Attachment C - Council Hotline Resolution Suggestions

Attachment C Area III-Planning Reserve Service Area Expansion Plan Process Council HOTLINE Resolution Suggestions

2/20/26, 9:47 AM

Re: Area III Considerations - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

Outlook Re: Area III Considerations From Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Date Thu 2/19/2026 9:06 PM To

Adams, Taishya <AdamsT@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov>

Hi Councilmember Adams, Thanks for sending these recommendations. Very thoughtful and valuable for us to consider. Would you mind sending us a little more context on the last item about impacts to workforce? I want to make sure we understand your perspective. Is it that the loss of jobs should be considered in the amount of potential commercial space that might be accommodated in the Planning Reserve? Or perhaps something else? Apologies if I am missing the root of your suggestion entirely. Thanks in advance! Kj Kristofer Johnson, PLA, AICP

From: Adams, Taishya <AdamsT@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 8:34:07 PM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Area III Considerations

Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations of the scope of the next phase of the Area III scoping and expansion decision making process. Since the beginning of this process, I have advocated for a comprehensive analysis that evaluates both development potential and the existing ecological, climate resilience, and community wellbeing value of natural lands and open space. As we continue consideration of Area III scoping and expansion of services, I am hopeful that the process moving forward includes a transparent evaluation including ecosystem services such as urban heat mitigation, stormwater management, habitat connectivity, and carbon sequestration. This ecosystems analysis should be considered alongside housing feasibility to support balanced, long-term community resilience. Below are my recommendations: Ecosystem Services Assessment (ESA) Ensure the Area III Planning Reserve analysis includes a comprehensive evaluation of the existing natural lands and open space value, including ecosystem services, climate resilience, and long-term water implications. This should include consideration of water supply constraints, irrigation demand, drought vulnerability, and stormwater impacts associated with potential urbanization in a semi-arid climate. about:blank

1/3

2/20/26, 9:47 AM

Re: Area III Considerations - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

It is my understanding that the City of Boulder subcommunity plans often implicitly compare housing units gained vs. status quo land use. With this critical study, we have the opportunity to quantity critical benefits/value like ecosystem services, heat mitigation, flood protection, carbon sequestration, food security, mental health and recreation value, and biodiversity and habitat connectivity. This assessment allows us to quantify things like stormwater absorption, urban cooling, air quality benefits, and habitat value. The process could include some practical tools like natural capital mapping, climate vulnerability overlays, urban heat island analysis, tree canopy and cooling analysis, and habitat connectivity mapping. Irreplaceable Assets Not all land is equal. Some natural lands in Area III provide wildfire buffer zones, protect riparian corridors, reduce extreme heat risk, and support biodiversity connectivity. Once developed, these functions are effectively irreversible. Any analysis should respond to the question: which resilience functions does this area provide that cannot be replicated through built infrastructure? If this land were to be developed, what resilience, climate, and community functions would the city have to replace — and at what cost? Water Tradeoffs I am specifically interested in knowing what farms and agricultural lands water leases would be impacted by increased municipal water use. Per water law, all water right holders must ensure water is in beneficial use. The City of Boulder owns more water rights than we use for municipal purposes. Water leases are sold primarily to local agriculture. It would be helpful to have a few scenarios associated with possible Area III use considerations. In addition, what water infrastructure would the city be responsible for versus housing developers especially for property owned by the city (e.g. proposed regional park). Cross Plan Analysis Any analysis should include how a given approach supports existing city policy commitments to ecosystem resilience and equitable access to nature (e.g. BVCP policies - air quality, climate action, ecosystem resilience, the SER Framework - Livable + Environmentally Sustainable), etc. Workforce Impacts Given the increased layoffs and unemployment in our city, the analyses should include city specific employment data from 2025 wherever possible. Ideally disaggregated by income level and industry. Cities increasingly use nature-based planning frameworks aligned with IPCC adaptation guidance and municipal resilience planning standards. I am hopeful that through this process that the City of Boulder continues to innovate towards a sustainable future. We are nature, Taishya Taishya Adams (she/her) Councilmember, Boulder City Council Resides on Ute, Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Shoshone Land Let’s stay connected: Follow me @adamsforboulder on Instagram about:blank

