Transcript

0:00:00Yes, thank you. We are recording. Okay, good morning. Today is June 11th, 2026. This is a joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County and the Boulder County Planning Commission. All three County Commissioners are present, and we have Commissioners, let's see if I can do this, Whitley Libby, Gerstol Bloom. Quiz Field, Li and McMillan present in the hearing room and Commissioner Manna with us online. And we are here to hear staff's presentation on the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. We will take public testimony. And the plan is to get through all the testimony today, and close the public hearing, dates have been scheduled for each of the bodies to deliberate separately later on in June. And Hannah Hipley or Chris Johnson Welshare what those dates are. We will start with a Presentation from staff. I'm going to request that the Commissioner's Planning and County Commissioners try to keep our questions to a minimum at this stage so that we can give all the folks that have joined us here to speak, a chance to speak. And after that, then we'll give our staff an opportunity to respond to any of the issues that were raised. If they feel that they would like to more questioning, we'll end the hearing and come back at a later date to deliberate and make

0:01:59a decision. I think those are all the preliminaries that I need to take care of at this point. So Hannah will turn the microphone over to you. Pardon me, Brianna Barber, commissioners office staff. I just want to make a note for the record that Commissioner Komeneck is also present in the virtual hearing. Thank you. Okay, I saw his name up there and I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know that he was one of our planning commissioners. Thank you, Brianna. Hello. Always. Take. Pardon. How. Long. We will, yeah, we will take, we will finish all the public comment. Of people who've signed up. So I do not know, Lynn, we will proceed. Yes, thank you. Hannah, go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. We are here for the public hearing on BBCP 25001, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, major update. And this is the public hearing on the Recommended 10 - year major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Again, my name is Hannah Hipley. I'm the Long Range Planning Division Manager with the County's Community Planning and Permitting Department. And I am joined at the table by Christopher Johnson, who is the City of Boulder's planning long - range planning division manager. Although I think his title is slightly different than that, but he has my calder part at the city. And he

0:03:30will help us to answer any questions that I can't fully field for us today. So diving in. Where are we with this process? We've shown you this slide, I think, over and over throughout this process, winter 2024 actually seems like yesterday. Although now we are at the end of this process, and we're very excited to be here. Today, the plan approval process how the Boulder Valley grows, adapts, defines, and sustains its values over the next 20 years. The Recommended Plan Reflects these two years of engagement, technical analysis, and iterative policy maker direction. The recommended plan before you now represents the final refinement of the March 2026 draft plan. The draft plan was posted for community review on March 3rd. And at our last meetings with you, we reviewed that draft plan together. Took your feedback, uh, and comments to revise the plan. But you were certainly not the only ones that reviewed the draft and provided feedback. The recommended draft is a reflection of the many, many thoughtful community comments we received through open houses, the open house, emails, online forums, and office hours. In addition to feedback gathered from advisory boards, city and county staff and community subject matter experts, organizations like the Boulder Valley School District and growing up Boulder and staff at the state. This was a lot of input

0:05:20to respond to in a relatively short window, but the Recommended Update to the comp plan is better for having received all of that feedback, and we are grateful for it. Um, so we're going to dive into some of the plan updates. But starting with a reminder of the four big goals that we have for this major update going into it, we wanted to design and carry out the most inclusive comprehensive planning effort to date, establish a clear values - driven approach that responds to evolving community priorities. Deliver a clear and usable set of policies that allow adaptability and implementation over time. And develop a modern future land - use strategy that offers a clear and resilient direction for the community. As far as goal number one over the last 20 months, we posted over 70 engagement opportunities. These included traditional methods like surveys and open houses and tables at local events. But we also tried to new ways to engage and listen to members of our community, hoping to speak with people who typically haven't or don't participate in planning projects. And we attempted to reach new voices through engagement - wise community connectors, experiments and public art, the Community Assembly, and other methods.

0:06:53And we heard from so many people, this slide is a, I don't expect you to be able to read this, but it's a pictures over time of all the different events over the last two years. We believe this participation is felt in the ways that the plan includes new ideas and policies shifts. As long as, in addition to retaining our commitment to our core values. Um, and I do want to just take this slide in a little bit and just, um, stop for a moment and really sync everyone who came to an event, hosted a community conversation in their home, submitted photos to voicing Boulder, or showed up in the numerous ways that they could have throughout this time. And we hope that, um, these folks see themselves in their ideas in this plan. The next goal was about establishing a collective understanding of what guides and motivates us as a community and set the foundation for the rest of the plan. Those early stages of engagement helped us identify the vision for the community and revisit our community values. As the plan moves forward through implementation, these elements will be important references for future decision making. The next goal centers around policy, and we set out to deliver a set of clear and usable policies that can allow for adaptability and implementation over time.

0:08:24Through the planning process, 104 policies redeemed essential to include at the level of the comprehensive plan. These policies are intentionally written in direct plain language and focus on the what and why of various topics. Intentionally removing specificity around how policies should be implemented, which leaves room for creativity and adaptability over time. We received hundreds of comments on the policies every single comment was read in the potential outcomes in alignment with policy intent was considered. We discussed potential revisions with subject matter experts and relevant staff and incorporated as many changes as we could. In general, there were a couple of policy areas that received a lot of feedback and we had to weigh different impacts of suggested revisions on issues like the environment and climate change, open space, transportation mobility and community character. We also expanded the future of series to provide additional context on transportation, resilience to natural hazards and open space, um, and those were moved from, they were moved from one section to another in the plan. We did revisit language throughout the plan to better feature and celebrate the commitment to open space and natural resources. Finally, we wanted to deliver a modern and simplified future land use strategy that provides clear and resilient direction for the future. What we heard throughout the process was a desire to extend

0:10:10opportunities and flexibility throughout the community while retaining the core values and core approach to the future land use map. Through this update, we heard a consistent desire to refresh the approach to create a strategy that's easy or to understand more proactive and flexible enough to respond to evolving community needs and unexpected challenges. We think we've achieved this while continuing to reflect Boulder's core values. The recommended plan includes 12 land use designations. And each designation defines expectations about use, urban design and mobility facilities. The update to the plan also includes guidance on how to use the future land use map and when to consider context and allow for flexibility. We received a great deal of feedback about the future land use strategy in some suggestions that you'll see in the updated plan, including the addition of economicals. Updated expectations for mobility in all land use designations.

0:11:25The revision to rural lands, designation, and the creation of reroral class, uh, to respond to county feedback around that having rural lands as part of a systems class was not reflective of its diversity and describe these lands as part of urban system rather than as areas that have, um, independent values. And objectives. That are independent from the city. An updated map is better aligned with community interests for corridors and hubs throughout the city. We are just going to review the next steps that we have for the approval process. Um, we covered a few of these already, but just to drill down a little bit. As you know, there are four bodies that must review and approve the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Each body holds a public hearing. And ultimately we'll take action on the plan.

0:12:26Today we are hosting the county's joint public hearing and each body will then deliberate and vote in a separate meeting. While four bodies must review and approve the comprehensive plan, there are slight differences in the approval role that each body plays. The comprehensive plan serves as the city's only long range land use plan and therefore the two city bodies have the largest role in reviewing and approving changes. Both bodies approve all aspects of the plan. Accept those policies that solely refer to the county, um, and there are, um, a few of these in the plan. And they relate to the county's jurisdiction over unincorporated areas within the planning area. The comprehensive plan is not a detailed land use plan for the unincorporated county, but rather serves to document our shared values in partnership to responsibly manage growth and direct urban development into the city in a manner that preserves the urban rural distinction, open space, environmental resources, agriculture and the character of the unincorporated surrounding area. The Boarda County Commissioners reviews only policies that reference the county. You review future land use map changes in area three. And you have the option to call up land use map changes in area two that are larger than five acres. Since we have reimagined the future land use strategy and this applies to an area larger than

0:13:58five acres, the Boarda County Commissioners retains the call up option for all land use changes in area two. If you're able to support the future land use map, you can make that clear as part of your decision on the 25th. If you are not able to do so, then a call - up decision would need to be made at a business meeting following city approval of the future land use map. Finally, the Boarda County Commissioners also review planning area of map changes that involve area three, accepting changes from Area 3 to area two that are less than five acres. Hannah, I'm going to stop you. You may mean to advance your slides. You still have this. Oh, you are correct. Thank you. To note, there are only two changes to the planning area's map as part of this update. And they are both less than five acres. Uh, so the county's review will be focused on the policies and the future land use map. County planning commission's role is limited to reviewing policies that reference the county, future land use map changes in area three.

0:15:10Implanting areas map changes that involve area three. Again, accepting those changes from Area 3 to area two that are less than five acres. Par. Me. The City held their joint public hearing on June 4th. And at today's hearing, we will take public testimony. If there is time afterwards, we can also begin to address any clarifying questions from planning commission and the Board County Commissioners. Although this may also occur at the next meeting prior to deliberations. After today, the forebodies will deliberate and vote at their separate meetings. The dates of these meetings are listed on the slide, city planning board is scheduled for June 16th County Planning Commission for June 17th. And then we have a comprehensive plan, uh, double header on June 25th with the Board of County Commissioners in the morning in City Council in the afternoon. Since final adoption requires that all four bodies approve the same plan and language, if changes to the recommended plan are passed by any one body, we'll need to determine which of the other bodies must reconsider the amended portions of the plan. This includes minor wordsmithing. So we are asking that if body feels an amendment is necessary. That it'd be a substantive change. Although this is. Any revisions that are included as a condition of approval must be brought to

0:16:54the other necessary bodies for their review. And we are hoping to avoid the need for a series of follow - up meetings to reconcile differences. However, the recommended draft is still a draft. And staff has identified opportunities in July to reconcile any differences. That concludes my presentation for today. I do have on the slide the Recommended Motions for Continuance of this, uh, meeting to June 25th for the Board of County Commissioners into June 17th for planning commission. Should we, should this be helpful to you. Okay, thank you Hannah. Um, KJ, anything that you'd like to add at this point? No, I think, uh, Hannah did a really wonderful job giving an overview. Um, certainly the one thing I would, uh, emphasize and reinforce is just the level of collaboration that the city and the county have experienced through this process, uh, both at the staff level and all the subject matter experts from multiple departments that participated, but also all of you elected and appointed officials and community members that really came out. Um, and participated over the last two years. So I do just want an offer a thanks and gratitude for that collaboration because it really was terrific. All right. So, uh, as I said at the outset, we'll just maybe do some limited initial questions from the dais here so that, uh,

0:18:31all the folks that have joined us online and in person can get to their testimony. Um, any questions at this point from plan commissioners, County Commissioners, Commissioner Lochierman. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Hannah and KJ and all your teams and the staff for the work. Um, I do have a question. And part of the reason I want to ask it now is because it might, um, help, and I'm looking at my colleagues here in the other conversations with continuance. I'm looking, um, in the packet, I'm looking at the comp plan on page 75 and it's a policy. That's why I'm asking. Which is a little different in the 392 page packet. Just if anyone's looking there, it's a little different. So, but the page number on the packet is what I'm looking at on 75. So it's the policies 102 and 103. And so it's just a curiosity in reading this draft. On policy 102. It just has a city in there. So the way that I heard the presentation is the city would be the ones addressing those policies. Um, I got an opportunity to meet with our triple relations manager here at the county. And so our curiosity is why is the County not included in that. And so I wanted to ask that question. And then on the 103, um, policy

0:19:58is titled as engagement as local Indigenous peoples. And so we also have some curiosities around that one, that one does have city and counties. That's something I'm interpreting that the County will have, um, be reviewing. And we don't use the language indigenous peoples and just wanted to get, so the, the question was more round definition who is the city talking about. And I ask that just in doing a lot of the different work that I do and meet with indigenous tribes of Napoli, Indigenous tribes of Central and South America. And so that was where we were, we weren't sure if that was the intent. Or if you were working or if you are focusing on tribal nations and or American Indian, uh, folks. So those are the questions in regards to how then we would review that if we were to change, for example, in policy 102. Thank you. I can start a response to that question and see if KJ has anything to add.

