Transcript

0:00:27All right, commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. And we are recording. We're here for our meeting of the board of county Commissioners, Boulder county. Today's Tuesday, December 16, 2025. And we're here at the county courthouse on 1325 Pearl. Street in downtown Boulder, and I'm going to go ahead and call our meeting to order. All three county commissioners are present. And we'll move to item number two which is our 930? A business meeting head start. Division public meeting and public hearings on both the historic landmark designations at the wild patch at the Maples and Andrews Robertson House. And we'll move to item number three, which is our. Business meeting. And then we'll go to item number four, which is housing authority consent, item. Items, which means now we're sitting as the Boulder County Housing Authority board of directors move approval of four a second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. And then we'll move to.

0:01:26Item number five, which is commissioner's consent items. So we are now sitting back as the board of county commissioners, Boulder County. And I move approval of five. A through my goodness, we have a lot of business. Tea. Five eight through five t. I think there are more letters than that. Oh, there's more. I think it's through aq. I move approval of the entire consent agenda. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. And then we'll move to item number six, which is commissioner's discussion items and. We'll start with item six a, which is community planning and permitting. And this is LU 180 00:41 thank you. Good morning, commissioner. Sam Walker with the community. Planning and permitting department. I'm here requesting an extension of the approval for LU 1941. The parks and open Space Netherland forestry processing and sort yard. In 2009, the board of county commissioners approved this forestry sort yard just. Outside of Netherland. The original sort yard. Approval was granted for a three year operation, period. And then was re reviewed and reapproved in 2014, 2017 and 2019. In March of 2024, the commissioners reviewed an extension of the operation of the sort yard under that 2019 approval with a retroactive approval for 23.

0:02:56And then a continuing approval for the year's 2024 and 2025. That approve was granted, subject to a condition stating that at the end of the 2025 operation, window that the commissioners would re review this proposal and decide whether or not to grant an additional three years of operations. The applicants, meaning parks and open space, are now asking for another three years of operations to be approved by the county commissioners. So staff are recommending approval. Of the extension of the forestry courtyard operations, subject to an additional condition requiring the commissioners to look at this application again in 2028 at the conclusion of the season, because the land use code requires additional approvals every three years for forest resort yards. Happy to answer any questions you might have. But that's the summary of why we're here today.

0:03:48Thank you, Sam. Any questions, commissioners? Thank you. You partially answered it. I guess we're doing this every three years just because. It's in the code. Because my question was. Have we ever had any complaints about the noise? Or truck traffic or any of the things that may cause us to want a modified. Activity? Not that I'm aware of. But to answer the first part of the question, yes. We're here explicitly because the land use code requires forest resort yards to be reviewed every three years. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I mean, I think we could consider it a public use or something like that, if you really. Wanted to do something else. Although it's not very burdensome to review it every three. Years. I think if there's something that there's really a b that we want to address we could. Well, I think it is a forestry shortyard. It's under the forestry sort, your provisions. It's not important enough to put it on a work plan to change that, because there could be some other ones where we would want to do it. That was my question. I'll move approval of the three year extension. Before you move, do a motion. I had a question for semi. I was just waiting for that. We were done.

0:05:05Sorry. I did not mean to cut you off. That's okay. Thanks, Sam. For being here. I appreciate it. The question that I have, I'm in support of the three year extension that you're requesting, but I'm wondering about at what point do we. And this might be it in a review. Because every time we get up to the mountain areas, there's a lot of. Great praise really for staff in regards to what the sort yards do. And request to do more and to have more hours. And was responding to some of those emails this past week. And over the weekend in regards to that ask, especially right now, where we've got high winds and we've got trees coming down and all the things. So my ask really in a review. Is. If the board wanted. To open up more hours or do something more for the residents in that area with this sort yard. How would we go about doing that? SAm Walker CPMP so it would potentially require a new application for a limited impact review, which is what the 2019 review was. You may be able to also do it in this format, but I would ask that you work with parks and open space to determine what their capacity is for an expanded use up there first. So the 2019 approval did include

0:06:27expanded operating hours. So originally they were operating between. I want to say, April and November, and then the 2019 approval extended that to a year round operation. But I do think. They're probably limited by the amount of staff and daylight that they have to operate under. Two. Okay? And I don't question that piece at all. I think the question would just be, What I heard you say is I need to go to parks and open space staff and ask those questions about if there's anything that they would suggest if they've been getting any other additional asks, because I'm sure they're answering many more emails and calls. Than I am on this particular topic. So if that's what I heard you say, I can just go to parks and open space to talk about this item separately. I think that's. Probably the. Best idea, depending on.

0:07:13What the changes would be. They may be able to do them through a modification of the existing approval, they may require a new approval. It would just kind of depend on what was proposed, so. I don't want to comment on it too much. We would have a process regardless of what the proposal was, but the details of that proposal would characterize how we would actually modify their existing approval. Okay, great. Thank you. And. No. I know Commissioner Stolzman was eager to make a motion, but just because of the way records is set up. That the vice chair makes the motion. I was just going to move approval of six a. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thanks, Sam. And so item six a moves forward. Let's. Go to. Item six b, community planning and permitting decisions regarding Colorado's local government ev charging, permitting loss good morning, commissioners. My name is Ethan Abner. I'm a long range planner with Boulder. County community planning and permitting.

0:08:12And today I'm here to request approval from you all regarding the proposed compliance action for Colorado's ev. Charging permit law. We're proposing that we adopt the third compliance pathway, which essentially says that we're fine with the way our code is, and we would choose to leave our code that way. Staff conducted an analysis of the model code. We looked at our code and we came to the conclusion that. Our existing code is permissive and flexible enough for EV charging. We think that adoption of the model code. Might result in more complex and complicated code than we think is necessary. And adding EV charging as an accessory use or principal use? We don't think that's necessary because it's. Already covered under some of the existing principle or accessory uses in our code. There's more information in the memo. I'm happy to answer any questions if you'd like. But if you do approve. This compliance pathway. There is also a draft resolution that's attached that would be approved as well and hopefully put us in compliance before the December 31, 2025 date where we have to. Comply with the state law. Happy to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Any questions? Concerns? I heard no questions. I have no questions.

0:09:30Thanks. The only question I have. Thank you. Is just understanding. I guess I'm trying to think of. What? The. One of the pieces that we've been working. On just countywide is creating accessibility in regards to climate action and climate solutions. And so if we agreed that. EV was a way to do that. As we think about the impacts of batteries and opportunities for recycling of EV batteries and things like that as well, all at the same time, countywide. Is there any negative impacts? Did you hear anything from any of the organizations that are really involved? In ev work that would, for some reason, Hear what your recommendation is, but was there any opposition or concern about taking. That stance and not doing. More on this particular item. I just want to understand what you so I don't know. What your process was. Yeah. So the process staff reviewed the model EV code when it came out. After it was released by the state, there wasn't much of a process because after looking at the EV model code and seeing that one of the compliance pathways was that we can keep our code as is. I mean, truthfully, to break it down, it looked like. The EV model code was mostly for jurisdictions that haven't contemplated EV or EV charging, and so. We looked at what

0:10:50their land use recommendations were and what we had in our existing code and thought that our existing code was good enough. We also talked with Oscar. About whether or not we needed to do any of these particular land use updates during that process. There wasn't really any pushback on our recommend. Recommendation about leaving our code as is. We did have some conversations about. Some other policy things that we may be able to consider. To maybe benefit electric vehicle charging, because we know that there have been some issues or some applicants. Have had some concerns with some of our requirements in the past, and so that came up in this process. But after looking at the model code and our code, we thought that at least for that particular portion, our uses, we allow EV charging where we would allow a vehicle. Service center or. A convenience store. If the code cleanup that I'm currently working on is approved. We also require EV charging as part of multimodal parking facilities and accessory parking lots. If you're doing a certain number of stalls for parking, and so, for the most part, We already pretty flexibly allow EV charging and some of the other standards that they had.

0:12:02We're pretty much already in compliance with because. We wouldn't. Require the opposite of whatever the standard was asking for. I appreciate that. That gives me a little bit more information. I do appreciate your time. Thank you. Do we have a motion on six b? I will make a motion. So there is a resolution? It doesn't have a number. So I guess I'll just move approval of six b and that we adopt the resolution. On page 1180 of our packets. I'm happy to second that. I think perhaps the plan was to bring the resolution back. For the consent agenda once we had this discussion. I have not done it this way before. My understanding was that this was the last business meeting. Of this year. And so I'm not certain. What the best way to move forward with a resolution is. It was attached as a draft. If you wanted to approve it now. And. I get it. Or if that is possible. I'm not certain.

0:13:01It just doesn't. Have a number, but it's in the packet and it was published. And Natalie. Natalie Springt, commissioner's deputy for the record, commissioners, if you don't have any changes or revisions to the resolution. As posted in the document clerk to the board, Matt Ramos can apply resolution. Number at your direction after you approve it this morning. On the record. Great. Second? Yeah. I did just note an anomaly in that resolution. It's got recitals a, b, C. And then J. And then D. I can get you updated text. I'll accept that friendly amendment to correct the scrivener's error. Yeah. Okay, so I had a motion and then a second and then an amendment. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. For. Thanks, Ethan. We'll move to item 60. This is county attorney's office approval. Of settlement agreement and general release with Excel Energy. In. In regarding Marshall fire litigation. Thank you and good morning, Commissioners Trina Ruleand Deputy county attorney. Item six c is the proposed settlement agreement and general release with Excel Energy for events arising out of the Marshall fire as you'll recall, in July of 2023. 2023, FEMA Region Eight sent a letter. To DHSEM to notify. FEMA public assistance subrecipients for the Marshall fire disaster, including Boulder county. The town of Superior, the city of Louisville, of their responsibilities under section

0:14:39312 of the Stafford act prohibiting duplication of benefits under the Stafford act, duplication of benefits includes funds available. To a program applicant such as Boulder county from a potentially liable third party. FEMA instructed Boulder county in the letter that those receiving federal assistance must take all necessary and reasonable actions to recover costs from a potentially liable third party. And on October 4, 2023, this board approved Boulder county to take such act. Action, including joining an existing lawsuit with thousands of individual homeowners as well as subrogation plaintiffs town of Superior, city of Louisville, Boulder Valley School District in this lawsuit, I just want to note that separate and apart from this lawsuit, Boulder county would have had to participate because of our response to the. Fire in relation to the individual in subrogation. Plaintiffs and I want to thank staff for their participation in this. There was a lot of time spent sitting for depositions, producing documents, answering questions. All the parties, the individual homeowners, subrogation plaintiffs, and the public entities were able to reach a global settlement with excel. The settlement agreement before you represents the public entities portion, which is about $3 million from Excel Energy. While we don't have a final figure for Boulder county yet. I want to be clear that we.

0:16:00Will have a net positive payment to the county, meaning there was no cost. Outside of this, there is a net income to the county that takes into account attorneys fees, costs and reimbursement to Fema. And the division of the proceeds among the public entity plaintiffs city of Boulder or sorry, not City of Boulder City of Louisville town is superior as well as Boulder County. I want to say that we believe this settlement agreement will satisfy FEMA's letter and their requirements. I would like to thank outside council, two of them are here with me, Jason, Julius and Rob. Chambers for their expertise and their professionalism in this, and they are here to help answer any questions you may have. Thank you, China, for being here for the presentation. Any questions, commissioners? Well, I. Do have a question. Trina, thank you. And thank you to everybody who.