2/3

2/20/26, 9:47 AM

Re: Area III Considerations - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

Subscribe to my monthly newsletter Email request to access virtual meeting calendar

about:blank

3/3

2/20/26, 9:48 AM

FW: Getting Area 3 Right: Guardrails for next steps of the Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

Outlook FW: Getting Area 3 Right: Guardrails for next steps of the Planning Reserve From Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Date Tue 2/17/2026 11:20 AM To

Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov>

1 attachment (538 bytes) ATT00001.txt;

Fyi

Kristofer Johnson, AICP, PLA Comprehensive Planning Manager (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This?

O: 303-441-4277 johnsonk3@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov

From: Benjamin, Matthew <BenjaminM@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:18 AM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Getting Area 3 Right: Guardrails for next steps of the Planning Reserve

Dear Colleagues and Community Members, As we continue the conversation about the potential annexation of the Strategic Planning Reserve (Area 3), I want to be clear: this is the most consequential land use decision of our lifetimes. If we move forward, we must do so with strong, principled guardrails from the outset. I have long supported preparing the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan so that we can annex Area 3. But preparation is not a blank check. It is an opportunity to define exactly what problem we are trying to solve.

1. This Must Be About Attainable Ownership Housing Area 3 should exist for one reason: to deliver the kind of housing Boulder is not currently producing. about:blank

1/4

2/20/26, 9:48 AM

FW: Getting Area 3 Right: Guardrails for next steps of the Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

We do not need additional luxury rentals. We do not need more high-end market-rate apartments. East Boulder rezoning and transit-oriented density already create capacity for substantial rental growth. If DRCOG projects ~10,000 units are needed for Boulder, we can meet much of that through existing tools. What we cannot produce today because of policy misalignment and economics is attainable, for-sale housing. If we move forward, the overwhelming focus of Area 3 must be: Permanently affordable housing Middle-income “missing middle” ownership homes Attainable homes priced in a range that working households can realistically buy That likely means modest homes in the 1,200–1,800 square foot range. Think Holiday, not luxury stacked flats. Think of families, teachers, firefighters, nurses, and city employees who currently commute into Boulder. Every market-rate unit built in Area 3 that is not targeted toward this gap is a lost opportunity.

2. Stabilizing Enrollment in BVSD Must Be Part of the Equation We cannot ignore another major reality: declining enrollment in the Boulder Valley School District. BVSD is facing falling enrollment and the very real and near-term reality of school closures and consolidations. That means: Neighborhood schools at risk Longer bus rides for students Loss of community anchors Reduced programming due to shrinking budgets Housing policy and school enrollment are deeply connected. If Boulder continues to produce primarily small rental units or high-end housing without familysized, attainable ownership homes, we should not be surprised when enrollment declines, and our neighborhoods lose vibrancy. Area 3 presents a rare opportunity to: Build family-oriented ownership housing Attract and retain young families Stabilize enrollment at our neighborhood schools Protect the long-term viability of BVSD facilities This is not speculative. When communities build 2–3 bedroom, attainable homes, families move in. Schools stabilize. Communities strengthen. If we ignore this linkage, we risk accelerating school consolidation while simultaneously claiming to care about families. Area 3 should be explicitly analyzed through the lens of school enrollment impacts, not just housing unit counts.

3. Phase the Nearly 500 Acres — Do Not Build It All at Once about:blank

2/4

2/20/26, 9:48 AM

FW: Getting Area 3 Right: Guardrails for next steps of the Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

Area 3 is roughly 500 acres. It would be a mistake, financially, environmentally, and politically, to attempt to develop it all at once. We should: Create a comprehensive Area Plan for the full geography Establish a clear phasing strategy from the beginning Break development into 2–3 defined phases Phasing provides several advantages: It reduces infrastructure risk and upfront cost exposure It allows us to test housing absorption rates It allows us to evaluate school enrollment stabilization It minimizes disruption to existing neighborhoods A logical first phase would prioritize properties adjacent to the City’s existing ~200 acres. Starting contiguous to city-owned land allows us to: Leverage public land strategically Coordinate infrastructure efficiently Pilot neighborhood design standards Test affordability models before scaling If Phase 1 does not deliver the affordability, enrollment stabilization, or infrastructure feasibility we intend, we retain the ability to recalibrate before moving to Phase 2 or 3. Phasing is not hesitation. It is responsible governance.