0:20:55Um, the question about when the county is in a policy and when it may not be, um, I think it's a good one to touch base on because my answer is. The same sort of across the comprehensive plan. The county has numerous plans that have various policies on a lot of different topics that are also touched on by the city in this plan. We do not, um, and have not recommended that we try to join every policy where we have some alignment to avoid confusion between the policy as we have drafted and what's in the, in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which is a geographically limited plan. Um, so where we have combined or added ourselves to the policies or have joined the city are ones where we are trying to document how well work with each other, um, specific issues where we might collaborate together, um, and areas where we might want to hold each other accountable. Um, so I think that first 102 policy is really about how the city will act. And then I think 103 is how we collaboratively act and our acknowledgement related to. Tribal nations and American Indians. So the indigenous language, that's how I would, that's how I interpret that. Yeah. The one addition, um, that I might make is that related to policy 103. We would take

0:22:44a broad view and a broad interpretation of what indigenous people means. So to your point, if they are not native American, indigenous, um, but they are members from an indigenous group from South America or elsewhere. That would certainly be inclusive, um, in that policy that we would want to engage with those, those community members that may not be part of a formal tribe or a nationally recognized tribe, but certainly have lived experience that we want to engage with and learn from. Okay. Any other, uh, preliminary questions comments. From the dais. All right. I don't see any. Okay. Commissioner was doing. I, I think I'd like to actually make a comment also on 102 before we move on to another one. Um, and Hannah, I understand your response. There are, there are a lot of, um, policies in here that our city and County. Were, well, I guess I don't have to go into that. I'm struggling to really understand why we would not want to add the County to 102. Um, because we do support actions, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, we can come back to that. And maybe you, you all can give that a little bit more consideration. I just don't, I mean, there are a lot of things in here that maybe duplicative of the Boulder County Comprehensive

0:24:22Plan or other County policies that we have that aren't strictly necessary to have in the plan. There are tons of them. In fact, I have a whole list of about 20 policies that I think we could just get rid of in the comprehensive in the BBCP. So I guess I don't see any problem with going ahead and adding the County to that as a statement of what our values are. So, um, but we're not making decisions now. Well, just comments. That was what I was just going to respond. Those are definitely decisions and direction you can give us. At this point in time that's, you know, up to you in the board about how they want it to wreck staff regarding the policies. Great. Thanks. Okay. Commissioner Luciamin. Yeah. Thank you. And it was just a question also. And I know we're trying to get to public comments. I want to appreciate that. And I also, the question that I didn't hear you speak about in the presentation in regards to the part of the process, um, we all have here at our, um, at the dais some public comment with an allegation that the noticing of this process was not done appropriately. So I just would like to hear from you all if you wouldn't mind, um, just addressing that question. Sure. Uh, this

0:25:44public hearing was noticed in the way that we noticed all of our comprehensive plan, uh, public meetings. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan does not speak or the Boder County Langes Code does not speak during notice for the BBCP. It does speak directly to notice for the Boulder County comprehensive plan and we followed noticing requirements for that. The amendment procedures also do not include directions for notice for this type of hearing. These kind of general adoption hererings. So as staff, we feel like we've met our notice obligations. And I'll let KJ speak to that for the city as well. Yeah. Thank you. Um, city Council on Planning Board also heard community comment, um, related to the question of noticing, uh, we did follow up with additional information to the community member, um, that clarified that the noticing related to Landy's map changes was sent in the April Utility billing. And the approximately 30, 000 customers that are part of the cities utility billing service, um, about 5, 000 of those people receive printed, uh, bills at their request. Most of it is online. Uh, and so there were about 5, 000 inserts to the utility bill that were provided, providing the noticing. And then there was also through the online billing portal. There's an opportunity to, uh, look at inserts. Um, and that was included for

0:27:17all recipients of those bills. Thank you. Okay. Um, I, I had one question. I think I'll go ahead and ask right now and won't spend a lot of time on it. Page 79, um, policy nine policy 79 regarding that municipal airport. There's a, the last sentence states the city will coordinate with the county to provide consistent regulations addressing noise and other airport influences where possible. And I didn't know what that would refer to. As far as I know, we don't have any, um, regulatory authority in it's given that it is in incorporated Boulder. So I just wondered what that was referring to. The city's airport is incorporated the unincorporated. I think we're talking about land uses in development approaches immediately adjacent to the airport, which becomes unincorporated Boulder County very quickly. Um, and for example, we do have an airport overlay zone district in the land use code. Um, so I think this is really an attempt to ensure we don't end up with conflicting uses. Um, inappropriate adjacencies between the airport and the county.

0:28:42Okay. Well, this talks about regulations that. Would affect airport influences. So, you know, something we can come back to this as well. I just, I don't want to create an impression that the county may have some authority here that we don't actually have. Sure. When people have complaints about things that are happening at the airport. Yeah. And I can, I can just know this. The city also has comparable airport influence zone, um, overlays around, around the airport that, um, do different things related to noise in expectations for land use. I think that goal here is just to make sure that as Hannah mentioned that we are coordinating between city and county. And if it's possible to align the boundaries of those zones, certainly that'd be something we'd be interested in looking at. But just to make sure we don't have, um, conflicting guidance at some point in the future. Yeah. Thanks. It's helpful. Okay. I'm not seeing any other hands up. So we will now turn to public comment. And, um, we, what we will do is take folks in the order in which they signed up, uh, regardless of whether they are in the hearing room or joining us remotely, uh, everyone will have, uh, three minutes to speak unless it's noted that you are pooling time with others. And so we have a

0:30:19timer, uh, if you're remote, it'll be on your screen. If you're in the hearing room, it'll be right up there on the big board. You can't miss it. And we'll just proceed through all of the folks that are interested until we reach the end. Commissioner Bloomberg. Mr. Bloomfield, could I just ask staff that we get the screen on the back wall to match the other screen so that we can see the timer. Oh, it doesn't? That's not how we do it. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Um, yeah. That's fine. It should be usually ours matches. Is all. Oh, interesting. We like to see that people talking to us. All right. So we do have Tamar Krantz here, but she's in yellow. So I gather she's not joined us. And waiting for confirmation. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Bree.

0:31:19So the first person will be Janet Jensen Wolf. If you are present. Please come forward. Okay. Not seeing anyone come forward. Steve Palmerrance. Thank you. I'm Steve Palmerance. I'm a former city Council member 10 years. I also worked at the legislature. I'm here as a last resort, frankly. Uh, because the city has expressed and shown zero interest in actually looking at this issue of densifying the low density neighborhoods. Um, I have been to almost every, um, meeting that I could bring myself to go to on this comp plan and looked at the surveys. The surveys were biased. Um, the meetings were nonsense, frankly, you know, dance performances. There was not one single time that you could engage anybody and get any substantive relationship going with them on the substance of doing this, uh, things. Um, the top it all off for the Council meeting on June 4th, the board and Council Planning Bordern Council. They staff says we want to clarify for everything that this time the Remend Plan has been finalized. I'm looking at this in any changes to language, blah, blah, blah. I mean, give me a break. This is a joint project.

0:32:54How can the thing be finalized? And they never dealt with the issues around the densification of low density neighborhoods. So I'm here to ask you guys to do something about this. Because if you don't, nobody will. And then we will be screwed in our neighborhoods, frankly. And some of you will be impacted. Um. The, uh, the place that I found you had leverage potentially, uh, unfortunately was that, uh, Criterion B for amendments, significant cross jurisdictional impacts. What you ought to have some power on. And criteria C material affecting land use and growth projections. You don't. Because of the way the rules are written for this thing. So I'm here to ask you guys to first, before you get into the substance of this plan to change the rules so that you do have a say on things that materially affect the county and then do something about the process for this low density neighborhood densification.

0:34:00I don't know what else to tell you. I mean, I can go through infinite details on how badly the staff work was on engaging citizens into this thing. But fundamentally, that's the problem. I mean, and I went, you know, I engaged and paid no attention. The thing looks just like it looked when it started. So what good was all a year and a half of all that input. There it is. Questions. We don't do dialogue with folks that have come to speak to us. Okay. Fine. Thank you. That's it. Appreciate your time. Okay. And please do something about this. This is truly, I mean, in 40 odd years, this is the worst I have ever seen. Okay. And I went through three comp plan revisions, by the way, when I was on the council. Uh, and, and I am going to hold people strictly to the time limits. I know that, um, so that we can get through everyone and out of respect for everybody's time. You're very welcome. Uh, Marlena Rich. Okay. I don't see Marlena. Martin Stream. Not seeing Martin.

0:35:24Nick Jantzewich. Possibly remote. There we go. All right. You can unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes. Mute. Okay. So, uh, I'm sorry. Start by stating your name and I'll ask everybody to do the same. Okay. My name is Nick Jantzwitz. And I live in, uh, gun girl, uh, red Fox Hills near Twin Lakes. Uh, and I've been a resident for over 40 years. Uh, when the city and county jointly adopted the develop Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in 1977, the pact made with residents was clear urban intensity development belongs inside the compact city grid while unincorporated County lands are to be steadfastly preserved for rural character, open space wildlife nature preservation parks and agriculture. For five decades, updates to this plan have honored that compact until now. The proposed neighborhood one and neighborhood to designations that promote mixed use and high density development in rural areas like ours stand in direct opposition to the 50 year history of the plan. This update shatters the plan by erasing numerical density caps per acre and injecting highly permissive zoning language. It functions more as an engine for developer driven urban infill rather than continued rural preservation. Putting high density designations on environmentally fragile, uncorporated lands that include wildlife corridors, high water tables and wetlands abandons the plans core principles. Gunborough residents voted for our taxes to pay

0:37:15for open space, much of which now serves as a wildlife corridor between Boulder Creek and Twin Lakes. This proposal will effectively insert a barrier blocking that corridor with the County Housing Authorities planned high density development next to Twin Lakes. The proposed plan also fails to properly address heart constraints on water sources, which are dwindling due to our aired climate and global warming. You Rapaho Glacier is virtually gone. Boulder gets nearly a third of its water from the Colorado River drainage where major reservoirs like Lakes Mead and Powell are far below 30 percent of capacity This plan prematurely promotes growth because there may not be enough water to support it. The required water supply and strategic growth elements of Boulder County's comprehensive plan mandated by state Senate bill 24 - 174 have yet to be implemented.

0:38:09So this plan puts the cart before the horse. Please do not allow 50 - year legacy of world - class growth management and environmental protection to be dismantled for short - sighted urban density targets. I also want to emphasize that this plan constitutes a zoning change from low - density residential to high density mixed use in our area. So proper legal notice of that rezoning should have been mailed to gun barrel residents, but it was not. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. We now have Jude Sky. She'll start by stating your name for the record and you'll have three minutes. Good morning. Uh, my name is Jude Sky. I am, um, I've been living in Boulder County for 33 years and in Gun Burrows since 2011. I actually moved out there to get out of the city because there's getting a little crowded. You know, I'm not the smartest guy in the room. I don't understand all of the ins and outs of a 392 page plan, but I have some comments just to say that, uh, I'm here tonight. I'm just going to read off this because or today, because the, the update doesn't just rewrite our development goals. It fundamentally dismantles the procedural integrity and fair representation that this community relies on for more than three decades. We've trusted a system built

0:39:32on clear predictable rules. And today we're looking at a draft that replaces vetted processes with unvetted staff maps bypassing the strict screening criteria established in exhibit B of our existing intergovernmental agreement. So this kind of underminings the public trust, uh, even before a single shovel hits the ground, I'd say that most alarming shift is the deliberate blurring of lany's designations. We're moving away from 26 specific reliable categories like agricultural and parks and replacing them with ambiguous catch all terms like neighborhood one and neighborhood two. So let's be clear about what this erasure of granularity means. It strips away density limits. It opens the door for nearly any secondary commercial or high density use right next to quasi rural residential areas. And by collapsing these eight district, distinct residential tears into broader hubs. You aren't planning.