0:16:51Worked on this. So, as you noted. The impetus for this, for us joining the litigation. Was in part because of the letter from FEmA. Do we have any indication that FEMA will actually accept this result as the commercially reasonable efforts? That they require. I mean, have Jason answer that because he's working directly with them and I'm going to defer to Rob because he's working more directly with them. Lots of deferrals. Good morning, everyone. To answer your question, Commissioner, yes, we've had a number of meetings with FEMA. And while we haven't worked to date with region eight, which is where? Boulder county is located. We have developed a program with FEMA here in region nine in California for all of our wildfire cases over the past decade or so. In our meetings with the region eight folks over at FEMA. Yes, to answer your question, they have indicated that they're willing to accept this. We've got a whole program developed. We've worked with Trina in her office to do that, so, yes, we do have. That it's a letter writing campaign that goes back and forth, and we've submitted our drafts to them already. Okay. Thank you. That was. My question. Thanks. And, Rob, if you don't mind just identifying yourself for the record. Sure. Rob chambers with Diop chambers. Thank you. Just for the record,

0:18:16Jason Julius with Baron and Bud. Sorry about that. Thank you. Great. I don't have any additional questions on this item. Okay. Then I move approval of six C, which is approval of the settlement agreement and general release with excel energy. In the matter of in Ray Marshall fire litigation? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposition? No. Thank you. So, item. Six C moves forward. Let's go to 60, which is housing supportive services budget amendment. Good morning, commissioners. Heidi Grove, division manager, division of homeless Systems and coordinator response in the Boulder county housing Department. I come before you today to ask for some guidance regarding a Department of Local Affairs Revenue contract. Amendment. The county was awarded $1.1 million of state ARPA funds in 2023. Across many different allowable expenditures. In March of 2025, we did a financial analysis and demonstrated a cost savings of $129,000. These funds need to be fully expensed by September. 30 of 2026 or we have to return the funds back to the state. Through. That financial analysis. Simultaneously, we heard from our service providers a deep need for supportive service dollars.

0:19:50Specifically for permanent support of housing. So the question we have brought forward to the commissioners is. Does the, and what we had identified is a competitive grant application just to make sure that those who? Are experts in this area across the county have equitable access to these funds. They are one time funds. So we have two questions. Question one. Does the board agree with opening and abbreviated competitive grant application? To distribute the funds. To organizations that can demonstrate and deliver these funds quickly. And then the second question is. Does the board wish to prioritize a large award or multiple smaller awards across the organizations? Who can deliver these services. Thank you, Heidi. Thanks for making presentation. Any questions? Gushers. I guess I do have a question. The way this is phrased here is that. You're recommending an abbreviated competitive process to ensure compliance with DOLa standards. Dola? Is requiring some sort of competitive process. Is that right? They do. Yes, they do. It's just more part of their process and protocols. We could submit a bid waiver. If we wanted to, but we would have to do that prior to awarding any funding for approval.

0:21:24Okay. It's not a lot of money. To go through that process, I guess. Another question in terms of your. Second. Part of what you're asking for us of do we prefer a large award? Or multiple smaller awards. I don't have a sense of how many providers there are in Boulder county that might seek these funds. We know of three for sure. One is, of course, Clinica, the other one together, and the third all roads. Those are our three primary permanent supportive housing providers throughout the county. Commissioner. Stolen? Yeah, I'm happy to weigh in. I support allocating larger amounts. Even with saying that this is not a very large amount to provide permanent supportive housing. Just because. We don't want to overburden people that are applying for grants to do these. Things. And so it just creates quite a lot of effort for a $2,000 grant or something like that. And we have other processes for some of the smaller organizations, so my preference would be yes on the abbreviated process and yes on larger awards.

0:22:39Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, Heidi. I'm looking at the document that was part of the packet. In that the contextual history. Those are different providers, but those are not the ones that you would necessarily be recommending. I'm looking at Netherland Street Outreach, Boulder county for bridge housing, and then Boulder county. For capacity building. That's just other money that was spent through that grant, is that correct? Correct. And based on our financial projections, we will expense those funds through September. 2026, okay? And so the 129,000 is only able to go for the supportive services or permanent support. Of housing. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. For me. I appreciate you all going through the analysis and the work to find out that there was a cost savings. That's important. I do think that we need to reallocate that before. That. Soon before that deadline that you shared for 2026. I also agree that $129,000 for permanent supportive housing just isn't unfortunate. A lot of funding, based on what we're hearing, how expensive that is, and so. I think. It would be. I guess it's more discussion for the board. I think it makes sense to actually go.

0:24:01Through the process of. I don't know how long it takes to consider a bid. Waiver because you've already gone through a process with those state funds, so you already have. Identified some of those organizations. With a. I don't know that it should even be a process. I think if there's a way to do a bid waiver, to identify maybe a fund that we haven't been able to spend as much with in our other funds. I heard you name three organizations, and I just don't. Have in front of me a tally of where we've been able to as a full county for that particular item, provide funding or what's planned for 2026. So. Did you get three different sets of direction or. Where are you? What are you putting together? I haven't given any directions. What direction do you have? No, it's okay. We're used to.

0:24:48Just move approval. Yes. No. I think just in terms of simplified process. It'd be good to go ahead and take care of this at this business meeting rather. Than have to come back with a bid waiver. So. I do support an abbreviated competitive process. With three organizations. It's pretty easy. One of. Them. I don't believe. Well. Has a lot. I don't know if there's a way. If we could just. Do it proportionate to the number of units that they have, something like that. I'm sure all these organizations need more money. I guess that's the way I would look at it, is let's maybe distribute. It proportionate to the number of PSH units that each of the organizations has. Something like that. I'm hoping that you are telling some direction and maybe have either an idea or what? I'm hearing is that the board is in support of reallocating the $129,000. And getting that money spent before the deadline. You're not going to have an opportunity to come back to the board, to the dice.

0:26:18To have more conversation. That's true. Just for the timeline. Unless it's something that. Doesn't have to be addressed until January. Natalie Spring, commissioner is deputy. For the record, I don't know if it's helpful. But your county administrator can approve a bid waiver in order to continue to move this work. Forward, and then it wouldn't need to come back to another business meeting, so just wanted to share that in accordance with county policy. Thank you. And I think I maybe heard abbreviated grants from both of you, but. I'm well. Thank you for that additional information, Natalie. With a bid waiver, then it approved by our county administrator. We wouldn't need to. Do the grant process. I think that's what I'm hearing. And so then I think we could just agree. On how we want to divide $129,000. I think what I'll offer again. And commissioner? Solvent.

0:27:17It'd be helpful for you. To win too. Instead of doing a competitive grant process. We allow staff to look at the organizations that they've already been working with through that. State ARPA funding in regards to supportive services for permanent support of housing. And consider what that bid waiver process might be work with the attorneys and determine if that's going to work for this particular grant, and if for some reason it's not. Going to, which is okay, then. I have heard support for a very abbreviated. Competitive grant process. Yeah. I think what I proposed is the cleanest, simplest and most expeditious method. Of expending these funds in a fair way, and I don't need to bicker over the other proposals. I'm happy to support Commissioner Levy's proposal. So if I'm hearing correctly, do an analysis of how many units of permanent supportive housing across. The. Three providers and then allocate funds based on that percentage. Yeah, that was my proposal. Great. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you.

0:28:29And so we do need to just vote on item 60. Okay. Move approval of distributing the funds in accordance with the discussion that we just had. Second, all in favor. Aye. Thank you. All right. Item six e. This is sheriff's office 2002 620-0808 and this is Corsivic, Inc. Contract Amendment. Good morning, commissioners. Curtis Johnson, Bowler, county sheriff. Item six e is a contract amendment to an existing contract that the sheriff's office holds with core civic. Core civic is one of the third parties that houses work release and community corrections clients. And the contract that is currently held by the Sheriff's office expires on December. 31, 2025. This amendment would give us two extra months to transition these individuals to the Joe Pelle center. Knowing that they would not be ready to intake these clients until probably the second or third week. Of January based on their staffing and their ability to start ramping up that facility. So this amendment to the contract is merely to buy us some time to transition those people. From these facilities. To the Joke Pelle center at the request of community justice services. It's easier for us to amend the existing contract than try to develop a new contract for those two months. And we're reasonably confident that we will not need the entire two months. The money that's allocated

0:29:59will be. Journaled back to the sheriff's office because those budgeted funds have been transitioned to community justice services for 2026 to pay for the cost of running that facility. And so really, we're doing them a favor by extending this contract to give them time. To on ramp their facility. And transition these individuals to that facility. Thank you, chair, for being here for the information. Any questions from commissioners? I do have a question. So. You said. We may not need the full two months. Would we be charged on a pro rata basis? We're only charged when individuals are actually living at the facility, so as soon as we transition people out of the facility, we stop. Paying. Okay, thanks. Thank you. I did have some questions just in regards to corcivic as an organization. And understanding.

0:30:55The contract. I hear what you're talking about as the extension, so I was just trying. To understand. If the $90,000 is the way I was interpreting, just the one document that was in the 1500 page packet. Was. It's an extension. Of Boulder county paying two core civic. $90,000. But are they providing the staffing? What are they providing? They're providing the housing and staff at their facility. Until those individuals are transitioned over to the Jopelli center. So this contract has been in place for years. And your concerns with corscivic are? Exactly why we are opening the Joe Pelley center to get out of the business of using a third party to manage individuals who are on work release or community corrections. Okay, well, and I think my question was. My preference would be to stop the contract with scorcivic instead of extending the contract. With corscivic.

0:31:50And so it was just for me, I was thinking $90,000 do we not have any turnback? Is there not any place else that we could provide? That funding versus continuing the contract. So that was just part of what I was looking at again. Just with one piece of paper in a packet of. A whole bunch of documents. Yeah. And the contract was set to terminate at the end of this year, but the Joe Pilly center has not staffed up to accept the people who are currently living in those facilities until mid January. So we're just buying some time to get those individuals moved out of the core civic facility. Thank you. It doesn't look like there's additional questions. Just one. Piece of how I read it versus what I was hearing from you is I don't. See a budget amendment being requested. Just a contract amendment, and so. I think that ties into what you were asking about, where the funding may come from. So I think today we're just being asked if the contract can have a higher amount. Added, I think it was a January 6 that we had the contract through, actually, not the end. Of the year, but in any case, extending it so that we have enough time to get everyone safely and securely over to Jpc. Makes sense to

0:32:59me. I just wanted to clarify. I don't think that at this time that they're. Asking for a budget amendment. Now, those funds exist in funds that are allocated to community justice services for 2026. I'm trying to get to the document. Thank you for your question the way I was. Reading it is. It says it's an amendment amount of $90,000. So I was talking about the contract amendment. I don't believe I said budget amendments. Maybe was misunderstanding you, but I think what I was hearing you say is, like, maybe the funding. Could come from something else. To cover it. So I was just saying, I think that that is what they're planning. To do. I might have misunderstood what you were saying, but I was hearing that and thinking that that would. Be the difference between the contract amendment and budget amendment, but I might have misunderstood. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have additional questions.

0:33:53No questions. I move approval of six e. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposition? Nay. Thank you. And then we've got another item. For the sheriff's office. Six F. Sheriff's Office, 2000 and 263-023-3335 and this one's? American Medical Response Contract amendment. Yes, Commissioner. Still. Curtis Johnson, Boulder county sheriff. This is our annual contract with american medical response for ambulance service in areas of unincorporated Boulder county. They're not served by other ambulance services. This has been an ongoing annual contract. It's set to expire at the end of 2027. We are in a year to year for the last couple of years of the contract there's. An escalator in the contract, which is why the cost is higher than last year. As is typical with most contracts. I understand that there is concern about american medical response's ability to provide ambulance service in Boulder county, given the change in providers with the city boulder, and we have met with american medical response. We have met with our ambulance compliance committee, and last week I met with fire chiefs and other individuals concerned about ambul. Ambulance service and unincorporated Boulder county to make sure that we have a plan.