4. Reevaluate the 200-Acre Regional Park Assumption We must be honest about trade-offs. We already steward 47,000 acres of Open Space. Parks and Recreation is struggling to fund existing facilities. The South Boulder Rec Center is a prime example. We have to prove we can maintain what we have before we add new infrastructure and facilities. If we allocate 200 acres for a regional park, the Plan must answer: What is the capital cost? What is annual maintenance? Where does that money come from? If a portion of that land, say 100 acres, could be used for attainable housing while repaying Parks for prior investment, we should study that option seriously.

5. Design Over Raw Unit Count If this becomes a numbers exercise, maximizing units through stacked flats, we will have failed.

about:blank

3/4

2/20/26, 9:48 AM

FW: Getting Area 3 Right: Guardrails for next steps of the Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

The goal should be walkable, human-scaled, 15-minute neighborhoods. Holiday 2.0 should be the mantra. Medium-density ownership housing. Tree-lined streets. Parks embedded within neighborhoods. Transit integrated from day one. Design matters. Form matters. Livability matters.

The Bottom Line Area 3 cannot become a generic growth expansion. If we annex, it must: Prioritize attainable ownership housing above all else Be fiscally responsible and infrastructure-realistic Be design-forward Be demand-validated Be phased and measurable This is not about growth for growth’s sake. It is about giving working families a real shot at living in Boulder, reducing in-commuting, and strengthening the long-term vitality of our city. We must get this right. If we choose to move forward, it will define Boulder for generations. As always, I welcome thoughtful dialogue on how we structure this work from the outset.

With appreciation, Matt Benjamin Boulder City Council Member (303) 453-9896 Pronouns: he/him/his

about:blank

4/4

2/20/26, 9:50 AM

FW: To: Boulder City Council Hot Line From: Councilmember Rob Kaplan Re: Area 3 Annexation — Scoping the Community Needs…

Outlook FW: To: Boulder City Council Hot Line From: Councilmember Rob Kaplan Re: Area 3 Annexation — Scoping the Community Needs Study From Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Date Tue 2/17/2026 9:08 AM To

Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov>

1 attachment (538 bytes) ATT00001.txt;

fyi

Kristofer Johnson, AICP, PLA Comprehensive Planning Manager (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This?

O: 303-441-4277 johnsonk3@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov

From: Kaplan, Rob <kaplanr@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 2:30 AM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] To: Boulder City Council Hot Line From: Councilmember Rob Kaplan Re: Area 3 Annexation — Scoping the Community Needs Study

As we consider whether to move forward with any community needs study related to Area 3 annexation, I want to offer a recommendation on how we scope that work from the outset. My strong preference is that staff narrow the focus of any study to middle-income, mediumdensity ownership housing, specifically, homes in the 1,200 to 1,500 square foot range, priced to be attainable for working households. The model I have in mind is well-established right here in our region: Boulder’s own Holiday neighborhood and Prospect in Longmont are examples of what thoughtfully designed, moderately-scaled for-sale housing can look like when it’s done well. What I am not interested in studying is additional apartment rental inventory or high-end luxury product. Boulder has seen plenty of both, and neither addresses the housing gap that is at the heart of this conversation. To test whether real demand exists before committing significant staff time and resources to a full study, I’d propose starting with a targeted survey targeting 2 groups. about:blank

1/2

2/20/26, 9:50 AM

FW: To: Boulder City Council Hot Line From: Councilmember Rob Kaplan Re: Area 3 Annexation — Scoping the Community Needs…

