to be a benefit. Thank you, Laura. I do have a few questions still for staff, if you'll indulge me. I was curious if you are targeting the November election to get this subdivision election done, or is there another date in mind? No, it would be a special election prior to the November election. Prior to November. Are there particular deadlines that you're working on to get this finalized, to actually get an election launched? Yes. Yeah. And they are. We're trying to get the annexation done by November 14th in order for them to get the $1 million DOLA grant. Okay, and so when do they need to have this done to get an election organized?

[46:04] I… yeah, we are on a tight timeline. Council will consider this on May 21st, and then we would have to immediately pursue setting up an election. And if the vote passes, pro-annexation, then we would schedule an ordinance. for Council to consider. In the fall. Okay, so this would be a special election run by the county prior to… Actually run by the city. City. Okay, thank you. Couple more questions here. One of the terms and conditions suggested that a local improvement district isn't guaranteed to happen, right? That that's something that the city would offer to organize. What happens if that LID is not created? Do we just have an annexation with no improvements? Like, what happens at that point? Yeah, then the area would be annexed, and the improvements would not be constructed, at least not under…

[47:03] under that LID. Okay. are there… protections to make sure that that LID actually does happen. There are no… protections, And the reason the language is in there is because the Boulder Charter includes language that states if I believe, I'm talking from memory here, if 50% of property owners object, that part of the costs have to be covered by the city, if the city still wants to pursue an improvement district, and we didn't want that cost to have to be covered by the city, so… Okay. That's why we… It's still somehow reliant on an election on a majority of people. Yeah, it doesn't require, an election, but, there's an opportunity. The LID process is actually a quasi-judicial process to create an LID, and property owners have the opportunity to object during that process. Thank you.

[48:02] Let's see… I wanted to give Chandler an opportunity to talk about the water rights issue. So, the memo says the city is not interested in acquiring. the, water district rights. Is there anything you can elaborate on that? Why… why is the city not interested in these rights? My understanding, and I'm not the water rights expert, but our water rights people did look at it, and essentially, I think that they decided that it was of no value to the city to obtain those water rights. I see Chris coming back to the podium. You want to give us the quick, definitive answer? Yeah, hold on. So again, just to… Chandler gave a crisp, succinct answer, and it's all truthful. Yeah, when hearing about water rights, the obvious comment might be, why wouldn't we go after everything? We do have a team that's actively looking strategically at various opportunities, and like Chandler stated, the short version is the quantity and the use of these decreed rights has very little value for the city. Okay.

[49:02] Yeah, thank you, good to have that in the record. And then one more question for… Chandler and staff, What, if anything, would be the impact of future land use code changes on these parcels if they were annexed. So I'm, you know, we're doing a lot with the BBCP right now, and land use changes, and really looking at changing our entire land use strategy in the city. And if you look at our draft maps, this area would… be part of what we're gonna call Neighborhood 1, right, if we approve these maps. And then we have other things going through state legislature, like lot splitting and the like, so… Do the terms and conditions that are proposed lock in The current number and configuration of homes, even if these rules change in the future? Yes, they would have to amend the annexation agreement in order to. Okay, so this is something that would… Or, I'm sorry.

[50:02] The terms and conditions, which… Could they amend that? No. The terms and conditions would be imposed through an ordinance. So that would be on top of, or superseding. somehow other changes to our land use math strategy. Okay, thank you. Alright, that's all I have for questions. Did anything else come up for any other board members? Okay, then we will move on to the applicant presentation. And while we get this set up. Just to set the expectations here, the applicant will have up to 15 minutes. Unless you have a… do you have the clicker? No, we don't have a clicker, so I'll run your slides for you. Thank you.

[51:00] You'll have up to 15 minutes for your presentation, and you may have heard questions from board members that you might want to respond to. You are welcome to hold off on responding to those questions until our Q&A session, because we will ask them again if we don't get answers, so please proceed with the presentation you planned to give. Thank you. So, I'm Carolyn Steffel, I'm an attorney with Diet Sun Davis right here in town. We're right off Pearl Street, and I am the attorney for the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association, and we have been working on this since 2022, actually, so we're exceedingly excited to be here today and to be at this point in the process. What we have is… I wanted to, give you a little bit of information. I'll try not to repeat anything that's been said so far, and one of the things I want to address is how this benefits the city, because I think it's a huge benefit to the city, as well as to the neighborhood.

[52:00] Basically, the property is located on the western edge of… the City of Boulder, containing 36 homes. 12 of the homes actually are directly adjacent to the City of Boulder. So, this property is as you're going up Linden Drive, you go from the City of Boulder to the Spring Valley neighborhood, and then to property that's served by the Pine… Brook Hills Water Association. The… Okay, you can go on to the next one. Okay, just to start a little bit, how we got here. So, I really view this as… this has been a process that's been in the works for the last 60 years, because when the property first developed in the 1960s, it did connect to the city's sanitary sewer system, and part of that agreement included a statement that the property owners would petition for annexation should annexation ever become available. And it did become available,

[53:03] later on. So when they first developed, they were outside the blue line, so they developed with wells. So the way we have it right now is we've got this Neighborhood Mutual Water Association. They charge water fees, they assess their property owners, and they own wells that are then, used to trade it and deliver to their properties. They also have one water tank. Which, that community water system worked for a long time, but given now the drier conditions and climate change, we are finding that our water is not sufficient for firefighting purposes. So, some of the Spring Valley homes actually annexed to the city along the way. We had originally been a little more than 36, and now we're left with these 36 homes. In 2016, Boulder initiated an effort to move the blue line so that these homes would be under the blue line. And so, even though I think the comment was made, well, the city didn't initiate the annexation, well, the city, without…

[54:06] without a petition from the property owners, did, initiate the process to move the blue line so that these homes would be under the blue line, with that contemplation going back from 2016 that they'd be eligible for water service and would eventually annex. Then they also… the next step was to amend the Boulder Valley Comp Plan to then put these properties into Area 2, where the city will actively pursue annexation. So, at this point, the entire Spring Valley water system needs to be replaced. It is an aged system, but in addition, we have this problem with our wells not producing enough flow. pressure, and volume to adequately fight a fire. So we have one water tank, but if we were to have a fire, that water tank is going to be depleted in less than 5 minutes.