0:35:15To date, american medical response has told us they are committed to honoring the contract. The contract is not based on a number of ambulances. It is based on a response time, depending on what zone in the county the ambulance is responding to, and that ambulance compliance committee meets quarterly to review. Those compliance standards and. Make sure that american medical response is meeting the response times 90% of the time as the contract requires them to. So far, we have confidence that they intend to honor the contract and meet. The needs of our community. But we won't know for sure until. We get into 2026 and see how they perform, but we have a compliance program that holds them to the contract. We've also created a backup plan. Should things not be working, to work with other partners. Other fire protection districts that already provide ambulance services in their communities to help us and assist us. In unincorporated Boulder county should we need that. And we will be developing an RFP knowing that we have to go out to RFP in 2027 for service in. 2028 and beyond. We'll have that ready to go should things not work. There's 180 day cancellation in the contract, so we'll have six months notice if. AMR decides to not honor the contract, at which time we'll have an RFP. That

0:36:32we can run and select a new provider if we need to. Thank you, sheriff, for being here for the information. Any questions, commissioners? I do have a question, sheriff. We don't have the full contract in our packet. So it's been a while since we've had that in front of us. In terms of that meeting. The response time 90% of the time. And you laid out some options if they're not, but. Do we have any financial penalties or provisions like that in the contract that if we find that they're not complying. Short. Of rebidding the contract. I am not sure if there are financial penalties or not. I would have to like you dig back into what is a five year old contract, right? Yeah, right. Yeah. I don't know when the city of Boulders change over takes place, I imagine. January 1 January 1. Okay, yeah. Do you know, in your tenure with the sheriff department, Have they ever not met? That provision? Not that I'm aware of. All right. Yeah. Then I'm comfortable with this extension. Thank you. The only question I had, and that was helpful to hear a little bit about what you've been working on to have that plan ready. And appreciate that. And I know folks in unincorporated Boulder County.

0:37:57Are also appreciating the plan. The only question I had was when I saw. The agenda. This talks about. The contract not being sourced from the general fund, and I was thinking this was one that. Was contracted, or, I'm sorry, sourced from fund 151, an emergency ballot measure. And so then. I thought that's why I was like, I have a quick question on this one, so. I appreciate you being here, maybe unexpectedly, for discussion item instead of how it was presented as consent. From a transparency standpoint. Then I thought, oh, my gosh, is there a different contract that I just don't. Know about that's in your shop and I wasn't thinking about, so. That was really the question. And I didn't hear you speak to fund 151, but we hadn't got a chance to talk either.

0:38:41Until now at the dias. Thank you. And this is budgeted in fund 151, where we have created. That unincorporated ambulance service out of the kind of the internal service part of fund 151. And it has been paid out of fund 151 since 151 was created a couple of years ago. Okay, great. Thank you. Then I move approval of six f. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. And now it will take us to item seven, confirmation of executive session topics. Good morning, commissioners. Natalie Springt commissioner's deputy. For the record, I'm here to confirm that the executive session. Topics that were noticed at the December 9, 2025, regular business meeting of the board were discussed as scheduled, and this is simply a note for the record. I'm happy to take us to item eight. And commissioners. I'll be requesting three separate votes on item eight from you all this morning. So first, I would request authorization for the board of county commissioners to go into executive session with county attorney Ben Pearlman, pursuant to CRS 24, 6402, subsection four B, legal advice on Wednesday, December 17. 2025 at 01:00 p.m. to discuss the gun Barrel Local improvement District. Advisory board. So moved.

0:40:07Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. And for the next item I would request authorization for the board of county commissioners to go into executive session with county. Attorney Ben Pearlman. Pursuant to CRS 24, 6402, subsection four b, legal advice on Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 01:00 p.m. to discuss federal and state nondiscrimination laws. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. And for my final request. I would request authorization for the board of county commissioners to go into executive session pursuant to CRS 24, 6402, subsection four f. Personnel matters on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 03:00 p.m. to discuss the annual performance evaluation of commissioner's deputy Natalie Springt. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye, aye. Thank you. Great. Appreciate that. That'll take us to item nine, which is our public meeting on Headstart. Division monthly report to the commissioners. And this is a monthly report, so there's no public comment taken at this time for this meeting, but we'll hear from staff. Good morning, commissioner.

0:41:37Sakani Ogren, division manager for Boulder county head start. I like your backdrop. Oh, that's me. And it may just take a moment. To. Thank you. Got it. Okay. I'll take my glasses off. Okay. So we are winding down the first half of the 2025 26 school year. And staff and children will go on winter break. This Friday. So our staff are very excited and families are excited for the break. Staff will return to school on January 5. For stuff. Only for a full day of professional development prior to the children returning on the 6th. Professional development training will include topics such as the connection between nutrition and mental health. And the importance of play. Understanding child development through artistic process. And I will move into meal service. Okay, so, November. Figures. Total meals delivered by the Boulder Valley School District food service team is 4329. Total meals served based on attendance of children. Is 3259. The invoice for meals was at 12,445 with the CICFP. Reimbursement at 9654. The cost to Boulder county head start for the meals that were not actually served. Well, the difference between delivered and served is $2,791.82. And the average across August through November. Cost to the program is $3,521 per month. And let's see, going to the related attendance, I'm hoping I can get

0:43:56this graph. To line up so the attendance with 13 days of school in November due to the fall break. Was 56% at Dagney, 58% at Woodlands and Mapleton with 87%. And that was due to illness. We had a slew of. Fall illnesses, flu, et cetera. Lots of tummy things going on at school in November. So the overall program attendance was. 76%. And there is. Your graph requested graph on attendance. Below there so you can actually see. And then program enrollment. We're funded for 110 slots, and we are currently. Still holding at 109, and that is just due to. These single drop ads that have been happening since the beginning of school. So we just had another drop. And are working on another. Addition to the community. School community. Okay, let me go down. And so there's the enrollment graph again. Just holding steady at that 109. And I'll go down to number four, the monthly budget we're still waiting for. The November. Reconciliation. Numbers, and so as soon as I have those, I will send them forward. To the commissioners. I'll pause there just for a moment in case there are any questions. Of one through four. Thanks. Doesn't look like there's any questions right now. Thank you. Okay. And then I believe this is the last section, which is to start ongoing monitoring and

0:45:46communication. The regional technical assistance team. The coaching and program supports have resumed since the shutdown. So I had two planning meetings. With component specialists. That's an education. Health, mental health. And system support to update the team on Boulder County Head Start program progress that we had been continuing forward the work prior to the shutdown. And then we've reassessed needs of the program and adjusted our plan of work. With the regional team. And so our individual component leaders are now meeting with their specialists. One today. The family services team met with their family services specialists this morning. Which is great. The Dagney Playground incident from October 1 was reported to the office of Head start as required. Our federal program specialist has communicated that the incident has been closed with no additional action warranted. At this time, so that's really great news. And then going down to the competition, Grant. As of the time that I wrote this report was December 10. But even today, the competition grant has still not opened. The site posting of the Nofos I monitor daily in preparation of submitting an application but there is still no movement on that site.

0:47:16The only other funding grant. That application that's in process is for the $35,000 of funding from the Buell foundation, which I am currently preparing that for submission by January 15. And you can anticipate a request to approve the submission of that grant to be coming in a January business. Meeting. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Connor. Any questions? Comments? Sure. No questions. Thank you. Thank you. Honey, I just wanted to ask. Typically, I'm waiting for everybody else to speak before the chair speaks. So sorry about the delay. It was just a curiosity, really. Just from speaking to one of the superintendents of one of our school districts here in our region. Last week about concerns of enrollment. And so. I saw the pieces of realm illnesses and sickness which everyone's experiencing and feeling, but just. Wanting to understand. If you're having any of those concerns, as well as you think about 2026. 2027. School year. No, we submitted that change in scope, I believe, at 2023. And so since we actually reduced our enrollment funded enrollment slots. We've been holding steady at the minimum requirement for head start. And I don't anticipate there being an issue to maintain that one tent. Thank you. Yeah.

0:48:41Thank you. All right. Doesn't look like there's any other comments or. I'll just add one. Thing. Thank you. It was a late thought. With it being December and a long year with lots of ups and downs and twists and turns. For head start. Just want to recognize the community, the parents advisory groups, the children, the teachers, the staff that support the teachers. You. It's been a lot of hard work. And lots of close community and care. And so just appreciation from the board. Thank you so much. For everything you've done and keep doing and checking that board every day to get the posting for January. You showed so much thoughtfulness and care and professionalism for the community, and I'd like to thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Nothing else additional, it looks like. Okay.

0:49:28I thought I just saw another hand over there. Thank you. So much. We appreciate you coming out over here, too, to share with us in person. All right, so next. And that was just an informational only meeting. We appreciate the update for our monthly update on head start. Let's go to item ten, which is public hearing on the wild patch at the Maples. And so this is community planning and permitting department, their docket. HP 25. And this is a public hearing, so we will have public comment both in the room and then. Virtual for an opportunity for folks to participate, and then we're just going to switch computers. Here. Momentarily. So we'll have a staff presentation, commissioners may have some questions, and then we'll open it up to the public hearing, and then we'll go back to staff commissioners. Were being asked to make a decision on this particular docket, and then we have one other public hearing. Still in this section of our business.

0:50:30And just a note for the record that all three commissioners are here. For the item number ten. Good morning, commissioners. This is Jessica McKinnon with community planning and permitting. You may need to move the microphone just a little quick. You can pull the bottom. Yeah. There you go. Thank you. And this is my first hearing in years. Welcome back. And Denise. Is last. So. Last two. Wow. Thank you. So this is docket hp two, the wild patch of the maples. The request is Boulder County Historic Landmark designation of the site. The location is 40 617 Highland Drive. And that's right outside of lions and I just wanted to check really quick with you. One. I might have you move the microphone just a little bit closer because we can hear you. In the room, but they have to archive it. And then. Also just wanted to let you know. That we're not seeing.

0:51:48I don't think your screen. Okay. And so if you. Need staff help just to move that over, okay? We can get some support. Let's see. If. There we go. Then I need to get back to mine, though. Okay. I think we're good. Okay. If you need something, just let us know. That's fine. Thank you. Let's see. And so the owner at applicants are Brett and Kayla Hart. Lamark. Does. Application for landmark designation of the farm site has been submitted by the owners, Brent and Kayla. Hart Farmers, located on an approximately 5.6 acre parcel with the historic resources clustered in the northeast part, bounded by the highland ditch along the north border. The proposed landmark site is an area with a 20 foot buffer around the buildings. Or the creek as the boundary where it is less than 20ft away from an eligible building. There are nine contributing resources in the site and two non contributing resources. The contributing resources are the ihouse form farmhouse. Building one. Building two. Shed one. Shed two. Shed three. The pump spigot, the chicken coop and the large shed, and then non contributing resources are the metal shed and the garage. The property was homesteaded by William Parsons in 1869 when he acquired 160 acres along the St. Vain Creek.