First, survey city employees across all departments including city staff, police, fire, and teachers who currently live outside Boulder city limits, and ask a simple, direct question: if you could purchase a roughly 1,500 square foot home in Area 3 for approximately $750,000, deed restricted to limit resale appreciation to 3% per year plus a COLA adjustment, would you choose to live in Boulder? Second, extend that same question to the rest of the estimated 60,000 people who commute into the city for work each day. I recognize that Boulder has surveyed in-commuters before, but regional housing stock and sentiment has shifted considerably in recent years and current data is essential before making assumptions about demand that could drive a major land use decision. At its core, this effort is about two interconnected goals: reducing the burden of in-commuting on our transportation network and environment, and building a stronger, more complete community where the people who serve and support Boulder can also afford to live here. If the demonstrated demand falls short of the housing capacity being contemplated, we should pause the idea until demand is clearly demonstrated rather than proceed on assumptions alone. I’d welcome a conversation with staff about how to structure this efficiently before any broader study is launched. Get Outlook for iOS

about:blank

2/2

2/24/26, 1:16 PM

FW: Thoughts about Area III study - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

Outlook FW: Thoughts about Area III study From Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Date Tue 2/24/2026 1:14 PM To

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan <future@bouldercolorado.gov>

Cc

Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov>

2 attachments (13 KB) APPX A BVSD Planning Yields.xlsx; ATT00001.txt;

For the record …

Kristofer Johnson, AICP, PLA Comprehensive Planning Manager (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This?

O: 303-441-4277 johnsonk3@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov

From: Marquis, Tina <marquist@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:14 AM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Thoughts about Area III study Dear Colleagues and Staff, Here are some considerations I would like to have reflected in the amendment better scoping the study of Area III. Overall, I would consider expanding into Area III only if we can create housing types and ownership models that we have been unable to develop in the current service area of the city, and that we can confirm that there is demand for that housing type. The feedback from our community assembly and community wide survey was clear that middle type housing is desired, but what is developed is largely multi-story rentals and luxury single family homes. In addition, while people are having fewer children generally in CO, it appears that our student enrollment declines in the city are outpacing those in other areas of the state. Here are some more specific areas to think about. 1. Using the data BVSD provides giving the yield of students by housing type and conversations with in-commuters, define the types of housing to focus on and how that might be supported in Area III and in the city. (Example attached)

about:blank

1/2

2/24/26, 1:16 PM

FW: Thoughts about Area III study - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

2. The study on water was helpful in the fall. I would like a little more detail about the impacts of adding new water users to existing water users, including residents, businesses and those using water for agriculture. I’d like to understand what trade offs we might be making in a water constrained environment. 3. The way we measure housing and specifically affordable housing is based on units, rather than the people served and housed by each unit. When working to achieve 15% affordable housing, I believe we treat a 0-2 bedroom unit the same as a unit housing a family of four people. The council could consider that fewer units is ok as long as we continue to serve more people, which additional metric might help encourage different housing types in the affordable space. We might also think about cash in lieu calculations differently to encourage different housing types. 4. Finally, if we decide to prioritize middle type housing, both affordable and market rate, and can define incentives and metrics to support this goal, can we pilot that in the current service area of the city? I appreciate that there are obstacles, but if we want to see this type of housing sooner, it is worth solving this now and considering the trade offs that we might be willing to make.

Thanks, Tina Marquis

about:blank

2/2

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF PLANNING STUDENT YIELD FOR 2022

Planning Yields are averaged over 7 years and used for estimating the impact of future residential development.

BVSD Overall Student Yields by Housing Type 2016-2022 SFD* DUP/TRI TWNHM CONDO APT MOHO

El.

0.23 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.27

M.S.

0.14 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.15

H.S.

0.17 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.20

K-12

0.54 0.16 0.21 0.08 0.11 0.62

East BVSD Overall Student Yields by Housing Type 2016-2022 SFD* DUP/TRI TWNHM CONDO APT MOHO

El.

0.26 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.30

M.S.

0.15 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.16

H.S.

0.19 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.21

K-12

0.60 0.23 0.24 0.11 0.12 0.67

Boulder Overall Student Yields by Housing Type 2016-2022 SFD* DUP/TRI TWNHM CONDO APT MOHO

El.

0.18 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.26

M.S.

0.11 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.15

H.S.