0:40:23You're moving the structural guardrails that protect the character of our neighborhoods. So you're asking property owners to accept total ambiguity in place of assurance. I think the core issue is something along the lines of kind of a governance failure regarding our unincorporated lands in areas two and three. Like right now the framework allows City of Boulder officials to dictate land use decisions for unincorporated County residents. People who we can't elect. And to hold voting or veto rights over those lane use. And so to allow that to happen in the future of our county land while County Residence Barrett Impact is quite literally taxation without representation. The Intergovernmental Agreement must be corrected to ensure that county governing bodies retain voting rights over County land. And finally, I think we need to protect what's already working. I urge you to approve the land change request designating the three twin lakes properties as permanent open space because for decades, these parcels have served gun barrel as a critical wildlife quarter, a scenic buffer, vital flood mitigation, and pushing a dense development agenda outside of the city lines into these sensitive areas is a mistake. I think I asked this commission to halt the blurring of our codes, restore fair voting rights to County residents, protect twin legs and ensure that this update remains transparent, predictable, and fair. Thank

0:41:49you very much. Okay, thank you so much. We will now hear from Donna George and Donna is pooling her time and has nine minutes. Hi, Donna George Gumbel Subcommunity. I submitted the speech I gave at the city's public hearing on the Boulder Valley Count Plan Update along with supporting documents. These should be in your packet and I have also provided you all with paper copies to look over now with some additional supporting documents. Proper notification procedures were not followed for this update. They sent out a notification in utility bills, something like this. You know, you mostly see things that you just throw out and don't even look at. Um, and not a specified marked letter from the planning staff to each property owner, like the copy that's in your packet that I received in 2015. After the city Council Public hearing on the Boulder Valley Compliant, I learned from the city planning staff that there are about 30, 000 water counts that the city bills monthly and only about 5, 000 of them still receive a paper bill. So only 5, 000 got this in the mail and all had this some type of like insert like this included. Most people don't look at the answers, including in bills, and they go right into the recycling bin. The remaining customers

0:43:17receive their bill online in the insert was through the customer billing portal. Now most people go directly to paying their bill and do not notice the icons down below as they are signing into their account. And the bill, um, icon was just down below in the bottom corner of this thing. You would have had to actually click on it to see the notice. And what about those properties that are on left hand valley water? Did they get an insert in their water bill? Now to the insert. I received copies of them from cities planning staff as I had never seen them and they were not in my bill online. I had a different note in the March bill on just on the bill. And it was just a general thing about, you know, the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan update. There was, there is only any land use designations to one's property. So, um, then when they did the April insert, that mention of Land Use Designation changes to one property was buried down in the writing of this supposedly notice. And it's red as a result, the future jusignation applied to your property is proposed to change. The comprehensive plan does not change your zoning or affect the use of your property. The statement isn't even fully correct. Under development standards and zoning of the

0:44:39draft BVCP, it states the comprehensive plan and future land use map informed decisions about zoning in the bold valley. So although it does not change the present zoning on one's property, it does affect what future zoning and uses can be considered and approved on one's property. The new neighborhood does engage since our more vague and allow many more uses and densities than is allowed under the present land used designations. So yes, these proposed changes would definitely affect the use of one's properties and adjacent properties. These are vastly inadequate notifications of major changes to land use on properties. Individual letters like the one I received in 2015 and those received right property owners of SUD drive this past fall, which state the property owners property address in the changes being proposed should have been mailed out to each property within the Boulder Valley that a proposed change in land use request was submitted. This includes requests from staff and governing bodies. This should have been done in November after the closing of submittal of change owned land use requests in October. And before the initial screening of the change in land use requests. I am sure none of you would consider this an obscure and hidden and very easily missed insert. A proper notification of a major land use change on your property during the 11th

0:46:00hour of the BVCP update would be appropriate and sufficient. How many of you actually live in the Boulder Valley Boundaries, of which this plan covers? And this would be affected by these major changes being proposed. No density limits and commercial many other uses allowed in low density residential areas. And many more land use changes. These citizens are your constituents and deserve your proper adherence to rules and procedures and quite frankly fair play, not a frills in theatrical community outreach in place of proper notification, education, and engagement of all citizens affected by proposed changes in the plan and on their properties. At the city's public hearing on the BVCP, Plant of Christopher Johnson stated the logistics of sending 55, 000 letters to individual property owners was overwhelming to say the least. And would have been a strain on city resources to be able to actually do that. The Cost of Mail these letters would have been around 41, 000. And mailing out surveys to all those residents, not much more than that. So the cost of properly survey and notify of all citizens within the Boulder Boulder Valley would have been around 100, 000. Bring that up to 200, 000 for cost of conducting the survey.

0:47:16I'm AB overestimating this. Just in 2025, comprehensive planning received a one - time funding of 600, 000 to support community engagement activities and technicals consultant services for the Boulder Valley comp plan. Update. There was plenty of money to conduct all inclusive survey into properly notify all property owners of change in the land use. A mistake was made. So admit the mistake and fix it. Letters need to be mailed out to all property owners within the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Boundaries, which have proposed changes in land use requests, including changes proposed by staff in approving bodies to inform them of these proposed changes. The initial screening of the proposed change in land use requests should be made using the criteria listed in the Boulder Valley comp plant. Amendment procedures, not some made - up criteria by staff. Determination of whether the land, the change in land use requests move forward for further study. Should be based on those criteria and not whether approval bodies like them or not. This gives the public time to adequately review these changes and provide input in comments to staff and governing bodies. Staff and governing bodies work for the people, not rule over them. Would any of you be happy and okay with the government proposing major changes in the land use VR property without properly notifying you and properly

0:48:47screening those changes? Because that is what is happening to over 55, 000 households here in Boulder County, your constituents. A healthy democracy relies on properly informed and engaged citizens. And proper adherence to rules and procedures. These are terribly lacking here in this update. And this needs to be corrected. No consideration or voting on this plan can take place until these proper procedures outlined in the legally signed IgA are followed. And this is actually, it's a dual plan. So you do have, um, power to say that they have to follow the rules that the city has to follow the rules. Hannah explained, um, recently on this here, that the County Bodies Review, the IGA and memory procedures. And these have to be followed. And which ones that you guys have your input in and which ones the city's have and put in and all that. So you're following them. But why aren't you following the procedures and rules that I've just explained here? You can't decide which rules in the IgA you want to follow and which rules you don't want to follow. These rules need to be followed. And these are truly major changes, um, that are being proposed here. And I want to also note that nobody's here. These are major changes on over 55, 000 people, uh, properties in here. And there's hardly

0:50:13anyone at this meeting, which shows that they have not been engaged. They have not been properly notified. And it speaks volumes. Um, I also want to note that at the August meeting, um, I only have a few seconds, that this is major changes. They were saying one of the goals is to create these more broad designations that can allow for multiple different outcomes to occur within them. The specificity in granularity of the map today really limits what can happen on a specific property. So they wanted to just change all that. We need that specificity. That's what zoning is far. That's what land uses for. That's what people can rely on. They need to be able to rely that their government is there for them. That their government is going to follow the rules and their government has their back. Thank you for your time. Please no applause and no response to or reactions to testimony.

0:51:12Uh, Carmen Buran. Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to come. Can you pull the microphone up to your mouth? So yeah, we need to catch that better, much better. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this 10 year major update to the comp plan. My name is Carmen Barron. My husband and I live in Gunborough. I am against your massive zoning changes that may allow for future blanket densification of residential neighborhoods, especially if such changes occur without putting specific proposals to a vote. Citizens of all impacted communities need to have a say in how their areas may or may not be changed or developed. Our neighborhoods out in Gun Barrel have been bombarded with the threat of unrealistic development for so many years. Where is our promised subcommunity planning session? Just FYI, I received no mailing, no notice about any of these comp plan meetings regarding this major update.

0:52:16The way your comp plan update is being handled feels very wrong. It is craziness that we could end up with only two types of neighborhood zones with both zones allowing for high density, multifamily, commercial and mixed use developments, meaning I could create a second apartment in my basement and add a studio over my garage to turn my house into a triplex. And so all of my neighbors were my neighbor on the corner could sell to a developer who scrapes it to install a 7 - Eleven. Then it sells gas too. And boom, the 15 - minute city, because they sell milk and bread and hot dogs at 7 - 11, right? This land use designation update feels like it's being shoved down our throats. Like some sneak attack in a back dressing room with zero conscience or consideration for residents who have already invested their lives. Their dreams in the calm, quiet, low - density areas they currently call home. And here's a question for you with three little words. What about water? For residences and businesses alike, never mind about zero escaping incentives or car washing restrictions. How are we all going to drink, cook, clean, bathe? When you can't produce more water. The way this Boulder leadership is behaving feels so rude and disrespectful, and not at all transparent to us out here.

0:53:39Kind of like that line in the musical Hamilton, where Hamilton does not hesitate. He exhibits no restraint, and he takes, and he takes, and he takes. That's what you are doing with this update. This feels like waking up to learn that suddenly a huge part of the White House has been vaporized has vanished like it never existed, to be replaced by somebody's big, beautiful ballroom that nobody anticipated. Nobody asked for, with gold leafed everything and more. Can you all really live with this strategy, knowing you're emulating and paritying that utter administration in our crazy upside down world today? Boulder Valley residents and taxpayers deserve careful, thoughtful, forward thinking consideration, and notice. Please put your specific zoning changes on a community specific ballot. Let the people vote. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Jack Clarfeld. And I do not see Jack in the room. Michelle Basile. Not sure I'm pronouncing that right. So, so close. It's Michael Baseal. Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm a resident out in Gumberl.

0:54:57Near Twin Lakes. Um, and I wanted to comment on the change to the land use designations. Um, in particular, the change from eight, I believe, uh, neighborhood based land use designations down to the two that, in my opinion, don't really differ from each other all that much at the end of the day. Uh, and it is taking pretty quiet, pretty spaced out. Uh, neighborhoods out in the Gumbarel area and potentially setting them up to become dense, uh, very urban. Um, city type neighborhoods. That's just not needed. Um, out in Gumberl, like we have access to our services that in this moment still almost fall within their 15 minute city, right? And so to, to allow these neighborhoods to potentially change in such a drastic way goes against the, the wants and the, the, the desires of every single resident who has moved out to Gumberl.

0:56:09Um, and in particular, with the land using, uh, land use changes designation, there is a zone in Gun Barrel that got over 15 comments. It's the only comments in Gumberl surrounding a particular, um, area of land that seems to have just been ignored, um, by the plan, you know, restructure in the committee. And it doesn't seem to take into account that there's people out here who have opinions and have desires of how their neighborhood wants to look and feel, um, and I've, I've said this since I started reading the plan that it feels like Gumberl and County space is being used to fix the mistakes of the last 50 years of city planning, right? That, that we are their solution to their poor decisions for housing and, and getting people affordable places to live. Right.