0:53:26The properties change hands, configurations, and uses several times over the last 150 years. While it's mostly been used as a farm. It was used as an autocamp in the late 1920s and for a short. Time, there were plans to make it a hot sulfur baths resort after drilling reportedly hit hot sulfur spring water. By 1939, the property was known as the Maples and has continued under that name. For 85 years. The new owners, Brett and Kayla Hart, have agreed to honor its path by landmarking. It under the name the wild patch at the maples. Additionally, the hearts, they're working with sea bouldered to restore the apple orchard on the farm that may date back 100 years. The farmhouse was built. Circa 1900 in the eyehouse form, named after the eye states of Iowa, Indiana, and Illinois were so prevalent. The Eye house forum moved west with the railroad. The form is basically a two story version of the hall and parlor form, which is two rooms wide and one room deep with a central hall.

0:54:30It's very common. For eye houses to have porches and rare editions, and our example has both with tusk and columns on its porch. Most of the buildings, most of the outbuildings are constructed in typical agriculture forms. From the early 20th century, the. Farmers eligible for landmark designation under criteria one and four. Criterion one, the farm is significant for its association with the development of agriculture in the northern area of unincorporated Boulder county and criterion for the farm complex is significant as a good collection of farm building. Buildings from the early 19 hundreds. Additionally, the house is a good example of the ihouse form. The historic Preservation Advisory board reviewed an application. At their November 6, 2025 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend an approval. So staff and HPM recommend that the BOCC approved docket HB 250 zero two, the wild patch at the maples under criteria one and four and subject to our usual conditions.

0:55:39And I do. Have some photos. Okay, here we go. So here's the vicinity map. Like I said, it's right outside alliance. And here's that cluster of the buildings. The Mabel's. The name, dating back to at least 1939, appeared in a newspaper and then the 1950 photo from the assessor's office. Showing the sign. And then in 2024, The house. We have several photos here from 1950. S and 2025, so it's still very much in its same form. Building one and building two. They've changed a little bit. Building one has doubled its size. But it still got that historic part in it. And building two has recently had new sighting, but the board still found out that it was eligible. Should one, two and three that are all circa 1910. The chicken coop, the pump and the large shed, which has signs from.

0:57:17When it was a cider. When they made cider. The site from the trees. And the non contributing resources, the metal shed and the garage. And that's all I have. Thank you, Jessica. Any questions? I don't have any questions, but I just always love when these things come to us. And I'm just fascinated by the history that you all dig up, but I don't. Have any questions. Thank you. Okay. I did have maybe two questions. One was just the curiosity. Thanks for the presentation. The history is always interesting and look into the photos. What is autocamp? In the history of it you talked about, and I think it was the 1920s that it was. An autocamp. You described that, and I wasn't sure if that meant, like, rve what I'm. Thinking of, like, an rv parking area out in unincorporated Boulder county. Or if it means something different. No, exactly. But not rvs as we know them today. But just when people camped out. Of their cars. Okay, interesting. And then the other question I had on the orchard, and it was when I was looking through the documents. Prior to your presentation. The application. That went to the division that looked like has the orchard in there as a description. And I'm happy to find the page, if that's helpful, but it talks about this

0:58:45centennial orchard. And then orchard in a couple of different places. So it was just my curiosity, understanding. Because also in the description, it talked about the owners working with. Cu to bring the orchard back. The way the application was reading it was like describing it as an orchard, so I was just. Trying to understand two things. One, is there an orchard there right now that's in process. We saw some of the old signage on one of those buildings. And then the other one is. If the Sentena Orchard was part of the review for others. And I saw the note about the unanimous vote from HPAB. But to what degree was that kind of in the perception of what this property could be versus what it is in case there was some issue where we are with our climate today that didn't allow that orchard to be maybe brought back to what I was reading it as part of the property, so just wanted to understand those two items. Yeah, I think that there's. Maybe about.

0:59:50A dozen. Trees still existing on the property that. Are apple trees. They don't look like they're an incredibly good condition. And so I imagine the work that the hearts are doing with CU is to graft them and see if they can bring them back. And make them healthy. And maybe. Get saplings out of them. And. Hpab knows about. The orchard, but they chose not to land market. Does that answer your questions? The only other question that I had was if I look and I'm on page 1231. Of the 1511 full packet. So I don't know what that means for just your section of the packet, but talks about function and use. Historic functions from an orchard, current functions family farm and orchard. And so I just want to understand. If the review. That it includes the orchard. And if that's not an orchard? I'm just trying. To understand. To what degree should we be taking that into account? Or would the HPad group that did and I don't know if there was discussion. I haven't looked to see if there was a recording of that meeting. They did not discuss it other than just that it had the history of being an orchard, having an orchard on site. Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I had, so it doesn't look like there's. Additional questions.

1:01:25So let's open to the public hearing. And we'll start in person. We don't have anybody signed up. Is there anyone? Here that wanted to speak to it. That looks like no. So we'll go to the virtual section just in case there's somebody that was interested and wanted to participate. The public comment. There's a phone line as well. And that's eight. Three. Three. Five, six, eight. Six four, in case someone was waiting to see when we'd get done and have an opportunity to participate. We don't have anybody signed up virtually. But now we do. So we've got Brett Hart, and there's a clock there. For three minutes. Just a reminder. Just state your name when you do. Come on. And then you'll have three minutes to share with us what you would like. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Happy to answer any questions. Join. Just to see how it went and be a part of the process. Quick answer to a question earlier. There are 99.

1:02:25Living apple trees in the orchard. Dating back to. At least 1910. Working through. Cu, so we are actively working. To cultivate them back to life, keep them, maintain them. But yeah. Just wanted to thank everyone for their time and consideration and here to answer any questions. If there are any. Thanks, Brett. I appreciate that. That really does help me understand the application versus. What was described in the presentation. And I don't know if Commissioner Levy looks like has a question. I do have a question. Thank you for joining us. And like Commissioner Lokumin. That orchard did catch my eye. Just wondering. What we call, I guess, maybe call heirloom types of apples. Kinds of apples that. Have disappeared as everything has been homogenized into the big sellers in the grocery store. So I was wondering if part of your work with Cu is to figure out what kind of apples. These are and. What their origin is. Yes, ma'am. We've gone through the process with CU, partnering with state of Washington, University of Washington. To identify. We sampled twelve of the trees. They came back.

1:03:56As. A number of rare cultivars, including Black Twig, which is an exciting one because there's only one other known tree in the state. And then very few out there throughout the US, we have a couple wolf rivers, which are the one pounders. Effectively, you can make one pie out of one apple. And then a couple of others that are less. Rare. Such as? Delicious, golden delicious, red delicious. We have not identified all 99. It's a little pricey to do that, but we are going to graft as we've mentioned earlier. A number of the more rare and add back to the orchard. There's space for about 400. So that's the ultimate goal, is to bring those back and work with the state of Washington to see if there's any other that they'd be interested in bringing back. To the state of Colorado. Cool. Thank you for that. I would love. I'm sure many others would as well. The opportunity to sample one of these rare kinds of apples. We would love that. In fact. We will be opening to the public. Both public and private for that sort of thing. And we are working with a couple of students at. Cu for some thesis programs and that sort of thing to see. How to bring back some of these heirlooms for the state. And bring back

1:05:27that history that Boulder county used to have as the largest apple producer in the country at one time. So anytime someone wants to come by and take a look and tour and taste, we would love. To host. Yep. That sounds wonderful. Great. Thank you. And I just want to check with staff, make sure there's not anybody else that you're working with to try and join us virtually. Hi, Cheryl. Tamim, this is Bryanna Barber, commissioner's office staff at this time. There is no one else in the virtual meeting that would like to give public comment on this item. Thank you. And we'll go ahead and close. The public. Have a public comment portion. For the wild patch at the maple stocket, and we'll turn back to Steph. I don't have anything else. Thank you. All right, commissioners, any discussion we're being. Asked to make a decision on this item. No discussion. I'm happy to make a motion. To approve HP 25. Two. And I'll second and just say this is very exciting. Thank you. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. And we'll go to our item eleven, which is a public hearing on Andrews Robertson House. This is also a community planning and permitting department. It's docket HP 25.

1:06:55Three. This is the Andrews Arbertson House. This is also public hearing author county commissioners are present and we will go ahead and turn it over to staff our presentation and then we'll hear from the public, both in the room and virtually, and there might be questions from commissioners. That were being asked to make a decision on this item. Thank you. Again, this is Jessica McKinnon with community planning and permitting department. And we have docket. Hp 25. Three. The Andrews Robertson House. The request is to landmark the house. It's at 60 87 Indian Road, which is in Belmont. The applicant is Alastair Doug Robertson. And his agent is Alex Robertson. Hassan. And. We received landmark designation from Alex on behalf of his father. The houses on the eastern side of two tracks in the original Belmont town site on a parcel of zero 78 acres. The western half of the parcel is vacant, while the eastern half includes the house and several outbuildings. The landmark proposal is for the house. Only. It purported to be one of the oldest existing in Belmont. The house is sought to date back to at least 1885, but maybe as old as 1869. The house's first note occupant was Mrs.

1:08:18Cornelia Andrews, who had acquired the property from her mother in 1874. Nine years after her father and brothers had. Laid out the townside of Belmont. In fact, Cornelia lived at the corner of what was then main street and Allen street, which was her maiden name. She was the postmaster of Velmont from 1881 to 18, nine and 1889 and sold the property in 1895. The property changed hands several times. Over the century and was owned for a few decades by an auto mechanic who worked for Boulder county highway garage. Wilbur Owen. The current owner, Alastair Robertson, bought the property in 1993. With an education, statistics and mathematics from Harvard, UC Berkeley and Johnna Hopkins. He worked for the University of Colorado in data analysis supporting cardiology research. And Alastair reports that he once found a circa 1869 newspaper in the wall of the home, which is where we get. That suspicion that the house might date back to 1869. The house was built in that house.

1:09:33Form which we covered in the first landmark, so I won't reread that, but. This example is the less common one and one half story version. The house qualifies for landmark designation under criterion one and four. Criterion one, the house is significant. That's one of the oldest houses remaining in Belmont, where so much historic fabric has been removed. And criterion for the House is significant as the early Boulder Camp county example of the iHouse form. HPAB reviewed the application at their November 6, 2025 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval. There was two public comment. At the hearing from Carol Affleck and Kira Corngold, both in favor. Staff and HPAB recommend that the board of County Commissioners approved docket HTP 250 zero three. The Andrews Robertson House, under criteria one and four, and subject to our usual two conditions. And I again have some photos.