0.16 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.20

K-12

0.45 0.12 0.18 0.07 0.10 0.60

*SFD planning yields are derived from homes that are within the first 25 years of their life-cycle.

2/20/26, 9:45 AM

FW: Additions to Council's Resolution on the Area III Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

Outlook FW: Additions to Council's Resolution on the Area III Planning Reserve From Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Date Tue 2/17/2026 9:16 AM To

Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov>

1 attachment (538 bytes) ATT00001.txt;

fyi

Kristofer Johnson, AICP, PLA Comprehensive Planning Manager (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This?

O: 303-441-4277 johnsonk3@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov

From: Schuchard, Ryan <schuchardr@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:37 AM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Additions to Council's Resolution on the Area III Planning Reserve Concerning Council’s resolution on a vision and conditions to continue exploring Area III service area expansion (original draft below), I propose four additions: #1. Use the low cost of the area’s land value to support significant levels of new permanently affordable, deedrestricted housing for ownership at the middle range of affordability (i.e., ~50-150% AMI). Considerations: One of the clearest ways the planning reserve can potentially contribute to housing goals in a way that is unique is by contributing the value of city-owned land to reduce total housing costs and pass that subsidy on to future residents. The ability to do that would seem to depend on significant value remaining after costs like infrastructure which are expected to be up to ~$1,000,000,000 per the services study are expended. A principle for going forward should be that significant land value, net of infrastructure and other costs, is available to support the creation of permanently affordable, deed-restricted housing for ownership at the middle range of affordability (i.e., around 50-150% of area median income), and used for that purpose. about:blank

1/4

2/20/26, 9:45 AM

FW: Additions to Council's Resolution on the Area III Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

#2. Maximally support car-free living for all inhabitants. Considerations: Some current residents are understandably concerned about the potential for car traffic and surrounding problems to increase with a sharp increase to population in one part of town if a more people-centered outcome is not managed for. On the other hand, the planning profession shows that better infrastructure and services for transit, bikeability, and walkability are key to overcoming traffic woes—and greater density actually enables that process. However, the best outcomes are not automatic—we have to plan for them. Developing Area III is an opportunity to design a community that gives people of all ages, abilities, and incomes the ability to thrive without a car, while leveraging new inhabitants to improve the economics of public and active transportation for the whole community. A principle for going forward should be that the subcommunity will be designed to encourage and allow all inhabitants to live without a car, with consideration of the community itself and how it connects to wider Boulder and the region. #3. Forbid new fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas. Considerations: Consistent with Boulder’s climate action plan and 2026 policy statement, both adopted recently by Council, Boulder must ratchet down the use of fossil fuels down and certainly not expand their use. The development of new subcommunities such as with Area III is when we have the greatest opportunity to develop all-electric, clean, world-class designs and infrastructure; conversely, it’s when we face the greatest threat of locking in fossil systems that are incompatible with our climate, sustainability, and resilience by doing things like we’ve done before. Future planning for the site must exclude the possibility of building new natural gas infrastructure. #4. As part of validating a potential case to develop the planning reserve, provide an alternative investment scenario to make use of the proposed funding (which includes up to ~$1,000,000,000 per the services study) and other associated costs to develop housing as urban infill instead. Considerations: Council’s decision about Area III on February 12 was to take the next step in exploration based on need and did not consider a full picture of costs, opportunity costs, or the expectation of benefits net of other considerations. It’s a reasonable hypothesis that the large amounts of resources involved in potential expansion (including up to ~$1,000,000,000 per the services study) could be put to use for strategies that could secure the same outcomes for less cost through infill within the city’s current service area, where existing infrastructure, services, and proximities support cost advantages and other synergies. If and when the exploration goes forward, something that could help the community make better sense of Area III as an opportunity is a comparative assessment to demonstrate that the significant investments involved—which include the direct costs of infrastructure which are likely to be embedded into expenses borne by future stakeholders, lost ecosystem services, and reduced option value for the community—are definitely justified in the context of what else could be done with the resources. Future planning should include a process to rule out alternative investment scenarios that suggests a different strategy could achieve the target outcomes on more beneficial terms. Looking forward to the discussion. Ryan Ryan Schuchard (he/him) Boulder City Councilmember about:blank

