Transcript

0:00:01Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, thank you. We are recording. Good morning. Today is August 13th, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We do have all three commissioners present. And we have one item on our agenda this morning, and that is to take action on or consider for action. The Docket BVCP25 - 001. This is the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Major update. And I believe we have one outstanding item that we've been asked to consider unless, as I equipped before, we have new things that we want to throw into the pot. So we have KJ, Chris Johnson, and Hannah Hipley here. Hannah, are you going to lead us through this? I am, thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. We are here to take another look at BBCP 25001, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Major update. This is our third time discussing this, and we've been working towards reconciliation of all the amendments amongst all four bodies. And for the Board A County Commissioners considerations, we are down to one amendment related to the rural land's designation text update. If you recall the text required update due to the fact that the Royaleans Design Nation had originally contemplated that any of those lands would be annexed. So we needed to do a little bit of editing to make sure that

0:01:53the designation, as it's written, correlates with the map change that was made to allow area two lands to be designated as royal lands. Since those Area 2 lands can be annexed, we need the designation to reflect that. And the board did approve some edits to this. The last time we met on the 21st, later that day, city planning board also took a look at the Boulder Rally Comprehensive Plan, and they made one small additional edit, which has shown on the screen in red. They inserted the words would be expected to update to a non - rural land use designation. And this makes explicit what the board had previously understood and discussed on the 21st, but I think it was only implied in the previous iteration. So staff is recommending the approval of this additional clarification.

0:02:56And just real quick to note the prior conditions of approval that we had been discussing were either approved. Or the board voted to approve the plan with or without the change. So that is why we are back here with just this one small item. That concludes my presentation for today. Great, thank you, Hannah. Commissioners, any questions. Thanks, Hannah. And Chris, thanks for being here. Just, would you clarify on this? I see the red Moritz in here in this particular paragraph. Could you just speak to a little bit more about what the conversation was if everybody was in agreement? Was this like a unanimous recommendation, just trying to understand. Because it's gone back and forth and back and forth what your experience was in that conversation. Commissioner, hello, Chamine, are you asking about planning boards discussion that resulted in this language? Or the... It sounded like they're the ones that gave this wording recommendation, but maybe I wasn't clear on if other groups also reviewed it.

0:04:07Or if it's, were the next body to review it, and then it's going to go somewhere else. Yes, good morning. Thank you for the question. So yes, planning board was the body that introduced this language. It was from my recollection, it was a unanimous vote to insert this clarification language. City Council then reviewed this last week on Thursday and did approve it. Also, unanimously. We will be taking this language back to the planning commission. They would have the final review just because they haven't seen this yet. Okay. That's scheduled for next week. Thank you. Brianna Barber, Commissioner's Office staff, can we please have your name and organization on the record? Thank you. Yes, happy to do so. Christopher Johnson, I'm the comprehensive planning manager for the city of Boulder. Thanks. No other questions. Commissioner Stoltzman.

0:05:06Any comment? Yeah, I mean, I think we said what we meant, and I think this may be explicates that a little bit more thoroughly, so it's totally consistent with, I think, all the conversation we had. And if the city Council and Planning Board want that language in there, I don't find any reason to object to it. Commissioners, this will be our last if we do approve this. This will be our last look at this document. I do want to make sure that we don't have any other concerns that we want to make sure are addressed before we give this our stamp of approval. I appreciate what you're saying. I mean, the process with the change that was made in around 2020 really limited the scope of the county's review. And so I don't think I can appropriately weigh in on how you phrased what you would like us to say at this point in time, but for the things that we've had purview over, I think they've been thoroughly discussed. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Locobie? I think, I just have a question, a separate section of the MMO, if we're going to, it sounded like this was like the last decision point, so I just wondered if I might be able to speak to that in the paragraph that says outcomes of BOCC conditions of approval.

0:06:27The last line in there is talking about the removal of the history section that I wasn't in a great mount with, but it looks like it's moving through desktop. So I just wanted to understand the August 19 date. And if that would, if the potential of something being brought back to this body, just to understand the date in there. Yes, April, August 19th is Planning Commission. Um, and they do also need to make a final decision about the history section. So to date all three bodies overall have either agreed to it or sort of accepted the plan with or without this section, uh, so we do need planning commission to also agree to remove the section for all four bodies to be in accordance. And so just, just to understand, because it sounded like this might be the last time we're talking about this document, if that body didn't accept or agree to the way her do you're saying it. Would we potentially see this document again? Just trying to understand. Yes. Yeah, I think the answer is yes. It would be a condition of approval that the, um, that the board has placed on your approval of the document. And if that was not accepted by one of the four bodies, then we would have to continue to keep reconciling it. Okay. That's, that's

0:07:54fine. So potentially this is the last time that we're going to have any comments on it. So I was just trying to get back to your question. For me, I still would have accepted the comprehensive plan, the general pieces of it would have made any changes in regards to rural lands. I think what's in this paragraph, excuse me, actually release the ports that position in regards to future uses being guided by all of the County Processes, all of the others zoning pieces that already are in there and comprehensive plan. So I, um, I am actually just going to abstain on this conversation today from a voting decision standpoint. Um, because I just was not in agreement about the direction that it took or the questioning in regards to the history of the land and this question about growth and what has impacted people and being able to, um, live and work in the Boulder Valley community. Okay. So I think we, um, are ready to take action on, uh, docket, uh, BVCP25 - 001.

0:09:04We have approval. And I will second that motion. And, uh, so all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay? Nay's fine. Okay. So we have two to one vote on approving the comprehensive plan. And thank you, Christopher. Thank you, Hannah, for your work on this. Uh, I know that there are many, uh, alongside you who put a lot of work into all the public meetings and all the language changes and reading all the thousands of comments that came in. And, um, and that's, um, that's, um, none of us got everything we wanted. And I doubt that anybody got everything they wanted. And, uh, that's just in the nature of these processes. So thank you for your work. This was the only thing on our agenda this morning. So we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.