[55:03] Okay, and so this leaves the neighborhood and the adjacent city in really a sticky position. The Marshall Fire brought this even more to our attention, and so that's why the neighbors approached the city in 2020. two, to start this process of annexation, because after the Marshall Fire, the residents realized that they have a problem that needed to be addressed. And the… Neighborhood provides a critical wildfire barrier to property already within the city, as well as, essential city infrastructures, like the Maxwell Reservoir Tank site, Maxwell Reservoir, which is right next to the property. If you can go on to the next one… Okay, so… If you look at this map, you can see the neighborhood that we're talking about, and how much of it borders Boulder County Open… or City of Boulder open space. And so, this neighborhood is exactly on the,

[56:13] wildland-urban interface, and it really provides… if a fire is coming, it's going to come first from these directions through the open space, likely hitting these neighborhoods before it goes on to the Wonderland Lake and the Promontory neighborhoods that are already within the City of Boulder. The map on the left shows wildfires that have already approached the property, and the list of fires that have approached this neighborhood include fires that are coming from the north, like the Left Hand Canyon and the Cowwood Fire, plus property fires like the Sunshine Canyon Fire, Black Tiger Fire. That have all come approaching the neighborhood. The most recent was less than 2 weeks ago, when we had the Goat Trail fire, and one of the residents that's here in this room was awoken from his bedroom by seeing his

[57:13] Window light up with orange light, because the fire was that close. And thank God it wasn't a windy day, and they were able to put that fire out. But this neighborhood was evacuated less than 2 weeks ago, and So, this is very urgent that we complete this annexation and work with the city to get this project completed. Real quick on the water system design. The city has been working on the water system design, with us. Taking the lead as the Spring Valley Mutual Water Association, we've hired JVA here in Boulder to work on the designs, and they have now designed a system to replace the water mains.

[58:03] to build a booster pump station, because of the elevation gain throughout the neighborhood, we do need to have a booster pump station that will both increase the pressure for those fire hydrants to meet the city's requirements for how… how much pressure and flow we have at those hydrants. Given the size of the houses. And we've worked with the city on the placement of these new hydrants. We're gonna have all new hydrants, all new lines. And that booster pump station, the booster pump station will also have smaller pumps for when we're just doing daily, deliveries of water, and we don't need to run the big fire pumps. There's also redundancies, like there's a bypass if the pump station ever goes out, so we've got a lot of options here. What we have looked at is putting this prop… putting this, pump station on the Maxwell site, and that's where we're looking at putting this. The design is mostly

[59:01] a good way to being complete, and we have, the city… the, Water Association has done assessments of their property owners to pay for this all the way around. So, they've been paying for every piece of this design so far. We're also going to be doing improvements to Choiac Court and Spring Valley Road to improve access to fire. trucks, that includes for Troyo Valley Road, if you know, or Troyo… court. It's a really, really steep road. It almost looks like a driveway. And they're gonna put a hammerhead turn on the outside, and they're gonna have a wider, turn to get into this road. So we met out there with the fire chief to talk about what improvements he needed, and those improvements are gonna be made. Okay, this project has really broad support, and we're very thankful for that. We've had, our state representatives, our federal representatives, and had county commissioners who have issued letters of support for this project, and have been fully supportive of this project, because

[60:08] It has been identified as an essential project to protect the City of Boulder from future wildfire. In addition, we've actually been awarded a million dollar grant from DOLA, and so talking about the timeframe and what's driving that, we are required by that grant to complete the annexation by November, so that's our big driver, but of the cost estimates, that will pay for a little less than a seventh of the cost of the project. And so, since we're talking about 36 homes, this is a big… Expense for them, and so it's… hugely important that DOLA has supported us, and the city staff has supported us in putting together the application for that grant, for testifying in, favor of that grant, and getting that grant awarded.

[61:08] Okay, so I just want to thank everybody. You know, it takes a village, and it took a village for us to get here. Looking at how many departments we've been working with, the city attorney's Office, City Manager's office, utilities, planning and development, and finance have all been working with us on this project. for, 3 years to get here. So, we're very, very appreciative, and thank them so much for that hard work, and for putting together the proposal you see before you. Thank you. Thank you so much, and I'd ask you to stay there at the podium if you would, in case we have questions from board members. I am going to start again with our folks online, so I don't lose track of you. I'll start with Laura this time, if you're ready. Laura, do you have any questions for the applicant? None from me at this time. Thank you, Claudia.

[62:01] That was very easy. ML, do you have questions for the applicant? I do not. Thank you for asking. Could I just address her question really quick about the cost estimates? You certainly may. You didn't use all your time, so go right ahead. Just amount, to ask… to answer your question about the cost estimates, we actually have gotten a bid on a portion that's 30% of the estimated cost of the project, and that's the booster pump station. So we've worked with the city, we put out a request for proposals to companies that build that pump station, and have an actual bid for that 30%. So the remainder of the project is really road and pipeline improvement. which are easier to estimate, because they are something that the city does on a very routine basis as part of their maintenance and their capital improvement projects. So we do have an estimate for 30% of the project cost, that's based on an actual bid, so that gives us a lot more confidence also in those number estimates that we have so far.

[63:05] Thank you for sharing that. Max, any questions? No, no, no, I've been answered. Alright, I have… two questions for you. So, by my count in our packet, owners of something like 10 or 11 properties out of the 36 have not signed the petition. Do you know the primary reasons why they have not signed, and do you have any concerns about the terms and conditions being approved in the election that you're gonna have to have? Well, you can never predict an election for sure, but we did take a straw poll vote at one of our annual meetings, and overwhelmingly, we had a vote in favor of continuing with the annexation and supporting this. So some of the property owners that were not able to sign, it was because they were either out of the country, or they, didn't have… one of them had a spouse pass away, and so there were reasons why

[64:05] For some of the individuals, they were unable to, to sign the petition, but there are also some that are not in favor of this project, I'll be very frank about that, and it comes down to cost. I think they all want improved water service. And I have not heard any, just. we're anti-city. I think we all… I think they'd love to be annexed, and it just comes down to, for 36 homes, this is a very expensive project. Okay, thank you. And then my other question, and I'm not sure if you're the best person to answer this, but you're at the podium, so I'll pitch it to you first. What fire mitigation work has been done in this subdivision to date? And just for a little context, I… I went out there today. I saw a number of properties with wildfire Partners signs up to indicate they've already done mitigation, nice work.

[65:01] But also a lot of properties that don't appear to have created defensible space, a lot of junipers, which we recently said we don't want anymore in Boulder. So, do you have any sense of what work has been done, and if there's plans to do more in that subdivision? So I might need to turn that over to one of the residents, but I will know that the Water Association has provided education to its residents to encourage them to do that wildfire mitigation. We have Strongly, they have strongly encouraged That not being a requirement, and they're not a land use authority, so they did not require that. But I… I believe that the residents are strongly in favor of wildfire mitigation, and including those defensible space and the WUIA requirements and things like that. So, I think it just comes down to individual decision as to why some individuals have not made those improvements.