2/4

2/20/26, 9:45 AM

FW: Additions to Council's Resolution on the Area III Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 schuchardr@bouldercolorado.gov Office hours and newsletter: www.ryanwithboulder.com

From: Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 12:05 PM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: Woulf, Mark <WoulfM@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Area III-Planning Reserve - Additional Information Good afternoon Councilmembers and HOTLINE readers, On Thursday (February 12) you will be considering Step 2 of 3 related to the potential long-term expansion of the city into the Area III-Planning Reserve (Agenda Item 3A: Consideration of a motion to determine if there is sufficient community need as defined in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to warrant further consideration of a Service Area Expansion Plan for the Area III-Planning Reserve). The staff memo for this item provides an analysis of the potential “need” for expansion into this area, though as detailed in the memo, that determination is ultimately made by Council and Planning Board, who both have decision review for Comprehensive Plan processes. Based on feedback received recently, staff have prepared a draft framework (see below) that Council can consider and use as a basis for discussion during the hearing. The framework describes interests voiced by the community and policy makers related to the Planning Reserve during the Comprehensive Plan update process. If Council finds that there is community need and wishes to articulate specific intent and commitments for a potential future Service Area Expansion Plan, the framework with any desired revisions could be considered as a Resolution.

The city thoughtfully considers the Area III-Planning Reserve to potentially expand the Service Area as part of regular updates to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The city will be measured in its approach to using the Area III-Planning Reserve to meet community needs, including exploring additional opportunities to meet needs within the existing Service Area, to ensure community values and goals are achieved and there is lasting benefit for future generations. The following framework is intended to guide discussions for the use of the Area III-Planning Reserve as part of a future Service Area Expansion Plan: Deliver housing types that are difficult to create in the existing Service Area, such as middleincome ownership housing Accelerate progress toward the city’s affordable housing goals Envision an innovative and unique mixed-use, mixed-income, mixed-density 15-minute neighborhood Provide regional park land that supports the entire Boulder Valley and beyond Emphasize parks, open lands, environmental assets and biodiversity in neighborhood design Showcase climate change and disaster resilient site design and architecture Balance urban expansion with resource and infrastructure constraints The framework above is not exclusive and is based on community discussions during the 2025 update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. These goals may change or no longer apply in the future, and about:blank

3/4

2/20/26, 9:45 AM

FW: Additions to Council's Resolution on the Area III Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

other goals may be identified over time.

Also, attached for your reference are the minutes from the January 20, 2026, Planning Board meeting where they reviewed the same item regarding community needs and the Planning Reserve. These minutes were approved by the board at their meeting last week, so you would have a formal record of their discussion. We look forward the conversation at the hearing on Thursday. Best regards, kj

Kristofer Johnson, AICP, PLA Comprehensive Planning Manager (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This?

O: 303-441-4277 johnsonk3@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov

about:blank

4/4

2/20/26, 9:56 AM

FW: Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

Outlook FW: Planning Reserve From Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Date Tue 2/17/2026 9:00 AM To

Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov>

1 attachment (538 bytes) ATT00001.txt;

I don’t think you receive HOTLINE emails (you can sign up if you want to), so I’ll forward these to you. kj

Kristofer Johnson, AICP, PLA Comprehensive Planning Manager (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This?

O: 303-441-4277 johnsonk3@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov

From: Wallach, Mark <WallachM@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:26 PM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Planning Reserve

As it was the clear will of Council (not mine, but we act by vote of the majority) to move forward with a Service Area Expansion Plan (the “Plan”) for the Area III Planning Reserve, we were invited to suggest via Hotline some guardrails and considerations for that Plan. Yet another invitation to draft a Hotline? Does it get any better? I am delighted to comply, and I have a few thoughts for that document which I will present here: 1) First and foremost, the Plan must be entirely focused on providing affordable, middleincome and what I will call attainable housing (perhaps a level of $800,000 and under, although the limits are certainly subject to discussion). Not 25% of the housing in these categories, not 40% and not 50%. We need to build the maximum amount of this type of housing possible. Boulder does not need ONE additional unit of market rate housing. We about:blank