0:57:08Like we moved out here cause it was cheaper. And with these changes, the potential that we become what the city is and, and how the city has failed to house their residents. And it would be sad to see the county allow the city, that level of control through this plan. Um, and then the last thing I'd like to add is that I went to the dairy center art open house and spoke with three different members of the comprehensive plan committee and asked if anyone had even come to Gumberl and done, uh, they called them field trips. And they informed me that not a single member of the comprehensive plan committee, did any trips out to Gumbarel to actually see how the lands used and do any information gathering on our community. Thank you. Okay. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, Kristen Aldretti, you have nine minutes and start by stating your name. Thank you. I'm Kristen Aldretty and I'm a resident in Gun Barrel. There are approximately 121, 000 people living in the Boulder Valley today within 58, 000 housing units. Many of these housing units are located in low density neighborhoods. The proposed land use designations would allow for much more growth density and various youths in these neighborhoods. People have chosen to live in these neighborhoods for the more rural and non -

0:58:45urban aspect of them. And many of these folks do not want changes to higher density and commercial uses. And yet that is exactly what the new designations of neighborhood, one and neighborhood two, would do. How were the residents in these neighborhoods notified of these changes? A survey somewhat biased one was sent to only 5, 000 residents within the Boulder Valley and only 688 of them were returned. Of those 688 respondents, a disproportionate of number of whom were here temporarily. What specific outreach was done to long - term boulder residents of the Boulder Valley for their input on these proposed changes. The engagement outreach appears to only be to certain groups that the planning staff had somehow determined were underrepresented in the engagement process. Actually, the entire Boulder Valley is underrepresented in the engagement process. The survey should have been sent out to all residents, especially for such drastic and major changes as being proposed in this update. Since planning staff has to mail notifications to all residents, with proposed lanuse changes on their properties, wouldn't it have been wise to send out a survey to all these residents at the beginning of the process to see if they are in favor of these changes? In the survey that was set out, only five percent of the respondents indicated that they knew quite a bit about

1:00:37the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. And 93 percent indicated knowing nothing were just a little bit about it. So the vast majority of the Boulder Valley residents are non - engaged in uninformed about the plan and how it would affect their property and their community. If they received a letter in the mail notifying them of a land use change on their property. And what exactly that land used change would mean for future development on their property. And adjacent properties. I'm sure they would very quickly get engaged and start pointed questions. The engagement process, especially in the beginning, was brills and theater. With general ideas being tossed around, but not specifics as to how the aspirations were going to be obtained. Or how the change is being proposed were going to impact or benefit certain areas. Where are the data and analysis that support the claim that increasing housing housing density leads to lower housing costs? From what we've observed, some of the nation's highest density cities, such as say New York and San Francisco, also have some of the highest costs. Having lived in both of those cities, myself, I experienced those costs firsthand. 27 years ago, I chose to move to Boulder because I valued the quality of life associated with a lower density community.

1:02:17Given these experiences, I would like to see the data and analysis supporting the claim that increased housing density will reduce housing costs. The new proposed neighborhood designations will have no density limits on them and will allow developers to build mainly more, many more units on a lot. This will greatly increase the price of land in Boulder, which is already high and will also contribute to the high cost of housing in the area. Again, I asked, where is the analysis on how increasing housing density will decrease housing costs? In a highly desirable place to live with limited land to build on. Back to the survey. A question was asked about where you would like to see housing built. But how many of the survey respondents actually live in gun barrel and east boulder. The question that should have been asked is, do you want to see more housing units built in your neighborhood or subcommittee and where. It's always easy for people to say they want development to happen somewhere else. Residents of each subcommunity should be the designers and contributors to the planning of their subcommittee. During the BVCP meeting at Casey Middle School in September, the new proposed future land use map was first shown to the public. Many people at that meeting were not happy with the changes being proposed. And they

1:04:02started stating their objectives and requesting a decision on it. A discussion, sorry, on it. However, they were silenced and told there was not time for that and that they were there to go through the exercise on the new land use map that the planners had set up. There was no opportunity for dissent or different perspectives. This continued through the remainder of the process leading to where we are now. Where is the critical questioning and the opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard without causal dismissal, casual dismissal of their input. When concerns are raised in the comment sections for these changes, the typical reply is we hear your concerns about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members. Hmm. This response comes across as dismissive of legitimate community concerns. And it suggests that the plan was largely predetermined from the outset. With only minor modifications contemplated based on public input. The vast majority of residents are completely, completely unaware of the major changes being proposed. And the potential impact on their properties. The notification, education and public engagement efforts to date have been insufficient to ensure meaningful community awareness and participation. These changes affect the rights, expectations, and future use of properties throughout the community, not just those of a select few. And therefore a far

1:05:56more comprehensive and transparent public outreach process is warranted. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much, Kristen. Julie Dye. I'm Julie Dye. I live in Gun Barrel and the City, and I'm on the board of the Gun Barrel Community Alliance. I'm here to speak and support of our Boulder community and against your unprecedented changes in land use designations. Because once again, Gun Barrel is tired of the County and the City walking back promise after promise to us. The promised parks and children's play areas, the promise amenities, the promised community - driven plan. We have no rec center, few child - friendly spaces for walking or biking. No public art and one grocery store. You should come out and visit us. Gun Barrel is the poster child for what happens when development is permitted without a comprehensive community involved plan. We know firsthand what happens when you push through your changes while walking back your promises. That's why I'm speaking today. Your changes in land use designations are not equitable. They are not sustainable.

1:07:13They are inconsistent with the criteria explicitly requiring that development be quote appropriate to the area and the benefits provided. Your rogue changes, including total elimination of density consideration are not appropriate or consistent for our community. And it's clear we lack the adequacy of public amenities, water sustainability, and resources for both existing residents and the additional resonance of future proposed developments. The Community Level, excuse me, the current level of community engagement coming from our community could be viewed as annoyance. But what it should be seen as is a voice born from a significant need that is not being met. The Boulder Valley Comp Plan stated the city and county recognize that environmental, economic and social sustainability of the Boulder Valley are built upon full involvement of the community. The City and County support the right of all community members to contribute to governmental decisions through continual efforts and maintain and improve public communication and the open, transparent conduct of business. You can offer all the opportunities to hear, but if you do not listen, the change is not open. The change is not transparent. Your meeting at 10 a. m. on a Thursday is supposed to adequately represent our voices. I'm here in the middle of my work day because I know many of my neighbors do not have the privilege and the ability to attend

1:08:45this inaccessible meeting. Even today, I feel like you're pretending what we say matters, but in my opinion, you've already made up your minds. You all can check off that you've heard from us, but we know in Gun Barrel, nothing will change. That the decision has been made. Our goal is to create a livable, inclusive, vibrant, resilient, healthy, and community - driven Boulder. Please work with us to do so. How do you do that? It's simple. Don't approve this change to land use in the proposed valley comp plan. Thank you. Thank you, Evan Rabbitz. Good morning. I'm Evan Rabbitz. I've lived here for 48 years now, downtown. It sounds like if you continue with this charade, you're going to face a decade of lawsuits. I urge you all to look at the very first question of the online survey, which I took. The question was, quote, which of these types of housing would you like more of?" Unquote. And you could give as many of the multiple choices as you wanted. But these choices didn't include very popular choices. Tiny homes for people who want to live modestly, but want some privacy outdoor green space, whatever.

1:10:19Single family homes. A lot of people want space for their kids. And none of the above for people who think that we've already grown enough. There may have been a fourth thing let out left out. Mark Wallach brought up. There wasn't enough opportunity for owner - occupied condominiums. So that, I'm not sure if that was in there. I didn't take the rest of the survey. It was too depressing. But if Steve Pomerant says that the whole process is biased, I'll believe him. I think most of us would like to see all of our 65, 000 in - commuters housed here to reduce traffic. But since almost none of the proposed developments aren't going to be affordable, it's not going to be them. It's going to be wealthier people. Who need their own service workers. So we now have 65, 000 coming into town to serve 100, 000 people. If we, as I understand it, have in the pipeline of new units for 40, 000 new people. Already. In the pipeline. Well, that's going to mean another 30, 000 incoming service workers for a total Boulder City population of 145, 000 and 95, 000 commuting every day. This will be a catastrophe. Boulder is compact.

1:12:06You can't just widen Broadway. Or many other streets. Um. Kristen brought up that, uh, dense places are expensive. And Boulder in Denver are the most expensive on the front range. And the most things. Thank you very much. Uh, Evan. Ayana Real. I think we don't have them present. Online. Um, next is Lin Siegel. Lin Siegel. You are compelled to listen to your constituents. Everything I've heard today. Is down on this Boulder Relic complaint. I hope you sleep well at night. All of you. Cause this is so not okay. And it's what happens at the City Council and the City government in this town. And happened right in my retrofit. Which is outrageous. A waste of the taxpayer's fund. I won't even use. Because of corruption in your energy smart program. So what are you going to do about this. You know, I was just reading about sumac getting repaved. And everything this affects every underlying thing in our community. And that sumac getting paved is the same, same frigging issue. Identical. Who's going to pay each person of 90, 000 bucks to do their share of the road repaying. Or a metropolitan district.

1:14:11That city council's entertaining. Shifting the funds around and tricking people. Density is density. It really is. It means more people. It means more water use. In a drought. This is, but this is decades, decades long in Boulder. My dad came here to get away from New York City. Not to build a New York City in Boulder. Any elastic. Economic markets here. It's like everybody said, but you don't listen. You don't listen. And you, that's so, that is so unethical. You don't listen to all these people. You don't. You need to. I mean, or lawsuits are going to come big time to you. And you're going to go down eventually. And you probably want some good legacy. For these jobs that you do. So I'd be really think deeply about what you're doing. This is so, so unethical. To continue forward with this plan. I mean, Steve Palmrat said it, Evan Rabbit said it, Donna, George said it. Everyone said it. S come to this podium today. I don't, I didn't get incarnated. To not have my voice heard. To not be concerned for my fellow people on this planet. But this is so blatantly unethical.

1:16:11It's so clearly obvious. That this kind of a plan does not provide for the best time. For everyone in time, we will move on. Your time is up. We'll move on to Karen Holeweg. Thank you. I'm Karen Holweg. And I'm speaking as a member of the Plan Boulder County Board. Today I want to speak about the need for middle income housing. I hope you all have a yellow sheet in your packet. That I gave to staff beforehand. And I'm going to be referring to the data on that sheet. At the top. You can see that the. Projected population for the city of Boulder will be about 11, 600 more residents by 2045. Karen, could you just stop and we'll stop the timer as well. It looks like we did not have those sheets in there. Oh, thank you. I didn't know any better way to give you all this data. It's fine.

1:17:33Thank you. And we'll give you back about 10 seconds here because we weren't able to follow you as you were speaking. That's kind. Of staff. Could you put the timer at two minutes and 34 seconds. I don't know if they can do that. Okay. There we go. What do you know? All right. Thank you very much. Go ahead and continue. Um, at the top of the sheet you can see that the projections for 2045 are that we'll have about 11, 600 more residents. And the capacity in the future land use map indicates that there will be about 18, 000 new units of housing. So it looks like we'll be okay. However, the question is what kind of housing is that. Since 24, Plan Boulder has been tracking proposed housing developments. And on the back of this sheet, you can see a list of the 15, 000 new units that have been proposed. Dominantly apartments and what's called student apartments. Um, and there's an additional further down. You can see an additional 5, 000 plus units that we would be built within existing neighborhoods under the provisions of densification. So that's a total of approximately 20, 000 units that are already in the pipeline in conceptualized.

1:19:15That means there's more than enough units for the additional population. But. Many Council members, including Benjamin and Wallach and Marquis, have repeatedly called for a more middle income housing. And the 75 percent of the respondents for the statistically ballots called for increased duplexes and small houses in cottage units. Yet the need to prioritize the creation of middle income housing is missing in this comp plan. The word prioritize shows up 24 times, but mostly in conjunction with multimodal transportation, never for middle income housing. Plan Boulder proposes a revision to, as it shows at the bottom of the front page in red, prioritize increasing middle income housing supply. We hope we can count on all of you to support this revision. And we would hope that both the city and county could work with each other and hold each other accountable with respect to prioritizing middle income housing. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Tamar Krantz.