[66:06] Alright, thank you. Last call for questions from the board, for the applicant. Alright, hearing none… We are ready to move on to our public hearing. And I wanted to ask, is… is Vivian still online to handle this? She's not, I will. Okay, so Amanda is going to be facilitating our hearing. Do you need to review the rules and procedures again? Okay, so everything at the beginning of the meeting is adequate. Right. All right. So, for members of the public who would like to speak at this time, first of all, you will have 3 minutes. And we request that you, in addition to stating your name for the record, that prior to speaking, you disclose any financial or business relationship with Or other membership or affiliation related to this proposal. So, if you're a property owner in the area, please identify yourself as such, or if you have any other, interest. So, let's start in the room, if we have folks signed up. Sure. We've got one signed up so far, and that is Jerry Golnick.

[67:16] All right, Jerry, if you want to come up to the podium. Want me to come up and answer any questions. If you would like to make a statement for the record, we need you to come to the podium and speak into the microphone. All right, so we will pass on Jerry. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to speak in the public hearing? I don't have anyone else signed up at the moment. But… Hey, I do see Lynn raising her hand. So, Lynn, come on up. Still, I've missed part of this. Could you turn on the mic, please, Lynn? I'm talking anyway. There's a button, red button? You hit the button so that it lights up red.

[68:03] There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. Thanks, James. I… it wasn't read. before. I was coming from the library, and I lost transmission. It's about the Spring Valley Annexation House. So, from. my impression of what I've seen so far, and I hate to do stuff out of line for anybody, sorry about that, if this is wrong, but… Because I don't know enough. But my impression from this, if people aren't, protecting their properties enough, that's an issue, but the kind of wildfire that we're gonna have come in here. Is… is not a small deal. It's gonna be… like… you know. A firestorm. No little branches are gonna… no junipers are gonna matter at all. It's gonna be like you ain't never seen before. And so my impression is that, in spite of the expense of this project.

[69:05] To the city, the city needs to plan better, just like they needed to plan better with the South Boulder Rett Center. From the start. And… And bad planning is not an excuse for later on saying, oh, it costs too much to remediate now, or to, you know, annex this place into the area that needed to be from the start. I know there was another house… first, I thought it was the other house that was more by where I live, at 6th and Dewey, because there was a little annexation that you probably remember. from going into that house for just one house, but this is for a collection of houses up Spring Valley Road, right? 35 or so. So… my thought is that there would be no reason to not put every cent into this. The preservation of life, you know, it doesn't matter about friggin' Sundance, or about the metropolitan Zone, which is a big joke.

[70:02] for Boulder, just means more growth, just means more expense. We've got enough things to deal with. Just with that, for example, that needs to go down. that… and we have to pay for what we've got here already. And these people need this place annexed to get the water in that they need to protect themselves. I mean, that's a fundamental human right that we do in Boulder, right? We, like, preserve life. So, it needs to be done. And, you know, free Palestine, meantime. And seriously, these things get way expensive. It's not at all funny, Max. Not funny at all. We've got a deficit in Boulder now of 400… 400 million? I don't know what it is exactly. We've got a deficit internationally that is going to take out the United States currency. We aren't going to have this currency anymore. So…

[71:08] do it. Thank you, Lynn. Glad you made it tonight. All right, I don't think we have any other commenters in the room. Do we have anyone online? Oh, if you'd like to speak and you're with us online, now is the time to raise your virtual hand. And I'm not seeing any hands raised. Thank you, Lynn. So, if there are no more public commenters… I will close the public hearing at this time. We're gonna move on to board deliberations. And I want to suggest we do a quick, brief round. To get a sense if there's any issues that we want to discuss at greater length before we go on to making motions and potential recommendations. So, could I ask staff to please… oh, Hela, yes?

[72:02] Yeah, if I may speak, I wanted to follow up on one of your questions. Earlier, you asked whether the terms and conditions would hold if the… if the city changed its land use code, and I said. they would hold, but you also asked about the lot splitting bill that's currently pending, and reading that language, I know that bill hasn't passed, but I think that it does arguably apply here, because it states that A jurisdiction shall approve a lot split of an original lot into two new lots if the following conditions are met, and I don't think that the exceptions to that requirement clearly apply here. Okay, thank you for that clarification. So, for deliberations, could we get the key issues put up on the screen again, please, Chancellor?

[73:09] Alright. So we have four questions here. The first two track fairly closely with each other. What I'd like to suggest is that we go around, and I invite board members to respond to all four of these questions, in one go, if you are interested. And… in the interest of mixing things up, I'm gonna turn to Max and ask if you're ready to go. Nevermind. You don't have to. I can go online. Alright. Yeah, it would… agree with staff's assessment on 1 and 2, we'll keep that one brief. As for the BBC. policies, seems like there's been a little bit of back and forth about the relevant community interest to this, but it already being established as an area that is agreed upon eligibility, important eligibility in the history of the region that's been brought before us, I think that it would

[74:10] also allow that it is… that is consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plans. And if for NOAA… and even if we were to boil it to the criteria of… adding something to the community, I think the community members being willing to personally pay to update the water infrastructure in the name of protecting their neighbors in the event of a wildfire like that in and of itself would bring it in, even if it weren't for the predefined map. And then, as for the initial zoning, I would… I would agree with that, too, and it's going to be… But correct me if I'm wrong, it's going to just be moved to Neighborhood 1 upon the… unless that BVCP changed. That would be the land use designation, I believe. But the zoning would remain RE.

[75:01] Sorry for that confusion, thank you. All good. Alright, thank you, Max. Let's check online. ML. Laura, are either of you ready with any comments? Laura has her hand up. I think she's ready. How fabulous. I cannot see her, but Laura, I invite you to share your comments. Thank you. I'll be brief. I did review the packet, and I agree with Max and with staff. I do think that, number one, the annexation petition is compliant with state annexation statutes. Number two, the annexation request complies with the applicable state annexation statutes. And number three, I do think the policy… the annexation proposal is consistent with The city's annexation and other BVCP policies. And for, I agree with the initial zoning of residential estate. I don't have a lot of other comments about the project other than to just thank the community for working so hard to achieve annexation, and for the very thorough presentation of

[76:08] the work that you are doing, and especially, you know, the wildfire discussion of how bringing your community into the city will benefit not just those residents, but the city as a whole. So, thank you so much. Thank you, Laura. Annell. Thank you. Yes, I don't have a lot of, discussion here, regards to key issue number one. I agree that this meets… is compliant with the state annexation statutes. Number two, I believe it is still complies with the applicable state annexation statutes. Number 3, BBCP policies. I appreciate the conversation and discussion about community benefit, and, I am in full agreement. I think we can't disregard,