1:10:51And so it's right there on the, like, the south end of Belmont. And there's an ariel. Here's the front of the house. In the west. The east. The northwest. This is in 1908. Photo from the Carnegie library, where you can see the house. On the right side. This is before it had the porch and can't tell for sure. But I think it's probably before it had a rear edition. The 1949 assessors card, which shows that victorian porch that was added. And here it has the rear edition visible. And a 77 card where the porch has been changed and it's had another edition in the rear. And that's everything I have for you. Thank you for the presentation, commissioner. So, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to put a disclosure on the record that I had a tour with historic boulder of the Belmont area. Just regarding the number of historic artifact, historic structures and missing historic structures in that area. And just to put my impressions on the record. That mill. The stage. Stop the school. A number of artifacts that the group wanted to point to that they're concerned about. Their imminent threat of being lost. To time. And then just some areas, like their brick kiln area and some others that have been lost to time and some tribal areas

1:12:40that are sacred places and. Some of the colonizing impact that has destroyed them permanently. So just. Those are my impressions. And I bring it up just because. It certainly influenced my understanding of the importance and significance of historic buildings in this particular area of the county. Thank you for that. No questions. No. Thanks for bringing it to us. I don't have any questions right now. Let's go to public comment. And we're here to listen to any comments on docket HP 250. There are three Andrews Robertson house. It doesn't look like we have anybody here in the room that wanted to speak to this. There's no one signed up. We'll close the in person. Portion of Hoba Comment go to virtual. The phone number is eight. Three. Three. 568864 and. I will just give folks in the back a few seconds here in case somebody was trying to join. And it doesn't look like we have anybody. On. Moving on to the screen. So we'll go ahead and close the virtual. Section of our public comment and staff. If there was any additional comments that you had, you're, welcome to that. No. And otherwise, we'll go to discussion. I don't have anything else. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's see. We've got item eleven in front of us. I'm happy to put a motion on

1:14:16the table. If commissioners are ready, I move that we approve docket HP 25. Second. All in favor? Aye. All right, commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you. And we are recording. Thank you. We're returning for our 01:00 item, which is item twelve on the agenda, Alfred. County commissioners are present here. This is a public meeting, so not a public hearing. We won't have public testimony. At this time, but are going to hear from staff. In an update. And it's described differently, I guess. Public meeting on the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Major update. There's the update. So I'll just turn it over to staff because my understanding is you're asking for a decision just to accept the update. But again, there won't be any public hearings, so we'll have some discussion between board and with staff. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Hannah Hibbley, with community planning and permitting. I'm the long range planning division manager at CPP. And I also want to take a second and introduce Christopher Johnson. He's the city of Boulder comprehensive senior planning manager. And he's joined us today to help back me up, answer any questions. Provide additional detail, but I do have a presentation for us today to run through. We are asking the board for feedback and guidance in a number of areas. But not any

1:16:21decisions today. So that you're correct there. I think the way I'd like to approach this is run through the entire presentation. At least once and then come back. To each topic area and talk about those individually. That sounds great. Thank you. Okay. This is a slide we've seen a number of times in the presentations. And. There are various elements of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, which is the plan that expresses the city and county's shared common goal of directing urban development to urban areas, preserving the distinction between the urban nature of the city and the rural character of the county and defining the limits of outward. Expansion of the city. These concepts are spelled out in the Boulder county comprehensive plan, but the BBCP, since its adoption in 1977. Has really. Sort of described and provide details on how these common goals will be implemented within the defined Boulder Valley planning area. The elements within the plan that implement this shared vision for growth in development. Are the planning areas map and associated policies. In the future. Land use map. The city and county are often in alignment. On other topics, and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan can provide a framework of collaboration to address issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. And many of.

1:18:08Those are found in other sections of the policies. So today is another opportunity for staff to hear from decision makers on the direction of the plan. And feedback will be incorporated into the draft plan as it's being developed. So what we're seeing here on the screen right now is the planning areas map and. This map's basic purpose is to. Help answer two questions listed on the screen. What can the city annex? And where's urban development appropriate? That's a simplification, I think, but. It's really the most straightforward way. I think it makes sense to most people. And this approach really has served the community well. It's a defining component of the Boulder Valley comp plan. It's been instrumental in realizing this vision for the Boulder Valley and we've heard continued support for this vision from the community in various ways throughout. This update process. And no significant shifts in this approach or the designating. Areas. Is currently being considered as part of this update. We do see a need to update the map to make minor corrections, reflect annexations and include any of the results of the community change request process. That's ongoing.

1:19:42Policies in the BVCP exist to support the map. They are intended to explain the various areas. Eligibility for annexation, the provision of facilities and services by the city. In the rural urban character of each area. The current descriptions are on the screen, and really my only purpose for putting those on the screen. Today is to help show why we think some of these some updates can be helpful here. The area. One, two, three. Titles don't really have any meaning unless one is well versed. In the technical details of the plan. The descriptions themselves. Are relatively wordy and often hard to understand, referring to other policies in the plan. And also there's a designation on the map which isn't described in this section. Of the policies, although its purpose is described elsewhere in the plan. One of staff's overarching goals for this plan update has been to simplify the language to make it easier to use and understand. And again, here is a place in the plan where we don't expect. Substantive changes to these policies, but we are considering how they can be redrafted to be easier to use and understand. Another example of an area where we're focusing to kind of clarify. And simplify.

1:21:16Policies or those that are related to annexation. The plan currently includes eight policies. Specific to annexations to be pursued by the city again, I think once we get those finalized, and before you. I think they'll be of interest. But in general, again, we don't. Expect any major shifts in the nature of these policies. And that the framework of annexation will continue as it has largely for example, the city will continue to require annexation before the provision of urban services and facilities. And will retain blue line policies. Additional policies. Exist. The planning areas, policies and these two concepts as we see here on the screen. Really help describe what type of development is appropriate in the unincorporated areas of the county. I think the plan is clear that urban development goes to should go in the urban areas and happen within the city of Boulder. These policies. Help us think about what kind of development. Is appropriate in the unincorporated areas. So within area two, those areas which are eligible for annexation, new urban development can only occur if its first annexed into the city. So development not rising to that level. Is supportable and can move forward within the county under the plan. Within area three. So those areas not eligible for annexation intended to remain rural. Here we are to avoid over intensive rural development. These concepts

1:23:08have existed in the BBCP since its adoption. However, again, during this process, we've identified a few areas where updates would be useful and we're going to look at these in more detail in the next couple of slides. So currently, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan describes new urban development in sections a and b. Here, section a really relates to development within the city, so we're focused on section b here. And this is where we think some updates would really be helpful. This definition is unclear regarding which land use projections we're trying to use. Neither the city nor the county currently maintains this type of land use projections for this area. The rest of the definition is also unclear and really requires. A bit of staff research and discussion to determine the outcome, and we think a simpler and more straightforward description can and should be developed.

1:24:18And a factor for thinking about this more closely. I think at this point in time, Is. The need for a revised definition reflects the fact that many of the properties in area two. Are around 50 years old and over a 20 year kind of planning horizon, we could see proposals to upgrade or redevelop them. And this current definition doesn't really provide us much guidance. Regarding sort of what the level of redevelopment or appropriate redevelopment in the county is. So having an updated understanding of what new urban development is. Will help us guide decisions in these areas into the future. Okay, within area three, we shift and start thinking about over intensive rural development. That's the language used in the comprehensive plan. The over intensive rural development is described as a permitted land use. That would have an impact of urban intensity. In the desire to. Address this issue. Is really that it protects the rural character of the county and the distinction between urban and rural. Areas by allowing land use activities permitted within the county, zoning only if they remain appropriate in. A rural context. So this helps ensure that the county is not a competing location for urban development. Helps prevent leap frog development of urban uses into the county.

1:26:04In the plan currently provides a list of items which you can see on the screen that are to be considered in deciding if a proposal is overintensive and requires referral to the city of boulder. How, when and by who. The determination regarding if a proposal is overintensive is not defined in the plan. And historically, this has been a decision of the Planning commission and the board of county commissioners. During the review and decision making on a discretionary land use review process. The role of the city. Referral is also not defined in the plan. So we think an update to this section, including updates to any factors we think are relevant. The role of the city. Comments and maybe some clarity. On the procedure for decision making. Around an overintensive rural development would improve the usefulness of this section of the Boulderelli comp plan. Okay, I'm going to. We're going to move on here and think a little. Bit about the future land use map. This was our topic for a discussion last time we met, so this is a bit of an update. These designations have continued to evolve a bit. And so I wanted to bring them back to you for another look. One of the questions that had come up when we met last time to talk about the future. Land use map

1:27:34was how. These designations. Applied to unincorporated areas. Interact with the current county zoning. Staff do intend to make clear in the BBCP that while area two remains unincorporated, Future land uses in the area will be determined by county zoning the land use code. Future planning efforts and our policies around new urban development that we just spoke to. After talking about it with the team and others, I think this is consistent, really, with how the plan operates today. So. It was a good point last time. It was something. We talked about it afterwards, tried to make sure that we were understanding how the plan operates and how we really think this would factor into the future. So hopefully that helps answer that question. Neighborhood one and neighborhood two have continued to be developed. Again, we think these are primarily would be. Applied to those areas that the city could annex under the plan. Within area three. Again, maintaining that open space designation and continuing to develop the thoughts. There. The one designation that is new in the future. Land use map. Which is kind of a color that we'll put on a map. Is new on the map, but not new in concept, in the plan. And so the proposal in here, which is that in these rural lands, the count again, county zoning

1:29:27county land use review processes will guide future land uses in this area. Is described in the plan today. And again, this approach that we're proposing here is consistent with how we approach things today. What is new is where we're locating these policies. Currently in a few different places in the plan, and you can put them all together and get to this conclusion. But. This is a clearer way to present it. Again, kind of working towards. A plan that's a little easier to use and a little more straightforward. Okay. The last section. That I want to talk about today. I think we've talked about briefly before. But just wanted to put a finer point on it today. So in addition to the policies that we talked about already today related specifically to. Annexation, urbanization, what kind of developments appropriate in the unincorporated county. The Boulder Valley comp plan contains policies that cover a variety of topics, as is typical of a comprehensive plan in. Obviously, the city of Boulder would want to include in their comprehensive plan. But since its adoption, it's evolved to include more than 200 policies, which I think is challenging for staff in the public.

1:31:02And likely decision makers. To really interpret and put into practice. Again with our goal to update and simplify the plan. We want to ensure the. Policies establish an aspirational vision for the future. And reduce redundancies. Policies within the BVC ple that include the language city and county require approval from county adopting bodies because, of course, these are policies the county would be agreeing to kind of layer on. Top of our already adopted policies. That are expressing other county plans, either Boulder county comprehensive plan, maybe our sustainability plan. Et cetera. So the inclusion of the county and policies that closely match our adopted policies creates a bit of confusion. About. The role of the county in joining the city in their policies. Policies that apply countywide will still apply within the BVCP area. So we think limiting the policies that we adopt jointly. And being more judicious about this will provide some clarity for us as well. However. We don't intend to limit the ability of the city and county to cooperate on policies or on issues as they arise, and so are thinking that. A general sort of joint statement on collaboration of issues. That uncommon issues. Those that may appear. Arise in the future.

1:32:52An unknown or those that we know that cross jurisdictional boundaries. So. As we consider what policies the county should join the city in adopting. I've sort of asked these few questions. Is the policy. Getting us something that's not already. In a different county plan. Is the Boulder Valley comp plan the right plan to address that policy, or is it better is that gap better addressed by updating our countywide plan? And then do we really understand the practical implications for the county. Joining in a policy, is there an action that we're taking. How do we see this working into the future? What are the outcomes we think? We'll get from joining a specific policy. Okay, that's the run through of all the material. The questions that I wanted to go over with you on the slides.

1:33:58So I just want to back up and go back to those planning area policies and think about. These questions that we have here. So really. Looking at that concept of new urban development. Over intensive rural development, how those decisions should be made. And really. If you. Have any thoughts about. Redefining. Those categories. Great. Thank you, Hannah. I don't know if there's questions first. I had some questions about the materials, et cetera. Before we get into the list that you've got on the slides, but I don't know if others did as well. Why don't we start there, and then we'll go from there. Okay, that sounds. Good. First. Thank you for the information. And for the presentation. And for City, Boulder Bay here and represent. It sounds like you're on the ready for any questions that we might have, so thank you for that. Could you briefly speak to part of this packet? Looks like.