1:20:48Are you able to hear me now? We can hear you. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. My name is Tamar Cranston. I'm calling you from Louisville. I understand that I'm outside of the boundaries of Boulder Valley of the Boulder Valley comp plan, but it does impact me very much. I have, um, many friends in South Boulder who, for example, come and use the Louisville Rec Center. So I feel that we're, I do feel a part of the community. I've been listening to others. And so rather than read a prepared comment, I just felt like so many people before me were very well spoken. And I'm so appreciative of those who feel like the public engagement process was flawed and the outcome was predetermined from the outset. I also would appreciate it like the people who spoke before me. If you don't approve this plan, um, what I would really like to hear, um, during your deliberations and during your discussion, I would like to hear you answer the questions of those who spoke before me. So I just took some notes of those. What about the idea of sending a letter in the mail to let people know about the changes in their specific property? Would you consider slowing the process a bit to do this? I thought that was a really legitimate question. Also where are

1:22:03the data and analysis that increasing density leads to decreasing costs? That was a great question. How do you answer the question about how the additional housing that's going to, that's proposed is going to be used to house all the in commuters rather than just bringing in more population that will require more in commuters. How do you respond to the commenter who feels like the survey respondents were asked where they wanted to see additional housing and that most of the responses seem to respond that they wanted it somewhere else besides their own neighborhood. Would you take the time in this hearing to ask the staff how many survey respondents who wanted to see more housing in East Boulder or Gun Barrel. One did were actually from East Boulder or Gun Barrel. And finally I hope you'll take the time to address the question from Carmen from Gunborough who asked, what about the water. Um, thank you for taking the time. And I hope you'll answer some of those, um, commenters questions. Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm glad you could join us. So I'm going to make a last call for anyone who, excuse me, is either online or in the hearing room who would like to speak, who didn't have a chance to do that. And I am not seeing anyone in

1:23:29the hearing room. Brianna, do we have anyone online who has raised their hand. Brianna Barber, Commissioner's office staff at this time? No one else is raising their hand to speak in the virtual meeting. Okay. So, uh, we will close the public testimony portion of the hearing. And I'll first provide an opportunity to, uh, our staff or KJ to respond or, you know, add any additional comments that you may want to in response to the testimony. Thank you, Commissioners Hannah Hipply again. I think I'm going to give it a first shot and then turn it over to KJ to speak to the more city specific issues. Um. First on some of the procedure questions. We heard the criteria for analysis that was raised by one speaker. Um, those criteria were, are in the amendment procedures and speak to criteria for considering community change requests. I just want to note that those are not criteria for adoption of the comprehensive plan itself. Um, we did utilize those criteria when we went through the process with you to determine which community change requests went forward officially and which did not. Most of the policy recommendations we got through the community change requests were incorporated into the plan in some way or another, even if the specific language requested was not moved forward. Specifically, and I think this is

1:25:17important for folks in Gun Barrel. We hear a lot of concern out there about how annexation might happen. Um, there was a community change request to provide some specific language about annexation. And while that specific language was not moved forward, moved forward at the time. The concept of clarifying in the comprehensive plan, how annexation in Gunbaro may happen. Um, was included in the plan. There was also some specific community change requests in Gumbero for, um, twin leaks properties, which again, I think the board requested we move forward, but none of the other bodies did. So while it was not officially advanced as a community change request, inevitably in redrafting the future land use map in the way that we did, we had to consider what land use designation was appropriate under the new, um, landy's classifications. We did hear from a number of folks in Gumberl and I do want to make sure that. Folks are aware that updating the future land use map in the gun barrel area in unincorporated areas of gumberil and the rest of area to really is a guide for the city as they consider requests for future annexations and determine what land uses might be appropriate in those areas, if and when they might annex to the City of Boulder. This is not a zoning change for unincorporated Boulder

1:27:02County. There is specific language on page 82 of the comprehensive plan that speaks to this specifically. That land under County Jurisdiction will continue to be guided by County Planning Processes zoning and regulations, even if the designations are applied to the future land use map. Um, so in part of this designations for the City are necessary because property owners with contiguity to the City of Boulder have the right to request annexation. Um, and for the city to appropriately consider those requests for annexation. They need to have a plan in place. There needs to be a designation. So this is not a rezoning. There were many, many comments that came through in the public comments on this issue as well. And I just want to make sure that is very clear on the record. Should any rezoning occur. Both the county does retain its planning and zoning authority in these areas. And should we choose to undertake any land youth code updates, comprehensive rezonings and those sorts of things. Our land use processes will be followed, which include notification, public hearings. And action by the Board of County Commissioners in their legislative capacity.

1:28:47Sorry, I'm just checking my notes to make sure I get everything. There was some comment by, um, the community member who lives in Gun Barrel. I believe in the incorporated area, um, and I just want to take a moment. To acknowledge that Gun Barrel is any of the folks that live on the edge live in an interesting kind of situation where activities and actions by the city impact them because they are right across the City line. And how the provision of services occurs and where it occurs can be confusing in those places. So for example, the City of Boulder may pursue the creation of parks or amenities in the annexed areas of the city of Gumberill. But they would not do that in unincorporated areas because they do not provide those urban services in the unincorporated areas of Boulder County. Um, and lastly, just that the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, to some extent, is the means by which we attempt to give Boulder Valley unincorporated Boulder County residents a voice in the future of the Valley, which without, they really don't, as we've heard, have they don't have representation on city council. So this is an opportunity to hear from those folks. And I do think that's it. I'm sure KJ has some follow - up as well. Okay. And if you missed something, I'm sure one

1:30:47of us might ask. KJ. Great. Yes. Thank you. Um, really do appreciate all of the comments and feedback from the public commenters. Um, I will touch on just a couple of things that came up, uh, a couple of comments related to the engagement process. Uh, and overall sort of responses or feedback that we received and the surveys that we performed. Um, so in addition to the mailed survey, which was a statistically valid survey, the questions were developed with a national consultant. We did not prepare those questions. We gave advice. And then the survey consultant developed those questions. Um, in addition to that statistically valid survey, there was an online version of the exact same questions, the exact same, um, opportunity. And that was open and available to everybody for about a month. Um, and so there was an opportunity to capture the feedback through that survey from the broader community. And again, everybody was able to be able to take that. Um, as was mentioned about 670, 668, um, statistically valid survey results came back to us, which was about a 13, 14 percent response rate, which if anybody has experience with surveys, that's actually quite high in terms of the overall percentage of responses.

1:32:06Um, we received about 950 online survey responses. So in total roughly 1700 or so, uh, individual responses to those questions, um, Mr. Rabbit brought up a couple of things about, um, the opportunity to weigh in on, uh, allowing or encouraging single family detached homes or actually providing survey responses that said, I don't want any additional growth. Those opportunities did exist within the survey. They were found in other questions, um, but certainly there was opportunities for people to express, um, their interest in a whole variety of different housing types and also growth in general. Um, the other thing I would, I will also just mention is just regarding the engagement process broadly speaking over the last two years, we invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into hosting over 70 different touch points. And those included, uh, you know, open houses that were open to everybody, strategic and sort of focused group conversations, uh, office hours with staff where we made ourselves available again to open to anyone, both online and in person to come and provide feedback and talk to us. Um, we've received thousands of comments through this whole process and received about a thousand comments on the draft plan back in March and very systematically went through and literally reviewed every single one of those comments and provided a response as to whether or

1:33:39not that comment would be incorporated into the plan or not. And that should be included in your packet. That whole, uh, comprehensive list. The last thing that I'll touch on more specifically is, um, is growth and development in the city of Boulder and questions around how that affects affordability, um, and, um, sort of the pipeline as was referenced in terms of the number of units that could potentially be added to the city. So just broadly speaking, the city approves are permits, I would say on average. And it's actually usually quite more than this is about 350 to 400 units per year. So if we're talking about, you know, the potential, uh, growth of, uh, where a plan might anticipate 5, 000 units or something, that's at least a 10, 15, even 20 or time horizon.

1:34:32And you of course have also factor in all the market conditions that have to be, um, you know, be present for that to happen. So there's a number of different factors that are going to weigh in on the speed at which change may or may not happen. And those opportunities. We are absolutely supportive of middle income housing and middle housing types. That is, uh, a new, uh, you know, focus of the city actually has been a focus for a long time. Um, it's just very difficult given market conditions to be able to deliver those units. So we're working very closely with our housing and you, excuse me, housing and human services department to come up with new strategies to try to reach that. Um, I will make a note though that as far as the research, um, our housing colleagues have done and through the Dr. Cog housing needs assessment. Thank you. Um, the greatest need for housing is at that zero to 50 percent AMI level. So middle income housing, um, is actually quite a bit more than that. The last thing I'll just touch on is, you know, adding additional, the question or the comment around, how does growth or how does adding additional units effect affordability. Now clearly there is, there is not a direct one - to - one correlation here.

1:35:51And it is both a supply and a demand question. But there is, um, recent market studies coming out of the Denver metro area and Boulder specifically that at least on the rental side, the apartment rental side, our current, uh, apartment rental rates in Boulder are roughly at the 50 to 60 percent AMI level. So we have actually brought those down considerably over the last several years. And again, I'm not going to place all of that. All of that change or the reduction in rental rates on the fact that we have added all those units or increase the supply. I think the number of factors there, but certainly that is one component and one factor. And again, that's that same trend of reducing rental rates has been, um, has shown up down in the Denver metro area as well. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. So members of the planning commission, County Commissioners, any additional questions for staff. Commissioner Stolzman. Thank you so much. We just want to start by thanking all the people who have participated in the process at all the phases, but also for the people who took time to come and comment today in the public comment process and send comments in for our consideration on this draft. Um, my first question is for staff around the notification, um, just genuinely trying

1:37:12to understand the various perspectives on the notification. Um, and dig into it. So I have the IgA in front of me around the procedures for change and then the notification requirements in the intergovernmental agreement. And I'm actually maybe in a different place than all of the different perspectives at the moment. So needing some help here. So I understand that we mailed individual property owners notification for the community change requests that went out. And I recall that when we had the process on that there were, um, neighborhoods that there were people that had community changes submitted for their properties. They got notes in the mail. They were angry. They came and talked to us about it because they got an individualized letter. And then those changes actually were removed because the people in those neighborhoods were mad. And what I'm hearing for me today is that, um, for the larger land use map changes that you're not considering that as a change, but I'm just not tracking that in the IGA. So when I look at the process, there are different types of changes that are identified, including, um, changes that can be considered at any time map only updates midterm updates and major updates to the comprehensive plan. And then it goes into scope and referral and map changes. And then if you scroll all

1:38:22the way down to D for notification, it says that any property owner who would be affected by a proposed change in land use designation or by service area expansion, blah, blah, blah, blah. We can all read D. So I'm, I'm just trying to understand how changing someone's map designation is not affect a property owner. Like I've just am not tracking. And so I'm trying to understand if we either don't think that this applies or if we're thinking we did it. I'm just not clear if we're saying we did it or we're saying we don't think it applies. We have interpreted D as to apply during the community change request process. And we did that notification. So we think we have interpreted D to be specific regarding that point in the process. Okay. And so we want to read this together collectively today. And talk about that. I think that would be an interesting point to decide together if we think that D only applies to the community change process. I personally don't understand that yet.