[77:06] The… not only, Right thing to do, but the need to, do what we can to make sure that, we have, Taken to task our duties regards to potential, wildfire… wildfires. And number 4, I don't have a problem with the RE zoning proposed. So, my only, concern remains around that, LID, and I… Would like to propose that instead of saying, That the property owners pay 100% of final… of preliminary cost estimates, plus up to 15%. that, we change the word preliminary cost estimates to final cost estimates, if that… if we can legally do so. I just think that there is… knowing the industry, I just think that there is,

[78:14] 2… Much of a potential. for the tax-paying citizens of the City of Boulder to end up carrying, this burden of an overrun on getting the public improvements done out there. And it sounds like the roads are kind of hairy in the situa… it's not a straightforward flat. you know, agrarian site. It's a complex site, and so it's not going to be inexpensive, and I would just like to protect the residents of Boulder to the degree that we can. And those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Emil.

[79:00] I'll wrap up with mine. So in response to the first two questions, I have no concerns about compliance with state annexation statutes. I'm gonna take question number 4 next, and that is about initial zoning. I think, RE describes the current conditions, and in that sense, it is appropriate. I do have some concerns about locking in a 50-year-old development pattern when our land use strategy is shifting, but I think it's enough to just put a pin in that. I'm not going to ask for changes, based on that. I wanted to spend a little bit of time with, consistency with annexation and BVCP policies. My answer to question 3 there is mostly yes, with one concern, and not surprisingly, that is about fire mitigation. So, our BBC policies that deal with annexation talk about balancing benefits to the larger community with benefits to annexed properties. And I think the clear benefit here that we're talking about is hazard mitigation. I think it's incredibly important. I think it is worth a significant amount of our resources.

[80:09] I think we could also enhance the fire mitigation benefits of this proposal by asking the annexing properties in this highest area of wildland fire risk to come into somewhat faster compliance with more aspects of the city's building and landscaping codes. And so, what I'd like to propose is that our recommendation to City Council Maybe flag wildfire mitigation as something that should be added to the annexation terms and conditions. I have, some motion language to reflect that. I'd welcome some discussion about the concept before we get to formal motion making. Whether folks think that is worthwhile, and if so, what might be feasible? And… palatable? But that's my biggest concern, and…

[81:00] I'm happy to move forward with the rest of this as a positive recommendation. Anyone have thoughts on asking for additional fire mitigation terms and conditions? Claudia, both Laura and I have our hands up. I am so sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing it. No worries. to hear you. Laura was first, so go, go ahead. And let's go, Laura. Oh, it's okay, Emil, you go ahead and go. I went first last time. Okay, I… I think it's pretty clear to all of us that, fire mitigation is a top priority for this annexation for the… for the residents of that Subdivision, and, you know, it has… their applicant mentioned after the Marshall Fire, you know, this… this kind of bubble to the surface of, let's get ourselves annexed so we can have adequate water. So I…

[82:09] I am interested in what exactly you are looking at, saying. I'm thinking, hearing you say, just refer to the BDCP, policy, as part of the, terms and conditions. I have… I have no No problem with supporting that. Thanks, ML. Laura, what would you like to add? So I will say I have strong feelings in multiple directions about this idea. If we were going to add something to our recommendation, I would want to encourage the city to look for High-value, low-cost items that could potentially be encouraged, such as juniper removal, which costs a lot less than something like you know, replacing all of your landscaping with fire-resistant plants, or, you know, replacing siding, or that kind of thing. Like, when properties have to come in compliance with their WUI regulations, it's a pretty daunting and expensive process, and this neighborhood is already going to be going through a pretty daunting and expensive process.

[83:19] To do the, you know, the streets and the infrastructure and the water infrastructure that they need. And anyone who's ever dealt with a homeowners association doing a special assessment, which is basically what this kind of amounts to, you're going to have a certain percentage of homeowners who simply cannot afford it, even if they want to. And I'm hesitant to impose yet another cost that could change the outcome of the election, or change the prospects for annexation, because too many homeowners just… the calculation changes for them of what they can afford. So if we were going to add something, I would want to focus on… excuse me…

[84:00] High-value, low-cost items. Thank you, Laura. I appreciate that. Max, did you want to jump in? Yeah, sure. bit of a question, in regards to your question earlier about homes that are already in that neighborhood, and whether they were compliant. I think Hela mentioned that they are compliant, but I guess I might just be a bit fuzzy on the exact definition there, so… Let's just say, hypothetically, if there were an ordinance that prohibited junipers within a certain amount of feet from a home. And it would be triggered by, you know, agricultural work, I mean, landscaping work around the home. Would there be a way to allow so the annexation would instead trigger that need to be inside of compliance? I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but… If the… if this area gets annexed, then the properties within the area are subject to

[85:02] WUE requirements, just like other properties within the WUE in the city are subject to those requirements, and right now, we don't have any proactive requirements that are… there's nothing that's required if you're not making any improvements to your home. Or if you're not already doing landscaping work. Yeah, sir, let me phrase that a little bit better. I guess… To your point, there's nothing that's requiring proactive work, but it seems like with the discussion right now is, would it be possible to tie proactive work into part of the annexation agreement? There is no annexation agreement. It would be imposed by ordinance. Terms and conditions. Yeah, and everything is easier to enforce through an agreement, because each property owner would agree to it in an agreement that the city could enforce against that particular property owner. it might be enforceable through an annexation ordinance. I would have to look into that a little bit further.

[86:03] Okay. Yeah, part of the reason that I brought this up is there has been some discussion in the city about how to speed up compliance with WUI codes. outside of this kind of property-by-property process of people doing improvements on their properties, redoing their landscape, etc. And it's been said that the city does not have a lot of leverage on that, so this struck me as one opportunity that the city might have. In terms of suggesting an amendment to the motion, or making a recommendation to City Council, I was not going to suggest anything particularly strong or binding, but simply that City Council might want to request staff to look more closely at, some of these requirements, and specifically the landscaping requirements, not building codes necessarily. That can be a much bigger deal, but looking at things like, the non-combustible zone around a home, things like juniper removal. So I think, as Laura, I think.

[87:07] Correctly worded it, high-value, low-lift types of things, but not getting extremely specific. And I'm also happy to simply try that as an amendment to the motion when we get to. Motion-making, and folks can make of it what they want. Claudia, if I could make a process suggestion, just to make it a little cleaner. Yes, thank you, Laura. I would suggest that we go ahead and vote on a main motion. And then we could suggest and vote on additional motions afterwards, rather than trying to attach it to the main motions. Since it would just be a recommendation, it doesn't have to be linked to the main motion. I'm very happy with that. Thank you. So I'm going to suggest, then, that we do move towards motions.