1:35:09A big amount of work. With community members and, like, 43 people. And six Saturdays and a bunch of different things that were described in here on 15 minutes. Neighborhoods, and I just didn't hear you talk about in the presentation, and so I wanted to ask you to do that first. And then I did have a couple of questions, things I can do that in KJ and try and fill in any gaps from me. Yes. I did not speak to those. There are two attachments in the packet that I didn't. Speak to. The first is the report from the community assembly's work on 15 minutes neighborhoods. And the second is the results and report of the statistically valid survey. So the community assembly. Was kind of a novel. Approach to community engagement. It's a randomly selected group of 43 community. It ended up being 43 community members. Selected through. This is the part I always struggled to try and describe, the process of selection. But the outcome is intended to make sure we have a representative.

1:36:24Section of the community. So folks from the incorporated areas, unincorporated areas, age, I think property ownership. So there were a variety of factors. That sort of ended up choosing those folks to participate, and then they did meet over a series. Of weeks during which they got education on certain issues, they did site visits. All with the goal of. Them addressing this concept of what is a 15 minutes neighborhood. What's important in a 15 minutes. Neighborhood. What might those look like in the city of Boulder? To eventually come. To. It doesn't end up being a unanimous decision, because if you read the report, There are. Alternate thoughts provided. But thank you. I saw the information in there and knew there was 10,000 people that got postcards. In the mail and things like that, but just from attending some of the other presentations and also what you've talked about. The question I had when I was reading it all together. Is, how do I, as a decision maker, as you kind of prompted the question piece. How does this fit? Into the comprehensive plan. Is that part of what you're asking us to consider? Because that prompts really specific. Questions about the definitions, the need for updates, the review of mapping. I just want to know if this was an exercise just to do something. Like you

1:38:04said, a novel. Engagement or if there is an expectation or an ask from staff in the different areas that are working on this. For decision makers to figure out. How do we use the information from this 15 minutes? Is that a goal of this update. Just understand, kind of how it fits into this piece. Absolutely. The anticipation is that we use the feedback that we got. The report has just come out. I think staff will be relying on it as we kind of draft the recommended plan and hopefully both. The members in the community assembly and decision makers will see how their feedback has made its way. Into the draft plan. It wasn't necessarily something I expected us to get into today. As a point of discussion. Okay. Do you have anything you want to add to any of that? Sure. And thank you for allowing me to be here. It's great to see all of you. Again. I would just share that to Hannah's point. We absolutely are looking to incorporate many of these recommendations into the comprehensive plan. They will appear in, I think, a lot of different ways. Through different policies that we'll be writing, but then also through the future land use map. And ultimately, what that looks like. We had a pretty robust conversation about this topic last week. We

1:39:32had a joint session with planning board and city council on Thursday, so we entered into a lot. Of conversation around this and actually had the opportunity to hear directly from. The assembly members who gave a presentation on their recommendations. So really, the intent is to incorporate it. Into the comprehensive plan to the degree that we can. Ultimately. You'll be able to see that a bit more directly when the full draft plan and land use map is released for public review in early March, and so that'll really be a great opportunity. To gather. Your input and feedback on how that's represented in the plan. And have we gone far? Enough or if you have other conversations or other thoughts you want to share at that time. Jeremy Smith, Commissioner staff could I have you identify yourself with the record? Yes, absolutely. Christopher Johnson. I'm the comprehensive planning senior manager for the city of Boulder. Thank you for that. Okay, well. I heard you that. Piece is maybe for a different discussion. That 15 minutes neighborhood study in the 211 pages that we got sent. I didn't realize that. So I actually think it's helpful when we're.

1:40:48Talking about. Do we need to update? And how would we change definitions if we wanted? To give input into that. And so if the goal is to have 15 minutes neighborhoods, I think that is. Part of the response on how those definitions, to me, the definitions would have to change or the descriptions of the different. And it was the new urban development that slides up there and then. There was one around planning reserve area. If that really was a goal. To try and fit that in there, and that might be something that we're going to be talking about later. Yeah, I think the idea of 15 minutes neighborhoods is something. That we anticipate being developed within the municipal areas. Not necessarily trying to create 15 minutes neighborhoods in the unincorporated county. I totally understand that.

1:41:39And I thought you were asking us to look at the definitions that were. Here. And so I'm looking just as an example where it says new urban development currently. Defined in the BVCP. And then it talks about residential, commercial, industrial development. And so for me, I'm looking at that. And if I'm looking at the 15 minutes neighborhood. That seems like. There's an opportunity to make either. Another category. To be able to fit that thinking about also unincorporated Boulder county, where we have infrastructure going in. Right now in areas, and I'm thinking of, like, IBM. I'm thinking of other areas and enclaves. Again, if it's going to be full on planning. The way I was reading it in the summary in the packet, it's like the area might. There might. There's something missing already. But if we're thinking. About countywide planning. We also have this other simultaneous countywide transportation strategy happening. And so. I think to completely say we couldn't do it would be missing the opportunity in a 20 year plan. So for me, when you ask about definitions, I think there is an opportunity to add some different definitions if we were going to do that. But yes, I agree that the city is going to be the best place to do that. And I also am thinking about where when you're talking about

1:43:00annexing of land, what? That might look like. I'm happy to open it to others if folks have questions, just so that we get equal distribution of time. I have questions and comments on similar things, but mine also fit into the prompts we've been provided, but they will segue back to what you've talked about. And so I don't know if I should just respond or if we move. To the prompts and then open up the. Dialogue within each prompt and then have more conversation about you've brought up you've brought up a lot of really good things to talk about. And I have ideas. They also fit into the prompts. Yeah. I think working through the prompts will probably catch most of my comments and thoughts. Okay, yeah. I didn't see the 15 minutes neighborhood talked about in the prompt, so that's why? I just wanted to bring that one up and then the only other one, and I'm. Not ignoring that, and I will come back to it. It's just. My comments that are either supporting or different ideas to have a debate around that have to do with the map question, and so I hope we come back to it. Or if you'd rather, I can talk about them now as they relate to the way that you brought it up. Oh, no, that's fine.

1:44:07I was just going to ask one. More piece, if that's okay. Okay, I'll continue. The only other piece I had. And I had a similar question last time when I'm looking at the materials and I'm looking at the information, looking at the definitions and the categories. I still have this question around. How? The Boulder valet comprehensive plan. Really calls out agriculture and the asset we're hearing about agricultural housing. And so, again, is there something around cities and jurisdictions? Yes. Is there an opportunity in my mind? To see where that develops in this plan. So that Boulder county will have its own plan. We have our own land use and our own regulations, but to have those intersect from the point of support is still something that I'm looking for and thinking about. And so when I looked at, even on this same page as an example. The development versus redevelopment versus what? I heard you discuss. Around upgrades. Redevelopment is a question, and it makes me think of, like, san Lasero. As an example, when I think. The definition or the meaning of what development means versus. Areas that need to be. Upgraded. So that's just something else pending for me, and it might fit into the prompts. Really nicely, but I just don't want to miss. Not get it out there in the conversation

1:45:37at some point. So let's start with the prompts that you've brought, and I'll let you kind of guide us through. And you can help facilitate in regards to. Did you get an answer? Do you need something more? Do you need any clarification from the board? As a full and it's 133. So I'm just trying to help facilitate, but I'll let you take back over. For the. Prop section. Okay? The planning areas policy, this concept of new urban development and the over intensive rural development. I think. Might be helped along if we look at. Some of the examples that I've sort of pulled together quickly for you to think about. What this might mean and how we usually see this. Okay, so new urban development and thoughts about new urban development apply. In area two of the bbcp. This is an example of just kind of maybe a thought exercise. Right to think about how new or what new urban development might mean. This is a hypothetical situation. It's just a property that I identified. Might have some characteristics that were useful. I don't think. We have no communication from this property owner about redevelopment. So.

1:47:01This is property on the corner of Lookout Road in Idle Wild Trail. It's eligible for annexation, having both contiguity and being within area two. Its zoned economic development, which allows. A variety of uses through special review. The property was developed. As I think it was originally a bank, but some office. Use this. Uses. In the late 70s, about 77, 78. So they're an example of what I said. They're kind of aging. They're adjacent. Maybe in the next 20 years, somebody might want to do something different with this property. And how do we respond to this? And. What would we consider to be new urban development that is required to annex to the city before it occurs. So these could be things like. A simple change of use. To a more intensive use. Is it something where? It's a complete redevelopment of the property. Perhaps. We're removing these buildings and replacing them with new ones. With potentially increases in floor area height, lot coverage, sort of just more intense use of this property. Redevelopment could result in maybe new roads and infrastructure. And maybe the demand for additional services from the city holder in terms of water or sewer. So those are kind of a range of. Considerations for new urban development. I have two more of these which provide sort of different properties in different

1:48:46scenarios that might be helpful. So in this example, Again. There's no actual change proposed to this property. It's just to help us. Think through this. The property is eligible for annexation being in area two, but it does not have continuity, so impracticality could not annex to the city of Boulder. It is zoned business. And currently it's overnight lodging use. It's a twin lakes. Inn. So. In the last example. If redevelopment were to occur. And it were to reach this level of new urban development. It could go to the city and be annexed and pursue that path. Redevelopment of this property. That we determined to be new urban development could not occur because it can't annex because it's not contiguous. So I think we can think about those same considerations as far a change of use. Are we talking about? Completely scraping and redeveloping the property. What's the resulting intensity? What's the demand for new service? When we think about new urban development? And how does the fact that this parcel can't annex. Influence those thoughts about what really is appropriate in the county. And then one last example on the new urban development front is a different type of parcel. In a different area of town. This is just. A residential area east of Cherryvale, north of Baseline Road. But you can see this

1:50:40parcel is a little bit different in kind of. The. Development pattern. That surrounds it. It's currently zoned RR. There's a single unit dwelling on it. Again. It's eligible for annexation being an area too, but it doesn't have continuity. And could not annex to the city. And again, if there was a desire to do something new with this property, kind of change the use. What level of change would we consider to be appropriate on this parcel while it remains unincorporated? Some of the potential uses on this property, I think that could be changed to or allowed under the zoning are things like a daycare center? An educational facility. But public recreation center. How relevant in this case, the existing development pattern in the context are could be sort of another factor as we think about what its new urban development. Both of these concepts, new urban development in kind of overintensive rural development, I think really are asking us to think about. What level of intensity? Is appropriate. While these parcels are unincorporated, Trying to retain the existing character, prevent the over urbanization of these areas until they're ready for that until they're able to be annexed. But I also think we've seen. That some of these areas may not annex at all, might not get close to having contiguity in the next 20

1:52:31years. And we may see requests for redevelopment. And it would be helpful to have some additional. Parameters for us to update the parameters we have. To consider what's. Appropriate. The question over here, commission. Yeah, I don't have a question. I wanted to actually engage in the questions that you've posed. If we're ready. To do that. Just seem that we need to keep moving along. So these examples are very helpful. Thank you for doing that. And I think. Your question. Well, is, do we need to update? This definition of new urban development. That's an easy one. I think the answer is yes. Because as you point out, What we have in the comp plan. Under. B. Really. It can't be applied. The concepts don't exist. So, yes. I think they need to be updated. I don't think you want us to engage in trying. To craft that right now. I would like to look to you for direction on that. I do think that. I think the factors that have been identified. They're all good factors.