1:39:25Um, but open to the conversation. If we didn't think that if we think that D applies to all changes, staff proposed or otherwise, like we could then notify people and have another public hearing. Is that what we would do if we thought that we did need to do individualized notice? The IgA is an agreement between city council and the Boarda County Commissioners. I think the difference in interpretation of that, we would need to consult with the city staff in their County Commissioner or their city Council. Okay. And see if there was agreement on the way to interpret it. Um, and determine if we needed to do new notification and hold another public hearing. Okay. Thank you. So I'm interested in that conversation if we would like to have that collectively here to know what other people think of the interpretation of that. I don't want to dominate the conversation, but I have a total of eight questions. So maybe we take turns and then come back. Let's see. I appreciate your grace there. Let's see what else we have. Commissioner Gerstle. Thank you. First, thanks for all the work on this. One kind of policy in her haven't found in the plan and it might be there. Is somehow. When we look at the employment growth that's anticipated or forecast in the housing growth. Versus

1:40:53the infrastructure, the services and the quality of life impacts. It seems like there should be some policy about the timing of when and how growth occurs given the impact on the community. And what I'm thinking of is. Lots of jobs happening in the city. Housing is not a sufficient to accommodate all those, um, potential in commuters. How do we make sure that the growth happens when the services and the infrastructure is available to accommodate that growth. I haven't seen in the plan any direction on how do we match available infrastructure services and resources. To growth. Yeah. Thanks for the question. Um, so policy six is very explicit around new urban development. It states that the city and County only allow new urban development and area one urban lands, which is the city. New urban development is only allowed if adequate facilities and services are available or anticipated by the city through the Capitol improvements program.

1:42:14So that essentially establishes baseline that the full range of services, including water availability, um, transportation infrastructure, other utilities, et cetera. Either we'll be in place. Or is anticipated to be, um, provided through the Capitol improvements program. There's also, um, policy around, uh, development to pay its fair share of new facility costs, which is policy number 15. So that, um, also references E, not only the provision of, but also the payment by new development to provide necessary facilities in an equitable share of, uh, of services. I saw that what I should be more specific is. What goes from reminders? What happens when CDOT or RTD and some of the regional statewide service providers don't have the resources to provide for the in - commuting. For instance, that might happen. Or the open space, managing the open space impacts. Of this growth. And other necessary social services.

1:43:33Is there any language that talks about the timing approval of new development based on these, the ability of the state or other agencies to provide the necessary services or infrastructure to accommodate that new growth? Yeah. Well, there is, there is not policy language specifically related to other agencies outside of the city providing those urban services. Um, you know, we obviously have, um, very strong relationships and collaborative working groups with all of our partner agencies, but ultimately we, we don't have authority or control over the types of services that they provide. So, um, I also failed to mention policy number 14, which is more specific to the timing of urban services that are, um, must be available prior to our concurrent with new development. So again, we've established the baseline that the city will endeavor to be sure that we are providing urban services, not only those that we provide, but also through that collaboration in coordination with our partner agencies that those services are available to accommodate and be responsive to any change within the community. Just to make sure when clarification. So for instance, if a major new employer would come to the city, recognizing that not everybody who works at that employer can live in the city. What happens if RTD can't provide the transit service. Or CDOT can't build the capacity for

1:45:06all those incomuters. Would that be a policy basis for saying we cannot accommodate that new growth in jobs in the city? I would say it's unlikely just because that, if there is a vested property right that's granted to a property and a property owner through zoning and they are exercising that right to build a new facility, it's difficult for us to be able to limit that. Um, the only possible way where the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan can come into play is if that project is large enough that it goes through the city's site review development process, um, upon which consistency with the comprehensive plan is required. And so at that time we could look into and at least evaluate what the level of service would be if there is additional service that might be needed.

1:45:59There might be a condition placed on a new employer that if RTD is not able to provide that service that there might need to be A, um, a private transit service or shuttle service, which we've seen in other communities, you know, around the country. So there are opportunities and there are creative ways too. Um, you know, be able to work with our partner agencies, but also, um, you know, provide those services and other, other ways if it's not able to be provided by the state or, or in other program. There are possibilities. Is there anything in the proposed plan that says those services need to be in place. Outside the city or the county. But jurisdiction before significant growth can occur? There is not anything in the plan that would condition growth on another agencies decisions. Thank you. Um, yeah, commissioner Whitley. Ms. Plain Commissioner Renee. Looking online at the proposed planning areas map, it looks like we incorporated the community change requests from Area 3 to area two that were proposed. Just as a process question, I just wanted to make sure that the draft BVCP that we would vote on is also including the proposed planning areas map as shown. Online with those changes from Area 3 to R2 for the Community Change Requests. Is that correct? Uh, yeah. So you would be,

1:47:35um, you would be approving the planning area's map, but you are not weighing in specifically on those two changes because they are less than five acres going from Area 3 to area two. So those, those are a city. City only decision for those two specific change requests. But overall you would be approving the, the planning areas map as part of your approval of the plan. Thank you. Any additional follow - up from you? Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, yeah, Commissioner Lee. Ayes commissioner Lee. Thanks your time. Just to clarify for those vesideting up here in the public. Can you please just take a minute and explain that or how it works with the comprehensive plan being that long - term vision laying out these new areas, some of which we've understood. It heard from residents are diluted right in, well, the larger umbrella of, say, neighborhood one and neighborhood two versus the previous designations.

1:48:41Yet some of these specific areas that are defined through the city have their own zoning map. And so those are still regulated. Can you just explain what the overlap is between the two and which might take precedent so that that's clear. Yes. Zoning is a property entitlement to some extent. It tells folks what they are eligible to do on their property. Um, and that does not change by the adoption of a comprehensive plan, a comprehensive plan might. Provide for some future changes to zoning, but in and of itself does not change zoning. And in some cases, the comprehensive plan might reflect already current zoning and in other places it might not, um, but collectively the comp plan provides a vision adopted zoning provides sort of the legal framework that someone currently operates would operate under.

1:49:49And that only changes if the zoning is changed. Thank you. And just to clarify, is there, when does the city look at updating their zoning map? Do you have any idea when that change occurs? We are currently, we are not anticipating a, a comprehensive zoning change at this moment. Um, zoning within the city is typically changed through an individual property owner rezoning application. So it is, it is not something that we are anticipating doing. Um, we do at, at times, you know, review the zone districts and the zoning regulations that apply within the city and changes can be made at a legislative level to apply two, you know, an entire zone district, but those are separate. And, um, very involved public processes that have their own engagement strategies. And typically tend to take 12 to 18 months or more. So they're not, um, you know, they're not, they're not easily done. Uh, they, they again, they involve public hearings review by planning board reviewed by city Council, et cetera. Thank you. Other commissioners. And I'm.

1:51:04Alright, Commissioner Stolzman looks like we're back to you. Thank you. I'll try to group three questions together. And so I'm just hearing the Gunboro community today and have received a number of letters from other parts of the Boulder Valley also. And I think some of the questions that come up for me is, is there more data that could be provided to this group that we could understand the projected fiscal effect of the land use map changes that it would have on the County, like as an entity? So there are economic effects that often are studied in comprehensive planning, but there are also fiscal effects with regard to the city or the County. And I think for our jurisdictional consideration in this planet would be important to understand the fiscal effects of the changes that are proposed so that we could understand if they have a significant effect on the county. We do not have, you know, a specific analysis around that, um, I'll just emphasize and reiterate what Hannah mentioned earlier is that the proposed land use map changes in particular an area two do not apply until those areas would annex into the city.

1:52:18So they're essentially would not be in effect. Um, unless you as the county through your own planning processes would change your regulations, et cetera. Sure. But we're making a plan. So we're trying to designate like what we would like to see in the future. That's the point of comprehensive planning. And so an important thing to understand what we would like to see in the future would be the fiscal effect it would have on the various jurisdictions. And I think that goes to, um, planning commissioner Gershtal's comments around like the provision of services. How can we know if we will have adequate resources to provide services for these land use designations? I think that's at the heart of the question. And the next couple of questions are on the similar vein of, you know, do we understand the transportation effects of the land use designation changes?

1:53:03Like, do we think that this will help us toward our vision zero goals? Do we think this will help us toward increasing transit ridership? Do we think it will increase funding, the availability for transportation? And then the next question is around the social fabric effects. Like do we think this will affect the average age of the community? Do we think this will affect the amount of childcare available any of our health indices? Like we're making these changes and changes cut both ways. Some things are for the good and some things are for the worse. And what are the trade - offs and how does all play out? So I'm just wondering if we have more analytical evidence to back up the changes rather than dances, um, and plays that we've put on. Yes, we do.

1:53:45And I, and I would say the answer to most of your questions around, you know, is it making progress on our goals? I think the answer is yes, at least from staff's perspective. Um, related to demographics. We think that allowing for and providing an opportunity for a greater range of housing types is going to assist with people that want to stay in the community, but maybe changing their lifestyle or looking to downsize, et cetera. Um, is it contributing to our transportation goals overall? Yes, we would, we would say yes, um, we as part of the capacity analysis. We did a land use capacity analysis on the Recommended plan. And what we're seeing is on a per capita basis. It is providing a reduction in trips overall than what the current map today is providing, um, is it providing a greater balance and sort of resource efficiency. And again, the answer is yes, the capacity analysis reveals that it is more water efficient. Um, it is more CO2 efficient. Um, it has less, um, less physical waste going into the landfill. Um, and again, it's, it's because we're looking for opportunities to be able to provide a range of housing types, a range of goods and services with ideally within walking distance or at least closer distances. So we're trying to, you know, manage those impacts

1:55:04that, that we see. And so overall, at least in comparison between the map that is currently applicable versus the recommended and proposed map, we are making progress and all of those and all of those areas. That is fantastic. If I could get resent, if I've already had it or sent the capacity analysis, that would really help me in, in processing all the different information and comments that I've received from community members. I don't know if everyone else processed that differently and already had that. But what you just said is really helpful, but I haven't seen that. I have been to more things that are much more, um, the vibe of the thing versus concrete analysis that kind of indicates how changing heights and changing some of these designations and character would affect some of these critical things. Um, my next question is very specific. And I might just be misreading it, but under in the glossary section, the new urban, um. The new urban development term, the third bullet just seems like it completely conflicts with the room overintensive rural development. I just feel like I'm, I feel very confused about the way that that's written. And I may just be completely misreading it. But I feel like we need to understand how we're going to use the term new urban development because right on

1:56:21those edges, which we've heard about from the community today and some of the other comments, like the way we apply that, where we allow new urban development will likely have an effect on the county. So I just keep running myself into a circle with that third bullet on new urban development in the glossary. And in other places, it kind of talks about it differently throughout the document. So I'm not sure if I'm just misreading it, which is very, very possible. Or if there's something that needs to be just made sure that we're clear on it so that when we go to apply this in the future and we look at request and annexation request or something, we can understand whether or not this new urban development term has meaning and how, how it applies. You want to attack. On that? Sure. Um, yes, good question.

1:57:06This was a definition that was revised from the current plan. And we do need the definition, right? Because we use it in the policies where we say new urban development is not allowed in area two unless it's annexed. We're not doing new urban development in area three. Um, so this definition's important to how the plan works together. So first of all, um, that first bullet point relates to development or redevelopment within urban land. So that's within this city. Um, proposed development or redevelopment in area two or area three. That is determined to require additional services to be provided by the city. So that's, um. I can give an example. It might be the best way to think about that. If I am one of those urban edge properties and I have a single family home.

1:58:02And I want to annex to the city or I want to redevelop my property, um, into a duplex or a triplex. That's something I can request annexation to the city to do. But if they came to the county and said, Hey, can I do this. Presuming it was allowed by our zoning, first of all. We could look at a project like that and say, Hey, you know what this actually increases the amount of water taps you're going to need. You might need new curb cuts. This is really, you know, it's enough people that you should be paying into parks and service amenities that are provided or not available in the county and should be provided to new development. And you cannot access those things in the county. We would say no to that sort of development type application. Because it's new urban development. Any proposed development in area two, um. Or planning area reserve determined to be inconsistent with the Boulder County comprehensive plan. Or Boulder County Land use code. I think those, I don't have a specific development example for that, but that would be something that. Is just on its face. Inconsistent or incompatible. I think we could think about things that are just incompatible land uses in the rural areas or in area two. And this relates to, um, over intensive rural

1:59:42development. Mostly because. New urban development primarily applies to area two. Right. Because most of those areas already are developed. So we're talking about redevelopment or the new development in those areas. Over intensive rural development talks about what scale and scope we might see of projects in area. Three. So. I feel still confused. And I can just drop this. If I'm the only one that's confused, but we're saying that new urban development is not a lot. Let's just say the Area 3 Rural Preservation area. Let's just say for simplicity's sake that new urban development's not allowed in that area. So it's saying in the third bullet that new urban development is any development that's not allowed in that area. And that's not allowed in that area. It just seems very circular and confusing to me because then won't someone come in and say, well, I'm proposing this. And by definition it is there. It's, I agree with you. And the original definition of that did not of new urban development did not speak to Area 3.