[88:03] And if we could get the staff's recommended motion up on the screen. Would anyone like to make a motion? I can make the motion. Laura? I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of approximately 43.194 acres of land generally located within the Spring Valley States subdivision. Including properties along Linden Drive, Chollia Court, Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, and Rights of Way, with an additional zoning designation of Residential Estate, or RE, pertaining to case number LUR2023 0001, subject to the recommended additional terms and conditions as provided for in Attachment C to the staff memorandum, and to adopt the staff memorandum as findings of fact. And I got through all of that mostly without coughing.

[89:06] Do we have a second? I will second. So, Laura, as the motion maker, would you like to speak to this motion? I don't think I need to. I think it's all been said, and I'm happy to move to a vote when other folks are ready. Alright. Is there any further discussion? Of the motion on the table. All right, hearing none, I think I need to repeat the motion before we vote, is that correct, Tella? Technically, yes. Alright. So in case you didn't get it the first time, we are going to vote on a motion. to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of approximately 43. 194 acres of land, generally located within the Spring Valley Estates subdivision, including properties along Linden Drive.

[90:01] Troya Court, Spring Valley Road, and Cactus Court, and Rights of Way, with an initial zoning designation of Residential Estate RE, pertaining to case number LUR2023-000001, Subject to the recommended additional terms and conditions as provided for in Attachment C to the staff memorandum. And to adopt the staff memorandum as findings of fact. So we are ready to vote, and I'm gonna start online with… ML. Yes. Laura. Yes. Max? Yes. And I am also a yes. So, as I mentioned, I would like to make an additional motion, and I have sent Text of that to Amanda. If we're able to get that up on the screen.

[91:36] Alright. So, I moved that planning board further recommend. that City Council request the annexation proposal to be revised, to include additional terms and conditions to support wildfire mitigation. and bring annexed properties into substantial compliance with WUI landscaping codes adopted in 2025.

[92:14] I'm sorry, Claudia, process question. Are you moving this right now, or would you like discussion on this language before you move something? I did move it. We would need a second to discuss this as it is written. I have a question. Go for it, Emil. So, I think Helen mentioned that the UI landscaping codes adopted in 2025 do not have a proactive component. That would be triggered by people doing actual work, so, I'm not…

[93:07] would this be in contradiction if we try to make it proactive? I'm… or is your intent not to make it proactive? What… I'm kind of confused. So… I see this as a recommendation, and I am not putting myself forward as an expert. On how this would be written into terms and conditions. But simply recognizing that An annexation could be an opportunity to get compliance with some of our codes, that annexation itself could be treated as a trigger to bring properties into compliance with some of our codes that we do not otherwise have triggers for. Again, this is… this would be a recommendation to City Council. We are not able to actually impose these kinds of conditions as Planning Board. But they would have to be included in terms and conditions that City Council would then approve.

[94:05] So I'm wondering if the language here, bring annexed properties into substantial compliance, I think, by doing nothing, I think they would be in compliance. So you're asking for something beyond compliance? Am I… confusing. I understand your question. Right. I hear what you're trying to do. Yeah. Property right now is only out of compliance if it has Hold a permit, essentially. Exactly. Right? Right. And I'm not sure how to wordsmith that. Claudia? Yes, ma'am? May I chime in? Please do. so, I don't think you got a second on this language. That's correct. at this time, I would like to propose alternate language, if there's no second for this language, because I… I would say I also have some concerns. My concern is around this language of substantial compliance with WUI landscaping codes. I don't… I really…

[95:10] Don't have a good sense of what kind of a burden that is, but I believe that it basically requires replacing all of your landscaping If, like, if you have mostly native plants on your property, and these are really hilly properties in some of these areas, so this could… this could be… this language could unintentionally be a substantial burden. Sure. Since it does not have a second, Laura, if you have Suggested language that may get at the same issues. I would welcome hearing that. Okay. I'm gonna send it now. I'm sending it to all the Board and Commission members who are on the call. I think, Amanda, Amanda, can you see this as well?

[96:05] I sent something to Amanda, so she might be wondering what that one is. Okay. So, Amanda, could you pop that up on the screen when you get a chance? That's what I'm asking, yeah. Can I ask another clarifying question? Yes, please, and I'll. So, my understanding of the WUI landscaping It's inherent in its name that lands… it's about the landscaping, And, the vast majority Of houses that burn in a fire, burn from the inside out. Which talks about the building hardening codes. And so my question… My question is, I know that the county has got, defensible space.

[97:01] Requirements in regards to their best practices. To maintain the landscaping immediately around the house. add to some distance, I don't… I don't know their code, well. And if the concern is that we'll have, you know, tinder boxes, That really speaks to building code more so, in my opinion. looking at fires, especially… I've been looking at the LA fires, because that, you know, I have a lot of connections out there. And even the Marshall Fire. I think it's a known fact that buildings burn from the inside out, not from the outside in. So… I'm not sure what… if the county has already asked them to do defensible space, I'm not sure what we're going to gain, and I don't know that they are up to speed on defensible space. Does anybody know that at that?

[98:06] Alright, thanks, honey. If I could colloquy, I don't know what the county's codes are, but I do agree that… so I… Amanda, thank you for putting my language up. My language is not specific to landscaping. It could include things that I think the fire department would say are very important to fire mitigation, but are low cost, such as putting screens on your vents, fire screens on your, like, laundry vents, so that sparks can't get into your house, so that your house burns from the inside out. It's those things like that that are extremely low cost, but also extremely high value that could be of service, I think. So, in addition to maybe removing junipers, I don't know exactly what that looks like. I would trust our fire department to try to identify those things, but the language I'm proposing is, if folks like this. Planning Board further recommends that staff work with the applicants to include reasonable, high-value, low-cost fire mitigation measures in the terms and conditions.