1:53:57As with all of these things. The issue is how are they applied? And. All of these things are discretionary and. It's hard to define things with the degree of exactitude and certitude. That there is going to be an answer that everybody's going to agree on. So. I just don't think we can get that precise in a definition. I think one reason these examples are really helpful is that I think we could benefit from maybe two additional. Provisions or factors. One is that issue of compatibility. And. The first two examples. Where in my mind, it really doesn't matter whether. I don't think whether they're actually eligible for annexation is that important in this. Issue because. If the development is appropriate for the area in terms of its compatibility and services. If they're on water and sewer.

1:55:03If it's a redevelopment of what is an existing sort of urban level use. Then. I would think it would be. A little. Hard for me to say that is inappropriate. To redevelop in that way when it's basically consistent with what's there now. And that twin Lakes. I think we lost your audio. Lost my audio. My sweater. Just robbing. That twin legs proper hotel. That's a great example of a problem we have in that. I know it's somebody that owns it that it's not making a lot of money. There was an idea to redevelopment as a kind of Sro sort of thing. And it's impossible to do under our existing. Policies. And the BB comp plan. I don't know whether it's in the definitions or whether just having some sort of an exception. Process. Might be helpful. It was to go from overnight lodging. To more of a single. Sro single. Residence. It's just a one roam efficiency, residential use. Where instead of people coming and going every single night, They would stay. So I think we need some exception opportunities. And I also think we need to consider compatibility. As well. So those were just.

1:56:54Two thoughts I had on how we might deal with this. I also do think that issue of determining whether something is over intensive. Currently. The way I understand it, it really. Is. This board's sole discretion. So I think what you're putting on the table is, should this be more of a joint decision making, given that this is an area of joint planning. I think I'd want to think about that a little bit more. I don't know at this point in time, if I'm even putting that on. The table. A lot of times I'm working with this plan for me. It's been this way. And that might be fine. And that might be how we want to proceed. I just think sometimes it's helpful to have the discussion to say. This does work for us, and we're okay with it continuing this way. So that might be one of those areas. These examples that I showed you were specific to new urban development, so they all exist in area two. I have a similar set of examples for overintensive rural development. If you're interested in seeing those. I think that's your next question. And maybe you want to get input from Martin and. Ashley on this.

1:58:18First one. Thanks. I wonder if you want to put the prompts back up just on this first question. So. The thing that came to mind for me on this first question was that when the previous iterations were developed of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Dr. Cog was still maintaining a bank of the urban growth area and had a defined urban growth boundary that we would all collectively agree on. Regionally. And submit to. And like in around 2015, that went away. And so I wonder, with the absence of the bank of the urban growth area. And I'm using these words, assuming that. The press present and the staff present. And I don't see any members of the general. Public present. So I'm using esoteric words that I believe everyone in the room understands. Their meaning, but I'm happy to define them further. If anyone watches the video after the fact to explain what I'm talking about, but I wonder if we need to recreate. That. In the absence of the regional planning that we used to have, because I do believe that that. Bank helped us address some of the things that you're asking us about today. Because. Things like the environmental impact, like there was the water agreement that everyone had, things like the cost.

1:59:42Of providing government services like transportation infrastructure and water infrastructure. I think those things were taken into account. When that bank was developed to understand that we could only have. A certain amount of growth in that area. Before it had exceeded the capacity that the government services could provide. So that's sort of what that first question had me wondering about is, would it be useful to create. An urban growth area bank. And setting that within that urban growth boundary, which I think is really like, you've got the area one and area two that I think make up that urban growth boundary area. And then you could take the survey. Results and really prioritize the top third of the survey as your analysis to create how big that bank is for the UGA because. You had very good consensus in both. The there were two kind of populations that were surveyed like open forum and then like a selected forum of people and. There was some agreement, like protection of natural environment, the economy, quality of life, climate change. When you look through what people prioritized. There were a lot of themes that I think stood out, so those could be the things that were analyzed to create the magnitude of that Uga bank, and then we would have a better sense of when the commissioners are

2:01:11looking at should. We allow this intensity in area two. We would have some finite definitions that we had set based on these community preferences and plan. Some of what you posed and what I heard posed over here. Got me thinking, and I think it'll come up in your mapping question is, like we really do need to understand the vision for the areas before applying some of these things. So, like, in the example of the in. If having an in is consistent with the vision of the community. In that area. Then I think that that could be approved. And if it's, if the vision of the community in that area is open space, then I don't think that could be approved and so I have some more questions that I think relate back to Commissioner Lichuman's questions on 15 minutes. Neighborhood. That are within area one, which I understand, like the city is not necessarily interested in our feedback. On that, but I think it's still worth weighing in just on how it relates to area two. So not meaning to jump ahead, but I have some questions that I think will similarly tie back. To previous conversation. So, anyway, just to finish up on this first point, I think some of the things that could be considered for new urban development would be that urba

2:02:27growth area, urban growth boundary conversation and then environmental impact, cost of providing government services, availability of resources, and the marginal cost to existing resources. In alignment with those survey results. Thanks. Commissioner Salzman, did you want to go through any of the other questions that are on the slide. Responded to at least number two, maybe number three, before. Hannah sounded like you were going to give a couple of examples on the next section, but I just wanted to ask. Right. Related to question two is the over intensive rural development. I have some examples that might help. You respond to that one specifically? Okay, let's do that then. And I'm watching. The time as well. Okay. This is the section where I thought we would spend the most amount. Of time. If that helps. Okay, so these are some recent projects in area three. The current, again, sort of trigger for usually this thought about over intensive rural development. Our uses that are coming through a discretionary review process like the site specific. Development plan review, which goes to planning commission and the board and often. This thought process about what is overintensive. Is discussed there. This first slide. Is the Macintosh Academy. It currently went through and received a special use approval. To add a new building, change the numbers. And types of students

2:04:14that attend the school. You can see this is located east of Cherryvale. The parcel itself is quite large and the north piece of this is covered by a city conservation. Easement. But the development itself is sort of clustered in this corner. This structure itself. Was converted to a school quite a few years ago, but it was developed prior to the adoption. Of the comprehensive plan for use as a convent by the Denver arch diocese. This is actually the property right next door. It's the great Dharmachan monastery again. It went through a special use. In site specific development review to establish this new use on a property it was previously an agricultural use on the property. Again similar to the property next door, the northern portion of this is protected by conservation easement. I think for both of these things. Or at least I remember looking through the Macintosh Academy. One of the issues that we had kind of wrestled with through that one were really the transportation issues. These are on South Boulder Road. Yes, a bus does come. It's not very frequent.

2:05:43The pedestrian infrastructure or really the bike infrastructure, there isn't great. So I think when we get sort of further out into the county, The demands. Or maybe what something really should have to support a use like this. Maybe doesn't. Exist. And so that's when I think about what might be overintensive rural development. We might consider examples like this. Another one that we've seen recently. Is the super repair and sales. Just Valmont at 61st street again, east of Boulder. This established a new use of vehicle sales and service lot on a general industrial property. That had been a junkyard for many years before that. So in these examples, we have sort of differences in zoning. Differences in sort of the existing uses prior to kind of a new use being established or redevelopment. Occurring. The level of. Transportation need. Maybe that different things might generate something.

2:06:57A school where you have children coming and going. And teachers coming and going. Or a use like this where maybe. It's an individual. Taking just their car for repair. Okay, so those are the examples. Thank you, Hannah. I think I'll jump in there, maybe on that question, too, and we're going to run out of time today, so I do want to make sure you have an opportunity to let us know how else you want us engage. And I did. See, there was like a schedule of other conversations, et cetera. So maybe just to have that shared out for people who are interested. When I look at in this packet and gets back to the comment that you made, Commissioner Solzman around the goals because there's these different sections in part of the packet that talk. About land use goals, environmental goals, mobility goals, equity goals, et cetera. I am curious about how you're going to determine that even with the information here in the prompts. The reason I'm bringing that up.

2:08:17Is whether or not there'll be an opportunity for the board to weigh in on that. At a separate time would be helpful to know and then the other on this question too specifically. I think. That is understanding that over intensive. Those examples were really helpful. When I'm thinking about land use that I'm looking at. A lot. And the way that we're trying to determine in general about. What part of the parcel has already been. Used. What's already been disturbed from a land use and then also what's and one. Of the other examples. And I remember maybe it was the Macintosh of. And there was another one. Too. That the Twin Lakes one. If I looked at that just as far as parking spots, also knowing that we're in a bigger, larger state. Conversation around parking spaces and also nationally. Like what? Does that mean? And we tend to make this assumption about that means that that'll be so many car trips. And that'll be when I think about not just the area one, but area two. And three I'm wondering about. The climate goals in there as well. And so. There is. And I'm thinking about the intensive enroll. How do you decide that? What's the intensive use. Because there is another piece of impacting.

2:09:44When we do have space and we do have something that, as you were talking, it could be contigious or man sometime in the future being. A contiguous parcel. And so then it might not be overintensive. So there's all these different factors, but I do think there is an opportunity. To broaden that or maybe even make again kind of a. Sub intensive piece, whether we're talking about natural resources again, going back to the goals, what are the goals. That this comprehensive plan wants to focus on. Others on that question too. On both of those. The Subaru repair thing and the Macintosh academy. I actually voted no on both of those. And. One of the things that made the Subaru thing difficult was that it had industrial zoning. And so. For me, it was area three. It's intended to be rural. Having a repair and junk car lot. Is not rural, however. It was zoned industrial, and so I think. We need to consider at the county whether we're going to do a process to bring our zoning in line with. This area three designation. Because. For me? Yes, I voted no. But I can understand where.

2:11:20Well. You've got a use that's compatible with the zoning. How do you say no? I believe on both of those. The city referral was that. This is the proposed use. Is overintensive. It's not rural. It brings up for me, so. If this is a joint plan and we come up with these designations together, How much deference do we give the city? When. They're saying. We don't want you to do this in this area that we've all agreed. Should be rural residential. I don't know. But. I tend to think it's pretty important because. How this is developed does affect. The uses in the city it affects. For Macintosh Academy. While they tried to say, those kids are all going to ride their bike to school. They're. Not. So there's a lot of traffic that that would generate and stuff like that, so I think it's a worthwhile discussion about. How much we should take the. City's consideration into account, but I really think that. This part of the onus is on us to look at our zoning and see whether we want to undertake that process.

2:12:42Of updating our zoning. We've done that in other places. Up by lions and down Northwood Hills highways some distance. Where we did not want folks to be able to come in, and they're not. Within the Boulder Valley Comp plan boundary. I think that's really what I wanted to say about those things. Okay. Thank you, commissioner. Sulfur. I know we're not here to reconsider the land use applications that you've. Said, but just from my perspective. To clarify, in the Macintosh one in particular, it was about adding a cafeteria so the kids didn't have to eat outside. Not about people. Bicycling to school. So I know we viewed it differently and came up with different results, but. I think the question today is, would we. Add or remove considerations so we could have a clearer way of evaluating that on future applications. We all were able to evaluate the last one. I think the thing that I see in the community responses from the open houses and the survey and all the things that seems like it deserves. To be amplified are the environmental considerations. It seems like that is missing. With teeth, it seems like. There's a lot of language that just celebrates that. The community recognizes that, but it doesn't. Seem to be tied back into the outcome. So I see things about environment, water

2:14:07and climate change continually listed in all of those forums, so I think understanding what type of measurable. Measurable determination factors we could use to apply to understanding the intensity could be a positive improvement. And I want to check in with you because it's 202. If you want to continue this. In, like, a business meeting with the board. What's the next steps? We can continue this offline, I think. Because. Well, if there's three of you, it has to be a public meeting. So we can talk. I think one on one, I can follow up on some of the ideas. That you gave me today. So how much time do we have? Are we out of time? We've been in for 1 hour, which is what we were scheduled. We started a couple. Of minutes late, so I was just kind of watching the clock. I do have another meeting with workforce.