2:00:52We only had, um, the compliance speak to over intensive rural development within Area 3. But folks also thought it would be confusing if we didn't include area three in the new urban development to make clear that that also was not allowed in Area 3. So in, in one approach, we had them really separate. And folks felt like maybe that wasn't clear enough. So it's, I think maybe this is just a stylistic, maybe a communications expert with a style guide could help us here. But I feel like, um, maybe pulling it from the definition, but having it as a footnote or a asterisk to new urban development. Because I don't really think it's part of the definition. I think it's clarifying that it is not a lot that this type of development is not allowed in this circumstance. So I feel in, I'm not a, I'm not a grammar expert. So I'm probably the wrong one to be commenting on this, but it is, it reads as very confusing to me as one individual human. I think my last, uh, question is on the out of city water. There's a change from the last comprehensive plan to this version on out of city water. And I just would like to understand better why the language is being proposed to be changed. And I'll have a page

2:02:19number in just a minute. Sorry about that everybody. So it's on page 56 of the plan out of City Utility Services. And it was 1. 29 from the previous version. And they are slightly different. And I would like to understand why. Yes. Give me a minute to review both of them. Part of this, um, if I am remembering correctly is that it is a combination of a couple of existing policies within the current plan that were combined and rewritten to improve clarity. Um, specifically that last sentence that says that references, you know, nothing within the plan prohibits the city from denying the provision, et cetera, et cetera. That comes from a different policy in the current plan. And if you give me a minute, I might be able to find it. Uh, it actually comes from policy 1. 27 in the current plan efficient extension of utilities. So this was, this was part of our earlier process to really review and simplify and try to combine things where we could. And so this, um, this was an outcome of discussions with our utilities department staff to, um, again, to bring those two policies together. So the intent remains the same. That has not changed. We have just tried to refine the language to be a bit more clear. The, the language

2:04:33from the previous version that I think was good was about the consistency with the comprehensive plan under B. I believe it was in the 1. 29 version. And I just, I think that that was important language because city, city utility service is one of, there are a few reasons why someone would want to annex into the city. And that is one, um, would be the provision of water services. And so I don't think that we want to encourage urban development in the unincorporated areas by just frivolously extending City utility services into those areas. I don't think that's the intent either. But at the same time, if there are real health and safety consequences, um, community members that are isolated may have contaminants in their water or something. I think that there should be a way for the city and county to jointly agree. And I think that the consistency with the comprehensive plan, um, goals, language was really solid to strike that balance. And I feel like the update, um. Seems more wishy washy. And I don't know how you would decide. To not provide someone service or to provide someone service based on the new language. I think it was clearer with the old language on how you would be able to definitively decide if it was appropriate to extend that service into the

2:05:47county or not. So I just think that should, I think we should take another look at that. Commissioner Stolzman, could I jump in? Please, that was my last one. Well, yeah. In reading this, I think where I'm getting hung up is that it refers to itself for whether city services should be provided. And I'm not, I think you may mean something slightly different. The, the, um, the second sentence here, City facilities. Let's see what. Sorry. Uh, uh, located may be provided with city facilities located in area two urban air edge area three rural preservation or area three planning reserve may be provided with limited urban services if consistent with this plan. Okay. So I guess we're only talking about some kind of city service. We're not talking about, okay, maybe I can't help. But I think what hung me up when I was reading that is if consistent with this plan, well, this is the plan. So how do we consistent with like what policies in the plan? Because it's telling us to refer to the policy and we go into this circularity. Although first time I read this, I didn't catch that this only applied to city facilities. So maybe I can't help. Um, I think it needs to specify like what are the policies and the plan that it has to be consistent

2:07:29with? Because otherwise it's just saying, um, refer to itself. Yeah, I think specifically, um, I think actually the conversation, we were just having around new urban development would be the most primary policy that we would be referring back to relative to consistency because what we are trying to avoid, of course, is a commitment by the city that we will not extend city services out into the county to service new urban development within Area 2 or within Area 3. That is something we are committed to doing. Um, you know, to maintain this relationship and the divide between urban and rural character within, uh, within the Boulder Valley. And the, the, the provision around providing city facilities with limited urban services is really, treatment facilities or other, um, again, city type facilities that we, we want to be able to make sure that we are providing them with the services they need, but not again, not the full complement of city services. So that we maintain that provision around not allowing new urban development out in the county. I'll just. Add a comment. Since I've been a commissioner, the most often section of the existing comprehensive plan that I send to city Council members or the city manager is the section on the out - of - city utility services. So I just think making sure that

2:08:53we really sharpen our pencil on this section and understand what it means and how we'll use it together, I think is an important point. Yeah. And I'll just mention one, one last thing is that this is not in the comprehensive plan, but it is within our city code. So for out of city sewer service or out of city, water service, uh, criteria for the application that the planning department has determined that the proposal does not constitute new urban development and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. So again, we have other checks and balances to make sure that we are referring back to the comprehensive plan policies to allow for or not allow for that city service. Outside. Thank you. Those are my questions. Okay. Thank you. Um. I have a, well, I don't know if I have questions or just concerns and I'll try to figure out how to pose some questions about this.

2:09:56Um, I, I need to understand that, um, Hannah, I think, and maybe KJ about what the planning commission in the county commissioners possibility enroll for is for input into the area to Land Juice designations that have brought all these people here. That they're on the preceding map, it shows yellow on this map shows yellow. But there's a huge difference between what the yellow means on the preceding map and what it now means. Because what it now means is area one or neighborhood one, which allows, uh, commercial uses. It allows densification. And I'm not clear on what our ability is to weigh in on this. Um, is that five area reference, the whole area? Or is it a parcel by parcel basis? Could you just explain? I'm feeling like we have residents of unincorporated Boulder County.

2:11:05We are their only elected. Governmental officials. And it feels like I'm completely unable to respond to the concerns they're bringing to us. And I just need to understand more about how this plan is supposed to work. I'm trying to figure out where to start here. I think where we need to maybe start answering this question is the fact that the city of Boulder and Boulder County undertake this joint planning effort within the framework of an intergovernmental agreement. And it does have limitations spelled out in it as to. The level of decision making the boards before us before me today have in this city of Boulder's plan. I think we do need to realize that this is the city of Boulders primaryplanning document. Um, and to some extent, our role throughout the year's has been to coordinate on the preservation of the rural areas in the growth boundary of the city. Um, so really digging into how the city might zone itself. Or decide what their future land use map is somewhat limited. Um, by the intergovernmental agreement. There is the call up option, uh, that is spelled out in the intergovernmental agreement related to land use map changes greater than five acres. You know, the.

2:12:56Amendment procedures. Provide some guidance, but they do not necessarily provide. In some cases, they provide too much detail in others. We think they don't provide enough detail. Uh, so whether it's parcels of five acres, areas of five acres, the IG is actually silent on that. As staff, we've interpreted, I think, most inclusively to say that the Board of County Commissioners has the call up option available to them. Because the LandUs map is changing more than five acres in land use designations, right? We could have gone through, I guess, the inverse interpretation of that is you only get to this side on parcels of over five acres that were changing. And that just seemed a little ridiculous. So, um, that is the option available. And the limitation in the intergovernmental agreement. Okay. Um, and I think that would be correct that we should look at the entire area because there was no consideration on a parcel by parcel basis of which parcels, particular parcels in area two are appropriate for this new concept of neighborhood one and which ones are not. It was a blanket wholesale change. So I think that is correct. That this would be eligible for call up. So then tell me what that call up process is. We, um, after February, I think it was the February hearing where we heard from

2:14:33residents, many of whom were here again today requesting a land use designation change in their area. And we, we agreed with them and we voted yes to consider that. And, um, to end other bodies, i. e. C. Council planning board. I don't remember the sequences whether planning commission had already considered that said no. Um, so what is the process for call up and who makes those decisions. The process for call up would occur after the city Council makes their decision on the plan. Um, the board would similar to our other kind of call of procedures that you're used to seeing. Consider a call up a business meeting. Um, should it be called up, um, then there is a subsequent hearing. This again is a section of the IGA that does not provide a lot of guidance. And I think we might need to chat with our County Attorneys in City Council and their attorneys to determine what that process really looks like and what happens when the board calls something up. Um, it's again, not well defined. Well, my understanding of call up just based on the cities process and the city's use of that term is that, I mean, City, City Council has the ability to call up certain decisions that planning board has made. And in that process, City Council can override or

2:16:12amend or ratify the decision. So if we're using the same term, um, I think what I'm hearing you say is. At the end of this process, assuming it all concludes and this all gets adopted. The county commissioners would have the ability to, this is a change in land use designation. And we would have the ability to call it up and override that. Is that right? Well, again, I think Hannah's right. We would, we would need to, um, dig into the details a little bit. And I think the question might be in the scope of what you are. Calling up, I think. Like if you were, and again, I'm just, I have not consulted with an attorney. I am not an attorney. Um, but, uh, you know, if you, if you were interested in calling up a particular parcel, that was greater than five acres to make a specific change between neighborhood one to neighborhood two or, you know, whatever changing might be considering. That is something that you could call up. I think calling up.

2:17:28Calling up the entire area. I think you would have to, we would have to understand what change your considering in terms of calling that up because I don't believe there would be necessarily an option to call something up and request a modification back to the old scheme. Um, because the scheme would not exist anymore if the plan is adopted, um, so, but there's also the opportunity for the commissioners and the planning commission to weigh in on the definitions of the land uses as well as part of the plan. Because they do apply to the county. So I think that's called that we ended up in after the February hearing. Where people were saying we don't want this land use change. And then we were so well, once this happens, the land use designation that you're asking for will have been eliminated. So there's no alternative.

2:18:29And, you know, I have to say throughout this process, I've been very complimentary of staff and the effort that you've gone through to be creative, to get new voices involved. But as far as those of us who sit here and who actually get to make some decisions, I have felt that I'm constantly being told I can't do that and I can't do that. And that won't work. And all of that. And I feel like I'm not able to represent the people who I was elected to represent in this process. And so what I'm, you know, I don't know if we have parcels that are larger than 5A cars. Or not. But it's like we can't provide input on this because the IGA says we can't provide input on it. And our only option is to call it up. But maybe we can't call it up because on a parcel by parcel basis, it's not 5 acres. And I don't know. We're in a dead end.

2:19:31And I think Commissioner Stolzman is trying to throw me a lifeline here. Well, and just add to the conversation. So I interpreted a little bit different than, um, KJ has described. So I mean, it seems clear to me and consistently with what Hannah said around that the board may call up a decision that's an area to land use map change over five acres. It doesn't say parcel. So I think that that's clear. It can be called up. And then the last sentence of the, um, process says any change to the comprehensive plan that's a result of a call up by the county will be final approval by both the city and the Board of County Commissioners. So I think it would be, you know, we would have a discussion as the Board of County Commissioners determine what the amendments are. Some back, both groups would need to say yes. It's not very clear what happens if both groups don't say yes. So I think you keep working on it until both groups say yes. Yeah.