[99:02] It's just a recommendation. Staff can work on that. whatever they think is reasonable, and then bring it back to City Council, and City Council can see that that is our recommendation. So, if folks like that language, I'm happy to make a motion or to discuss it further. I like that language, Laura. I like that language as well. I would support that. Probably negative. Laura, would you like to make the motion? I can make the motion. Planning Board further recommends that staff work with the applicants to include reasonable, high-value, low-cost fire mitigation measures in the terms and conditions. And Hela, please, please recommend if there's a language tweak that you would like to see in this. No, that seems fine to me. Alright, if that passes. passes legal, I will second it. So we have a motion. Laura, would you like to speak further to this motion that you have… So…

[100:04] Generously crafted to rescue me. Well, I just want to say, Claudia, I really appreciate you bringing this to the table. I do think that annexation is a special opportunity to try to gain value both to the city and also to the residents of the, the annexing area that might go above and beyond our current codes, you know, as We've been told in the past, pretty much it's a negotiation, and anything could be on the table, but we don't want to overly burden property owners. And so, I have great trust in our staff to maybe identify some of those things that really would provide high value at low cost. And hopefully the residents could easily accept that. So, I'm happy to leave this in the negotiation and make it a recommendation, and Claudia, I really appreciate you for bringing this to the table. Thank you, Laura. Is there any further discussion on this motion?

[101:00] Max or ML? No, I completely agree. I think that the issue is real, and if we can have some language in there to, state that we find it to be, The fire concerns are such that we should make an effort to, put. As many measures into place that make sense, and this measure seems like it, is quite reasonable. All right, so it sounds to me like we are ready to vote on this motion. The motion is that Planning Board further recommends that staff work with the applicants to include reasonable high-value, low-cost fire mitigation measures in the terms and conditions. And we will start the vote with Max. Yes. ML. Yes. Laura. Yes. And I am a yes.

[102:04] Do board members have any additional motions or discussion regarding this annexation recommendation? Claudia, I had, I wanted to put forth A word change in regards to the, The local improvement district and the cost. Okay, yeah, I think we saw that on the screen. Right. backup. It made a flash appearance before Laura's motion got… And it's basically just changing out the word preliminary to final.

[103:12] Alright, Emil, we're seeing some language up on the screen. Right, so everything is as directly pulled out of the agreement, and my only suggestion would be to where it says, under key elements, property owners pay 100% of preliminary cost estimates, up to 15% overrun. I… I'm interested in seeing whether there would be support to change preliminary to final cost estimates. So, a word change. And again, this is, I think just to, give us assurance that, we're doing… I heard staff speak to we're doing as many things as we can to make sure that we know what this is going to cost, and I think if we base our

[104:12] obligations on a final cost estimate. It's still an estimate, but it's a final cost estimate, because the preliminary cost estimate, you know, that could have already been done. That could have been done a while ago. I understand that the staff is involved, and that the city is on top of this, but I was just looking for, Some clarifying language, because preliminary to me seems like a rather broad term in this use. And a final cost estimate, I think, would be a little bit more precise. Okay. Annel, I'm going to suggest that you state this as a motion, and we'll see if we have a second for it. Okay.

[105:00] Oh, Claudia, I'm sorry, if I could interject before we do that, can I just ask staff to advise on whether this, would this be a doable change? Would this be a helpful change, or could this cause any unintended impacts? I just want to check in with staff about the implication of making this change. Good idea. Yeah, I looked at the improvement district standards, local improvement district standards in our code. I think we can take out the word preliminary. I know that it is SEF's intention to be To have the final cost estimate, to be as close to it as it's possible, because that is in the best interest of the city. So just listening to you all, my intention is to… to remove that language of preliminary. Out of the terms and conditions, and maybe just write cost estimate, but ultimately,

[106:02] It… it is… the code prescribes a process. So… Seeing as our job here tonight is to make a recommendation to City Council. is this word change something that we need to codify in a motion if we are advising City Council? Essentially, we would be advising City Council to ask you to make this change, correct? Yeah, I would say we can make that change… we can commit to making that change. Maybe Carolyn… Maybe you weren't listening, are you fine with that? Yes. Emil, how do you feel about that? So, I'm hearing… I'm hearing you say, Hela, that, removal of preliminary, you don't, think we would need to have final… replace it with… so that it says final cost estimates? You don't think that there would be value in doing that?

[107:00] I… I would recommend to stay… to stick close to the language that we have in the code, that it's going to be reviewed under. But one of the things you could do is just make a motion that recommends that if the area is annexed and A local improvement district. Process is started. That the city worked to. To have a final cost estimate as general recommendation versus being in the… In the terms and conditions. Oh, so it's taking it out of the terms and conditions altogether. Not taking it out, it'll still be in there, but your motion could be a general motion to… Then as we go through that process, if we get to that, The cost estimate. be essentially final. Laura, did your motion-making brain capture what you said? I see.

[108:04] Brad at the podium. Oh, good. Maybe he's got some guidance for us. We're Director of Planning and Development Services. I just want to make sure everybody. is hearing the same thing, so I think Hela's saying, like, we're gonna make that change, so I'm not terribly sure emotion's needed. Got it. I mean, you could certainly do it, but we've got it either way. ML, this is ultimately your discretion to make a motion if you would like to. I'm hearing that. Do we want to add added burden when it's a done… I'm hearing it's a… it's a done deal, that preliminary will be removed. I think that's what Hela said. The preliminary would be… would be removed, and they're trying to get to the final cost estimate in the process. One of my fellow board members say, is this adding too much complexity? I'd love to hear your points and your thoughts.

[109:02] I feel satisfied by the responses given by staff, and I do think it's in the city's interest to do exactly what you're saying, ML, so I don't feel the need personally to make a motion about this. Got it. Collider? Yeah, I would agree with Laura that we've gone through the… about a third of this is already a hard bid. There's 10%, two layers of overrun rebuilt, and we're gonna be removing the word preliminary, so I see no need for a motion. Perfect. I will… I, I, I agree. Thank you, Hela and Brad for, bringing us the assurance that I was looking for, that, you know, we're just doing the best job we can in, In the agreements we entertain. Thank you. Thank you, Emil. Are there any further motions?

[110:00] Related to this annexation. Alright, then we are finished with this item. Thank you to the applicant team for coming out. Thank you to staff for getting us this far on this particular item. And this will be at City Council in a couple of weeks. Congratulations to the Spring Valley residents for achieving this milestone. Yeah. I don't know why it's so dim. I actually don't like it. So we still have a couple of administrative items, matters for the board. Would folks like to push through that, or take a quick break? I'm fine moving forward. I am as well. Color is below? Could we take 5 minutes? For sure. Alright, we're gonna take 5, though. Give staff a chance to move to.

[115:38] Alright, I see ML back online. I don't see Laura, but I think everyone else is here. Laura is here. We set to go? All right, we're back. So, we have two matters from staff on our agenda tonight, starting off with assigning board liaisons. And is that what you're here to talk to us? I'm here to talk about anything you want to, really, because that's what matters is all about.