2:15:16I have to get to Longmont. Okay, well, we can, I think, proceed like we did after. The last conversation that we had like this, and I can follow up directly, individually. To circle back around the direction that you gave me and see if there's other pieces. To this that you're able to speak to at that time. Well, and I want to check in with the board, too, because I can do about another ten minutes or so. From what we've been doing so far, three questions will be another half an hour. I'm guessing with the board to just give everyone an opportunity to talk. I don't have that much time, but I'm happy to do another ten minutes. But I am not looking at my fellow commissioner's calendars, and I didn't. Look ahead of time to see if anybody had anything else. I think we can work on wrapping up. I have just a few more comments to the prompts. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I do have time. I think we can try to go a little more quickly. I'm happy to do my part to do that. Okay, that sounds good. Then we'll continue. And I can also excuse myself if the two of you want to. Stay for an extended amount of time. That's totally fine, too. I can just pass it. Over to

2:16:24the vice chair for facilitation with you, Hannah. Okay, so just on the next thing that I saw the significant question on, and really my final area of comment is just really on the mapping questions that you asked about, and so. This is where I see my comments. And next round, kind of relating back to what you were asking and talking about in your comments. Commissioner Lucheman. Just when I'm looking at the draft map that's included. For consideration. And I said this last time, so I'm sorry if it's repetitive, and everyone. Else just disagreed with me. That's completely fine. But it seems like we've made a map that is predominantly a map of existing uses, and that may be what our future plan is. But I'm not sure it is. So a couple of areas that I'll just. Highlight to explain what I'm talking about. One would be the IBM site, which is of course, incorporated and in the city. And again, I know that that's not really what we're reflecting on, but the IBM site is listed as an innovation hub on the west. Ish side of the diagonal and industrial on. The east dish side, and I'm not sure that. That is the vision from the community for the future use of that site.

2:17:35So I think more community conversation around that understanding that if that is the future use and the plan and the vision then I question the infrastructure we're building at that location and whether that's a good use of community resources. So I think more community conversation around the vision for that area. And some other areas of change. That's an area we know is an area of change. That we can anticipate something that's going to happen in the next 20 years. So we should be making sure we're clear in our vision. There another area I'll highlight just, and these are not exclusive of all the areas I see this, but I think that's how I would sort of view it as which property's valuations. Indicate to us that we think there's a significant likelihood for change, so.

2:18:23If. The built assessed value doesn't match the underlying land value, then you know it's. A high potential for an area of change or if there's some factor that's just not compliant with community vision. So an area I'll highlight like that would be the area around the Valmont reservoir. On the draft map as purple to represent facilities which is very consistent with the current state of that site, but I've heard so many different community visions when I'm out and about the community vision for that space. And they range all across the board. I wouldn't know what to color it today, just based on the feedback I've received, so I think focused community input would be helpful. I've heard ideas that it could be an open space. I've heard ideas that it could be a historic district.

2:19:05I've heard ideas that it could be intense development. I've heard ideas that it could be restored native and indigenous lands. So those are all competing ideas. And so having a clearer community vision around something like that, where there's significant environmental damage. There's perhaps opportunity for change in the next 20 year period. What's our vision? And then the last one. Is just one thing I'm struggling with in this draft is how you determined the vision. For rural versus open space. It seems like it's just what's consistent with the built environment and not necessarily the comprehensive plan. And I don't have a solution of how to answer that question. But it seems like that is more of a reflection of the built environment rather than a vision. And so if that's true, then I wonder about the value of both of those categories. Or if there's really one category, because if it's just a restatement. Of current ownership. I'm not sure that that's a plan. So that's just an aside that I'm not exactly. Understanding those two different categories. Thanks. Thank you. I might jump in on that section. Of the I had written that area down to. And the innovation and production hub and. Was just that for me, was back to that same question of like, is this the 15 neighborhood? Planning, and there's going

2:20:25to be this big commitment to the infrastructure and everything. That would make that happen? I don't know, but when I think of innovation, Production. What was it called? Innovation and production. Innovation might mean something different to what these folks are thinking. And it also begs to me the question of. What we know from Boulder county residents and what those asks might be for me, there's still these pinning questions again, thinking countywide. Of compost facilities. Of battery recycling centers just from some conversations I was in with some folks last week. The agrotourism. The maker space for farmers. Where does that fit? Because all of that doesn't have to. Only be in rural, rural areas. If we think about. If environmental asks were to have compost, what would that look like if it was actually in a city and accessible to more people and on transit and things like that, versus putting it. Out in another area, right along a waterway or something like that. And I don't know what questions you all are considering and thinking about. But to understand what that innovation might really include.

2:21:41So I appreciate what you're talking about, Commissioner Salzman. Just in which one comes first. The goals and the commitment for the next 20 years for Boulder county or what we know now. And what we already have. Are we trying to make that fit into something? And then might, unfortunately, have unintended consequence. Of folks who've been really involved in this process, feeling like. They weren't actually heard and the decisions had already been made. Similar to just the topic areas. Like, it was like, okay, here's the topics. And just from some of the feedback that we'd gotten and I shared with folks previously, as well. So that's just from a comment standpoint. And Commissioner Levad, I don't, know if you had something else on that slide. Well. On the future land use map issues. Yes. I think I also agree. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing on some of these things, like when we know that an area is going to be redeveloped and the IBM side is a great example of that. We as a community can say, oh, this would be ideal. For an innovation hub, whatever that is. And I have some comments on that, too. There may not be a buyer that wants to do that. I don't know how those two work together. So I think. For me, I guess

2:23:14I would look. At. I wouldn't be so specific on some of these things and innovation. And production hub was one where. I read it and read it and I thought, I don't really know how this is different from, say, A community hub. Or some of these other definitions. I can't see enough of these pages on my screen. At the same time. To be like, well, Do we really need to drill down that specifically into what goes on in these buildings? Because as I was reading. The description. Of. What an innovation and production hub is. It sounds to me like it's kind of getting at live work. It's talking about. Where businesses can start and grow. But why would we only identify certain areas for where we want businesses to be able to start? And grow. And do we care what kind of businesses those are? So I feel like this is really an unnecessary. Category and the things that you're trying to do here. You probably can just flesh out some of the others, and that would get rid of that worry. About identifying certain places for these things, but then maybe that's not actually what flourishes. And takes off there because. We've been too specific. So that was a comment on that.

2:24:53I think there was some language in here that recognized that these neighborhood one and two concepts maybe weren't appropriate for unincorporated Boulder County. For me, and this was a comment that came out of the last meeting, is that. If we stick with the area. One, two, three. If areas are going to evolve from what we mostly have, an unincorporated Boulder county of being single. Family. Not exclusively, but mostly. I think. There's consensus that they ought to be annexed. And so that's when the city would decide. What do you want this to look like? To me. That. Kind of does get us into this is an urbanized level of development, and it's something that in the principles of the plan, we haven't wanted to do. So I think there was some language in here, and I would endorse that language. That we would not apply. These land use designations in unincorporated Boulder county because I don't think they're helpful. And you had some questions up. On the screen about the policies and which policies. Yeah, there are too many policies, and I think the ones. We should not. If we join in, the city and the county should, and we have independent policies. In our comp plan. Unless the wording is identical. Then we have to scratch our head and go, oh, are we satisfying both.

2:26:28And if they're trying to get it, the same thing, let's just. Have one policy. I wanted to add in because it was kind of like throwing things in here just to try. And finish the timing or finish within my timing. I did have just a question in here. Around, and it was in that neighborhood. It was in a couple of the neighborhood slides around. Commercial space. And that innovation piece kind of fit in there, too. And this is not my area of expertise because I'm not in commercial real estate. But what I'm hearing is this conversation about in the city. That there is vacant commercial space. That has been there since 2020. And so. It makes me wonder about how when you're talking about what and that might be in the 200 policies that you're talking about. That's not our decision making. But when you're talking about, like, what else are we giving input about?

2:27:31Are there any additional criteria in trying to help us city make a decision about whether to move? Forward on some of these neighborhood commercial uses or innovation uses, et cetera, when there is other vacant commercial space. I. E. The legislation. Or tax incentives and other. To. Increase. That intensity of use versus some of the others that might be meeting other community needs and also the climate impacts. When you think about some of. The different. Commercial spaces. We hear about that in different places, but I just wanted to put that out there because I'm not in those conversations specific. To the area one. So nothing for response as much as just to make sure it's in the conversation and. If you all want to continue, I can pass this over to vice chair. Leave you so that you can continue on the policy development questions.

2:28:38Well, I do have time. Until I wasn't planning to use my whole afternoon for this, given what was on the schedule. I do have some time, but maybe. Hannah, what more were you needing to get from us? At this point here. I think the one thing that we really haven't touched on too much is this question. About policy development. Just. Is there some agreement by the board that we should. I'm going. To excuse myself. Be more or direction, I guess support more judicious about. What policies we sign on to and kind of developing a framework. To. Examine them. I gave you a series of questions. That we think are appropriate, that I think we think are appropriate for analyzing whether the county really needs to be involved in one of these city policies or not.

2:29:33And all of these questions are really just kind of taking your temperature on that approach. I was trying to quickly give my response on that so we could wrap up. Commissioner Stoleman, did you want to weigh in on this issue? I think I did, actually. I was trying to earlier, just in how I think we should approach. The decision making process. And some of the factors I think we should look at. And so. It's my answer to this is sort of mixed in with depending on. What we do with those other things that we've talked about with areas, maps and densities and how we address some of those other questions. But I'm interested in your comments to Commissioner Levy. Well, yeah, I think I already said what I thought about it, which is that I don't think we should have duplicative policies because. Then we don't know what to do if we haven't done the exact same. Wording and because. This goes through for body review, we can't really control that. So I think what was suggested. In the memo. On if it's not? If we already have policies in that area and they're pretty compatible. Then. The language. In the Boulder Alley comp plan would not say the city and county. It would just apply to the city, recognizing that this is the city's

2:30:57sole comp plan. So they need that. Language. Yeah. I think the only thing I'll add to that is that I've heard from a number of community members that. Really appreciate that there is. An added layer of consideration. So I think if there's no inconsistency with our policy, there's no issue with agreeing to have a joint policy. I think there are some areas where joint. Where we do want to have joint policies. And I think we've been talking about those areas. I agree. I'm only addressing. Those areas where there's just a minor difference in wording. I think this came up. With. The 63rd and Nywat Road. Subdivision request. Where, although it was just slightly outside the boundaries of the comp plan, Staff analyzed it according to the Boulder county comp plan and the Boulder Valley comp plan. On. I forget which resource, which element it was, but. There was a minor difference. Then it led to us having to actually go through two analysis on. What was essentially the same thing. Unnecessary, I think. But as long as the language says the city and the county will blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Then we really have to do both. So that's all. I just think. When they're very similar. We shouldn't have both. But on your second question. Is the BBCP the correct plan to address

2:32:45policies not covered in county adopted plans. I think. If. They're relevant to this notion of why we've engaged in this comprehensive planning process. In concert with the city. I. E. We want to have a shared understanding of future annexation and growth in the bowl Valley. Then I would say yes, right? Okay, well, I know we're over time. I appreciate you hanging in there for a little. Bit longer. This was helpful for me. And again, I just might do some follow up with you. One on one after make sure my notes. Were capturing our conversation.