2:20:24Thank you. Um, yeah. So then I think another. I guess Hannah, if you could go back to what you were saying, um, maybe the best we can do is assure people that while the Boulder Valley Count plan designation on their property now says N1 and N1 allows these other, um, supporting uses that that has no effect. Whatsoever, unless they are annexed and they cannot be annexed over their objection. Yes. That is correct. I mean, they can be annexed over their objection. Um, Enclave Parcels in City of Boulder owned parcels. There's very few. The folks that we are hearing from in Gun Barrel are not enclaves. So for those that group of folks that were hearing from, I'm almost a hundred percent that they cannot be annexed against their will. I cannot say that in 25 or 50 years, somebody's adjacent property might annex around them and that they might be coming enclave. I do think we need to reflect seriously on the last 50 years of this policy. Which has seen very little annexation in Gunbarrel. I do not see that changing. If there is change out in Gun Barrel through annexation, it happens at a very slow rate and it would need to have dominoes falling, you know, to get further from the city edge. We have not seen that happen. Um, I understand

2:22:11there is a lot of concern and fear about that happening. Um, and of course we cannot predict the future. Uh, but this plan makes more clear than the last plan. That it is not the intent of the city to proactively annex out there. That annexation is property owner driven. In those few exceptions that given those few exceptions, um, so we think we have tried to do what we can in this plan to address that fear. So then Hannah, if I could, I mean, you know, you can't, you can't control people's reactions and people feel rightfully so very emotional about their own land. So, you know, we know that. I guess given what you're saying, um, what is the necessity for changing this? Well, why, why would we not just simply designate them as rural lands.

2:23:14Because they have the, there are properties out there that could annex over time. The land use designation helps city folks make decisions when annexations could come before them. But if at the time, if somebody wants to annex, wouldn't the city be able to then look at it and say, okay, we're going to, we're going to annex you with, we'll process a land use designation change. And a zoning change. And will annex you into the city. I'm not understanding the necessity for this to be, uh, for the land use designation to be a, what is effectively a city land use when it's still an incorporated Boulder County. Right. I mean, without a land use designation, property owners out there who might want to annex have no guidance. About what the city might intend for their property going forward. That's. The, you know, that's the outcome of that. So maybe I have to ask, um, in the Boulder County comprehensive plan, do we have, we have zoning on these properties, do we have any other sort of land use designation that indicates as long as they're in unincorporated Boulder County? These are the rules. Um, we do not have a future land use map. That's part of the Boulder County Comprehensive plan. I think it. The zoning we have in place is the regulatory framework that applies

2:24:58to the County. It's our jurisdiction. It's our land use for more. So we don't, we don't have a corresponding sort of thing. I guess I'm just not understanding the necessity. Or the logic of, you know, and the impact on people of looking at a map and seeing, seeing Alangeus designation that suggests, you know, what the plan is and the potential that is very alarming and that you're saying is so remote that people shouldn't even worry about it. So I guess I'm just wondering, I mean, I think this is something we'll have to discuss here maybe when we come back to deliberate of what we want to do on this, but it feels to me like, um, like unincorporated Boulder County Auto remain rural until such time as people are interested in annexing into the city.

2:25:50And then that's the time to have the discussion about what would be appropriate. But I don't want to, I think I've already sort of belabored the point more than needed. I think another thing I just did want to, there were a couple of like typos and things that were duplicated. I can send those to you. Um, I did, I think along the lines of some similar questions want to just challenge a little bit some of the statements, um, regarding previous land use policies and growth limits and their effects on the cost of housing. And there are a couple of places. 17, the talk about in 16 also. Yeah. You know, and the, there's an assumption that the growth limits, um, limited housing supply and drove out the cost. And I'll confess to not having the best memory. But I recall someone telling me when I was on City Boulder Planning Board back in 2003, et cetera, that in fact, um, the so - called Danish plan and the growth limit never limited the number of billing permits that were issued, that there were various exemptions for mixed use, for affordable housing for, I don't remember all the exemptions. But what was stated is that it actually never did limit the issuance of a residential building permit. And so I think

2:27:41I just want to challenge the reinforcement in here. Of the notion that Boulder, the City of Boulder is expensive because of growth limits. And I think if we're going to say that and say it several times and say that it's been exclusionary, then I think we ought to be confident that that's the case. So I'd like, um, I'd like some confirmation of that. Yeah. This plane commissioner, my favorite request is a short break since read. Yes. We've been going for two and a half hours. Yeah. We will take five minutes. Okay. Uh, we'll be back at 1236. Thank you so we are back from our recess. I apologize if I was rather dominating the time and took us past any reasonable period that we should go without a break. And I will reopen the Florida any other questions from the commission. I actually finished what I had to ask about, Mr. Lothuan. Yeah, and I was just to clarify, because it was starting to feel a little bit like deliberation to me. And so I just want to clarify if we are going to do deliberation with these two bodies together, or we'll just ask more questions that we have. Yeah, we were just asking questions, getting clarifications, and we will, we have the dates that were specified for deliberation at a future time. Okay, that's what

2:30:35I thought to it. And that was just feeling different. So I wanted to make sure I was going in the right direction. Sure. So there was just, and of course, there's a couple places in the text of the document that's before policies. Let's see here, I'm trying to find a... There's a few places where there's lists of bullet point. Topics that were, and if someone helped me find which section of this, it's talking about trails, and it seems like kind of city and County will agree to work on these. I think the bird's in there. I think there's some, can somebody help me find. A. Page 42 and 43 of. Thank you. In the future planned. Okay, thank you. Regional collaboration section. Yes, thank you. That's exactly it on the, kind of the middle of page 42 in the draft plan right now. So it was just for me to understand as a reader. How these were put in order. That first section of future regional collaboration is state of Colorado Priority versus Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership, same in the Colorado 119 mobility versus Colorado 93. Should I be reading it, interpreting it in any way of those types of lists that are in this document about prioritization, whether they're in like transportation on the exhibit A of the TMP, just to help understand

2:32:10that piece. So the bullet points in those sections, I would look at as a list of examples of places that we already collaborate. I think if there were new ones that came into the world to work with, we would do that, the intent of this section is really to make clear that. In the implementation of the plan and the addressing of our community's needs, we will work with the partners that we have out there to work with. Yeah, and specifically the list related to the trails and mobility connections, those are not in any prioritized arrangement. They're, um, I think we listed them north to south. Actually, just in reference to the map. Okay, okay, thank you. And I've already asked my other questions in regards to other sections, which I'm thinking will be more deliberation, but I did want to ask that question. Those two questions with the other groups that you'll, cause you're going to have different deliberation. Thank you. Commissioner Libby, I think quick question, which is around the Boulder Future website that you have. Um, I think one of the challenges with a document like this is that you have to put everything in the dock that you want to live on forever kind of. It's like self - referential. And, uh, a lot of the questions that comp around process and

2:33:26examples and how to supply to my property and those kinds of things. I agree, don't fit in plan texts, but it really could benefit from complementary resources and guidance and FAQs and things like that. So I guess my question is simple is a boulder future that psych and going to continue on as a rapper for this and become about the plan more so than about the update process. Exactly. Yeah. So it is going to evolve to actually include the plan itself. So once the plan is approved, our team will be putting together an entirely new website or web - based format for the plan itself. So community members and policy makers can sort the policies in different ways. You know, we've intentionally not included a transportation chapter and a housing chapter, because in that new web - based format, you'll be able to sort and organize the information in whatever topics are of interest to you. There will also still continue to be a document, a PDF version of the plan itself. As part of that, um, as part of that new updated website, will also be to your point there will be links to other resources, other information for community members to go to to better understand different processes and how it applies to them. Do you anticipate those links being mostly to other

2:34:45planning documents or resources? Or do you also, I guess is there space to provide examples and explanation outside of the plan? For as an example, the law discussion by annexation today and the process that leads to annexation. That process is not clearly explaining the plan because the plan doesn't define that process. Um, a link to state law that defines that would be inadequate to explain that. Is it appropriate to add to that site? Kind of these frequently concerning areas that people have asked about. I think that's behind a lot of the confusion and concern that we've heard from today and through comments, that the, um, specific and complex processes, just like the call up discussion we just had, what would lead to a call up? When would that happen? I think it'd be very beneficial to lay those out more clearly and not necessarily in the plan. I understand why it's not there. But in a durable place that wraps the plan in some way.

2:35:36It's like, it's just, is there support for that in the future? Yeah. I think, I think that's a great. I think that's a great idea. And certainly we, you know, the, the website itself would be, um, again, would be focused on navigating the, the online version of the plan. And there will be a resources list. And certainly we could create new material that would explain those processes, create FAQ docs, you know, things like that so that people can have those as a reference. Great. Thank you. Commissioner with the, this plan commissioner, um, maybe this is just my particular sticking point, but, uh, was there any additional consideration of flipping the neighborhood wanting to ordering? Um, just because I also feel like when you're looking at for like what again, for what we heard from today, when you're looking at it sometimes, you're like, Oh, now I'm neighborhood one, which kind of sounds like the highest priority neighborhood for housing, but it's really kind of neighborhood too in my mind. Um, so I was just wondering if there were similar to the move for overall lands out. I was just wondering if there was any additional consideration of just flipping the numbering. There was additional conversation.

2:36:48We, we certainly discussed as a, as an internal group, we, we thought about, um, how that might be received out in the community because we had initially proposed, um, or in the draft plan we had labeled them as they are today. Neighborhood one and two. So we were cautious about creating additional confusion around that. Um, uh, we feel like the additional sort of descriptive language that we added to area one, two, and three to describe area one urban lands, area two urban edge, you know, that helps to provide some clarity around how those numeric values are related. So we hope that there's enough distinction between those two to not cause additional confusion. But we did talk about it. We ultimately decided to keep them as they are today. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any other interest in questions. I think for me just the last question is many of us, some of us, I should say may have just some, you know, the kind of minor wording change that I believe the city is receptive to incorporating. And I'm just wondering how you would like to receive that kind of input. Yeah. There are errors or missions or, um, you know, things very, very minor clerical, uh, updates that we, that we can make.

2:38:16I would suggest probably just emailing those directly to you, Hannah. And then we will receive those and we can post changes. Yeah. Before it's finalized. Okay. That's, that sounds good. Um, and then I think we have no other questions. And so, uh, Hannah, could you put those two motions back up on the screen for us so we can do this properly? And why don't we start with a planning commission motion. And I don't know what your procedures are for making motions. Maybe Commissioner McMillan, I'll make a motion. Um, I moved the planning commission, continued this agenda item to June 17th, 2026 for planning commission deliberation and action on the recommended major update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Ms. Commissioner Bloomfield, I'll second. Who is your chair. Are you the chair? Okay. You'll call for the vote. Yeah. I can run the vote. Um, this plane commissioner Whitney. So we have a motion in a second, uh, any discussion or questions on the motion. Good.

2:39:28Um, all right. We'll go ahead and take a vote then. Mark Blumfield. I. George Gerstel. Aye. Byron Komnick. Hi. Rachely. Aye. Sam Libby. Aye. Reed Manor. We'll get back to read it. Uh, Gavin McMillan. Aye. And since we didn't do roll call, I believe Bobby Umstedt is absent. And myself Chris Whitney eye. And then, uh, read a mana. I think we're trying to one mute. Yeah. This is Johnny's us with the records team. I received the message from Rita saying that she needed to step away. So it could be that she's dotted currently, uh, in the meeting. Okay. Will this mark that as absent, I guess for the, for the vote then. Okay. So the planning commission has, um, has, um, continued this item till June 17th. So, um, now I may have a motion on the board of County Commissioners.

2:40:50I move that the Board of County Commissioners continue this agenda item to June 25th, 2026 for Board Deliberation and Action on the Recommended Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. A second. Okay, we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. So we have continued this case. Thank you very much for your presentation, your patience and answering our questions. Thank you to the public for sticking with us for a long meeting. It went longer than I think any of us expected. That does conclude our business for today. So we are adjourned. There's, um, the.