[116:04] Brad Mueller, Planning and Development Services Director. Thank you again, as always, for your time. On the matter of liaisons. Thank you for giving us a couple extra, meetings to, go back and talk internally about, the matter of liaison. So, for context, you might recall that, last summer. the city adopted one meeting. It's the mechanism by which you're now getting the agendas and seeing the agendas and such, and as part of that was a whole review of boards and commissions, and as part of that. was a review of, the legal, underpinnings for boards and commissions and the work that they do. So there was a comprehensive look at all those things. There's other items that are gonna come out of this. Actually, Amanda, you might know them better than me, but things like training for board members, and some consistency, and those types of things.

[117:04] The reason I'm providing this background is we… Had heard offhand and then needed to get confirmation this last couple weeks about the legal status and legality of liaisons. And the long and the short of it is that boards and commissions really aren't empowered to have formal liaisons. There is one exception to that, and that's the Housing Advisory Board, which is written into code. But that's not codified for any other functions, for any boards or commissions. So, we are not, as boards and commissions and the, you know, stewarding departments, able to do that as an official function. Now, you all could decide between yourselves about assigning a person who could go to a particular meeting regularly as an audience member, and… you know, reporting back to the group, I would incur… I would ask you not to use the word liaison in that context, just because that means a specific thing, but if you want to have

[118:08] representatives, or… point people to those, you know, that's entirely your own business to do that, but we can't, at this point, sanction actual liaisons, other than to have, so… So what are we seeing on our screen right now? Because I see the word liaison twice. But yeah, what we're seeing is, that was the list of former liaisons. HAB is. It's really the only one that has a code requirement to have an ex-officio member. So that's really what you need to appoint tonight is, a, ex-officio member for HAB, and then a backup. Okay, and… But I wanted to list all the ones that we had formally. Sure, so are we considering these positions to be ending at this point? They are. Yeah, they would be formally, and again, how much you want to take it beyond that for either these groups, or, you know, there are other advisory boards, too, as far as that goes. Okay, okay. I'm not suggesting you need to do that, or all of them, or some of them. Got it.

[119:13] clarifying. I mean, one more process question. If… if the board or members of the board wanted to continue to have some kind of presence, unsanctioned, informally… They're welcome to attend, yeah. would we need to discuss that here? Could we discuss that amongst ourselves? You could sit among yourselves, you could… Okay. Or even just show up at a meeting. You can… all meetings, yeah. Okay. So, Am I… if I'm understanding what's just been said, the only board that has any official, requirement is HAB. Correct. Okay, I've been on it for 2 years. Step… anybody else wants to take the seat, please, please have it. Alright. So I hear ML willing to step aside. Laura's hand is up. Laura.

[120:05] I just want to recognize that it has been a tradition that Planning Board members form relationships and get to know some of these other boards and regularly attend their meetings. I will say that it has been invaluable for me in terms of my, understanding and participation with other boards. You know, especially when I was on the liaison at that time, or the exhibitio with HAB. Extremely interesting, extremely valuable. Same thing with, DAB, I've never been liaison to DAB, but I've attended some of their meetings, and they do express that there is a value to forming a relationship with a board member, a planning board member, that they can call on, they can have coffee with, they can talk about issues with. And I do think that it shows up in our work and with code when we understand the other boards better. So I would be a little reluctant to just jettison this tradition, simply because the code doesn't require it, especially knowing that we… we can say that this is a tradition that we as Planning Board want to continue. I do know that we are all incredibly busy.

[121:10] And adding another meeting a month can be a burden. But I would strongly encourage, especially the newer board members, to consider doing it, because I do think it's extremely valuable. So, I'm gonna propose that we… Fill the position that we need to have, and then… Perhaps encourage folks to adopt a board. And if it is helpful to make that commitment in front of your planning board colleagues, I would invite you to do that, at this meeting. But we can also continue those Discussions. Offline. Does that sound okay? Yeah, this is the… Yes, yes, that sounds good. Max, you want to jump in with a question?

[122:02] Alright. In terms of Housing Advisory Board, since that is the one that we do need to fill. What is the specific assignment of a liaison? So, it's a person who goes to the meetings. yeah, the code anticipate that there's an XO50 board member from the planning board, the ex-officio member would attend HAB meetings. And… is not… does not have a vote in those meetings, could just speak from a perspective of a planning board member, to items that… that they're discussing. Okay, so I haven't been in one of these positions before, just to clarify, is an ex officio member someone who participates in the meeting in some sort of formal capacity, but without a vote? Yes. Okay, so it's not just a member of the audience, it's… That's correct, yeah. It's sitting with the board, interacting with staff and the public? Okay.

[123:04] Is there anyone amongst the four of us who is interested in serving as a ex officio member of the Housing Advisory Board? I would do it. I would… Max? No match! Ex… excellent! Yeah, I mean, does this increase the rate at which I will get my bus pass, or do I get two bus passes? We can get you all the bus… passes you need. The meetings are at, the fourth Wednesdays of the month at 6pm. Alright, do we need to do a formal nomination? I will nominate Max to be the, HAB. Ex-officio from Planning Board. Back end. A third. Thanks, guys.

[124:00] the meeting's next week. Thank you. Get the job, Max. There's actually a HAB meeting tomorrow night. Oh. It's a good thing I can't go tomorrow, so I'm glad. Phew, thanks, Max! Stepping in just in time. Yeah, I can… And then… talk with John about this, or, like, who would be the correct person? For HEB. JSUGNET. Yeah, I can give you his contact info if you don't have it. All right. And then is there anyone else who'd like to make a public commitment to another board? Who's that? Well, I did want to check in, if I may, on whether, Claudia, you would be interested in being the backup to HAB. Usually there's a person and a backup, but, you know, Max, you can also just let the whole board.

[125:00] How reliable are you, Max? Make a meeting. I was also going to recommend Claudia to be the backup, but I'm perfectly willing to nominate either Kurt, Mark, or Mason as backup. So I will be honest, I have not… I've been on the board now for 2 years, I have not yet done a liaison role, and so I would be willing to. Excellent. offer myself as a backup. I take that back. I was the backup for the Greenways. Committee, which has not met in something like 10 years, according. Mark. I am also willing to be the backup for the greenways at this time. Okay. Have you… been made and seconded for Claudia? Do we need to? backup. not be at tomorrow's meeting, though, Max. That's on you. Right. Alright, do we have any further business with liaisons? Do you… staff has what they need?