1/3

2/20/26, 9:56 AM

FW: Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

currently have more than enough middle-income rental housing. If you make 80-120% of AMI there are a multitude of rental options available to you. Of course, if you want to purchase a home, good luck. 2)The additional housing units contemplated by the East Boulder rezoning, and the additional density permitted near transit corridors, (virtually all of which are likely to be market rate rentals), can provide more than enough housing to fulfill the requirements of the DRCOG study suggesting that we need an additional 10,000 units of housing. The only point of developing the Planning Reserve is to provide the affordable and missing middle housing, especially units for sale, that we do not produce now. Each market rate unit contemplated by the Plan represents a lost opportunity for this property. 3) I commend to the drafters of the Plan the letter we recently received from Macon Cowles, suggesting a test case development of a small portion of the Planning Reserve dedicated entirely to workforce housing. If the owner of that parcel is prepared to move forward in that manner we should pursue this immediately; it does not require a lengthy study to determine its desirability. If the owner is willing, we should act promptly. 4) I believe we need to rethink using 200 acres for a regional park. We do not count our 47,000 acres of Open Space in addressing the sufficiency of our parkland, but perhaps we should give some credit to our Open Space in making that determination. In addition, Parks and Recreation currently lacks funds to construct and maintain existing parks properties (see the difficulties in financing a satisfactory replacement for the South Boulder Rec Center). The Plan must address the source of funding for developing such a large regional park, as well as an estimate of the cost of its annual maintenance and the source of funding for that maintenance. 5) If we were to be able to utilize some portion of the 200 acres allocated for a regional park for housing (perhaps 100 acres?) we could repay to Parks the amount they have paid for it, and that land could be suitable for affordable and middle-income housing. The Plan should examine that possibility. 6) Water. We are contemplating adding several thousand units of housing in an environment in which this community will have less water in the future, due to two factors. The first is climate change: this winter is a harbinger of what is to come, and we need to account for this. The second is the 7-state compact with respect to the Colorado River. This agreement will be revised either in cooperation with the other 6 states, or by fiat from the federal government. In either case we will have a lower allocation of water from the Colorado. In the second case, given the nature of this administration and its dim view of the State of Colorado, we may end up with substantially less water. The Plan must analyze our prospective water supplies and its impact on this project. 7) Design over quantity. Many people have spoken about the possibilities of a new Holiday neighborhood, or something similar. We should definitely move in this direction. The point is not to cram the maximum number of units of housing into the Reserve, which will require extensive use of stacked flats, but to design walkable neighborhoods that about:blank

2/3

2/20/26, 9:56 AM

FW: Planning Reserve - Horn, Sarah - Outlook

people actually want to live in. Holiday 2 should be the mantra of this development and the theme of the Plan. 8) And now we come to the most important issue: staff has previously estimated that the required infrastructure for the buildout of the Planning Reserve will be somewhere in the range of $600MM-$1BN. That is not a number remotely within our capacity to pay; it is more than double the entire amount that can be raised from our infrastructure tax, or CCRS. The Plan must address the following issues: i) How is it contemplated that this infrastructure bill will be paid? ii) If those costs are to be imposed upon the property owners/developers of Area III properties, how can we possibly achieve any type of affordability, as those units will be burdened with their share of the cost of the contemplated infrastructure? If the infrastructure costs $600MM and we build 6,000 units, the per unit cost would be $100,000. At an infrastructure cost of $1BN, the per unit cost is $166,000. There is an inherent tension between our desire for affordability and our need to have Area III property owners shoulder the burden of paying for new infrastructure. How to resolve? iii) What will be the disruption to the rest of the community from installing the massive new infrastructure necessary to serve this new community? The Plan is the key document in the future development of Area III; we need to get it right. Should we decide to move for\ward after the preparation of the Plan, this will constitute the most important development project of our lifetimes and we must be thoughtful and measured in our approach. And I look forward to our next invitation to communicate via Hotline.

about:blank

3/3