[126:04] So I… I thought you asked previously if anybody wants to volunteer themselves. I am very interested in starting to attend DAB meetings. Kurt might be as well, so I can talk with Kurt and see if maybe one of us wants to be the primary and one of us be the backup. It's just that it's not an official role in any capacity, but I do know… I did talk with their staff person, I think that's Kalani, after the meeting that I attended, and she was very excited about, you know. Mark's done a great job. I think it's Mark. Is it Mark, or is it… is the current DAB rep. Mark? Yeah, and she was very excited to, you know, think about the coming year and working with a planning board member, and so, and the meeting I did attend was extremely interesting. So, if Mark wants to pass on that role, I can talk with Kurt and see which one of us wants to take it, even if it's not official, if it's just a steady presence. Hmm. Thank you, Laura. And would you let us know how that conversation turns out?

[127:03] Thank you. This one. Alright. Shall we move on to retreat planning? Sure. So we have a retreat scheduled with the board, during the regular meeting time on May 19th. So, we wanted to chat with you guys about putting together a retreat planning subcommittee, as we've done in the past, and really the goal is to, work with individual board members to try and get an agenda put together. With subject matter, I think that you guys will find helpful. Brad and our team did, some brainstorming. We have some staff-initiated topics, so we're thinking maybe we would need a half hour, or maybe 40 minutes. Just to talk with you guys about historic preservation, I think we wanted to talk about feedback on some future code changes, as well as, just checking in on our meeting materials.

[128:07] And our presentations. So we'd be looking for a couple of volunteers to work, with the board, to try and get an agenda together. We also have check-ins scheduled for the next two planning board meetings under Matters. To make sure that we're keeping ourselves honest and making sure that we have agenda that we're working on. So we'll be checking in with you guys on the 28th, as well as the 5th. In advance of the meeting on the 19th. Charles, does it make sense to, To put out a note to the board and ask for retreat topics to be submit it in so that at the next meeting, we can, discuss those. Would typically be the work of the committee, the subcommittee, yeah.

[129:01] Okay, so not just put an email together and ask for that. We need a committee. Typically, that's what we've done in the past. So I'm interested in being a committee member. I will volunteer as tribute. And it would be helpful… I'd love to work with anybody else who's interested as well. I think only… I think it can only be two of us, right, in order to avoid, tripping up the open meetings laws, so… If anybody else wants to volunteer, we can also check in with, you know, Mason and Kurt and Mark. I think Kurt and Mark did it last time. They did, yep. Yep. I will volunteer to join Laura on that committee. subcommittee, excuse me. But I am also willing to check with our absent board members to see if any of them have strong feelings about joining, and I would step aside if they did. I'm gonna predict that it's not gonna be a competition, but it's a good idea to check. Never know, Max just, you know, offered himself up, so…

[130:03] Yeah, yeah. I would say… I see Brad's at the podium. I don't mean to jump the queue here, but I would say it would be helpful for us to know what training is planned. Charles, you mentioned some training. I know that new board members get training. We have often used our retreats as a training opportunity, so knowing what is already planned would be good. We didn't have any training planned. We wanted to talk about historic preservation operations of the program. Timing, the relationship to site review, the value of, evaluating historic preservation as part of the site review process, a little bit about the demo process, and some… maybe some ideas for improvement. I think this surfaced in the Presbyterian Manor application. I think we've also had some… Other applications in the recent past by where there was a bit of a clunky interface there, so we wanted to talk about that with the board. And then just generally feedback on future code changes.

[131:01] That the board may be interested in recognizing that. We have resource demands, we also have a work program, but as we put these packages of periodic code changes together, wanted to give you guys some airtime to have a conversation about that. Thank you, that's very helpful. I… I was also just thinking about, Charles, you talked about in relation to the one meeting, that there was some… there might have been some other board member training, just generally across the city. I don't know if that applies to. Yeah, I think that was something that, yeah, Brad had mentioned, but I don't think those trainings are quite ready yet. Oh, okay, I'm sorry, it wasn't you, Charles, it was Brad. meeting. Well… Is there any other citywide… I know what we've done, for example, in the past, kind of, like, equity and discrimination training, or, I can't remember if there have been other trainings in previous years. It seems, some years there have. Any equity and belonging trainings, scheduled right now for board members, but we'll see what's happening for the second half of the year.

[132:04] I'm not aware of any right now. Yeah, this, Brad, I'll just add that I think these are things we could talk about as the planning committee. Sounds good, Brad. And, should we be scheduling time to talk offline with staff as a planning committee, or should Claudia and I just be gathering ideas from our fellow board members at this point? I think we planned, Charles and I to talk with the two of you, now that it's set. And we might have a date already penciled for that, maybe not. Oh, I believe we do. And if it doesn't work, of course, we'll find another time. We can get… we can set that time later. Yeah, figure it out. We'll send that to you later. That sounds good, and I agree with Claudia that we should check with our absent board members and see if somebody else is champing at the bit to be on this committee. But it sounds like it may be me and Claudia.

[133:09] Okay? Okay. Do we have any additional matters from staff, or the city attorney? Me. Nothing for me, thanks. I had one thing. So, and Charles, you said you didn't have anything more. I wanted to just thank all of you for your participation in the four-body, meeting that we had. Gosh, was that last week? Time flies. You know, among the many things we could talk about, and I don't want to take a lot of time, but just a great appreciation for the recognition of the work of the whole process, and the team involved, and really all the committee members. That was certainly reflected in comments you all made, and other members of the forebody. That means a lot to us as staff, because we really did take the challenge of making this the most inclusive

[134:00] Effort at the comprehensive Plan outreach and engagement, possible, and… That affirmation has meant a lot to the team, and also we recognize that there remain work to be done, so they are doing the hard work of reconciling all the various comments that are possible. As I said that evening, of course, it's an impossible task to reconcile all comments, because among other reasons they compete with each other, and there's also overarching goals about keeping the right level of… the right tone, and those types of things as well. But, the team's working very hard on all that. And as a reminder, you'll see a whole matrix of all the comments that were received, plus a a… edit and or response to that, to do that. So, we really are… Endeavoring to make it as transparent a process as well. We are in the homestretch then in that regard, and as you know from that evening, you're going to see a recommendation draft.

[135:02] or the recommended draft, I should… I should say, in early to mid-May. And then we'll… we'll be working towards the final stretch. So, thank you for all your work and engagement up until this point, and know that we still are going full steam ahead, but appreciate that we also can kind of see See the… the end in sight, hopefully. I'm happy to answer any questions or take comments on that. Anyone? Thank you, Brett. Thank you. Alright, any additional matters? Charles, okay. Then I believe we are at the end of our agenda, and… We are adjourned. Great job tonight. Good night, everyone. Thank you, thank you for chairing, Claudia. Yeah, thanks for stopping. Claudia, good night, everybody.

[136:00] Great night. Putin?