Transcript

0:00:22All right, commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you. And we are recording. We're here for a meeting of the board of county Commissions in Boulder county. Today is Thursday, November 6, 2025, and all three commissioners are present. We have a few items on our agenda. So I'm going to go ahead and call our meeting to order and take us to number two on the agenda, which is our 09:00 a.m. public comment. Session. We have a public meeting on zoning violation at 1560. One southwest Hills highway and then a public hearing on perkinslance additions and shops. So that's the order of items. Let's go to item two a, which is public comment, and this is an opportunity here. At the courthouse in person, but also virtually for any public comment. And we're asking folks if there's an item that's not on the rest of the agenda as a different public comment that has its own specific hearing that we hear ideas and comments, et cetera. Today, November 6. There is no pool time. And so you'll see the speakers. Looks like we've got some on the list here if you didn't get an opportunity to sign up, but. Still want to speak this morning.

0:01:32You'll have an opportunity to do that, too. And we'll do another call and invite both here in the room and virtually before we close out. We have up to an hour, but we've got a couple of items you see behind. That to listen to ten folks. To share a public comment. So let's go here in the room. And it looks like Crystal Marktovich is first. And there's a clock there at this top of the screen. Just a reminder for any speaker, you can go ahead and come up. Just a reminder to any speaker to state your name, please, before you start? And you can give that to the deputy down here at the end. And you may need to move that microphone. Just get it close to your mouth, not just so. That we can hear you in the room, but also because of the archiving. Thank you. Hi. My name is Christian Makovich Netherland. I am the resident to initiate a project with Commissioner Martalo. Came in to recruit volunteers to restore natural land area as an alternative to abyss igos. Unfortunately, when BCPOs staff get involved. They shifted the project. Currently called with warriors to an area that had been treated repeatedly with herbicides. You can learn more about why Iran quid the project by reading the article published in 2024 in

0:03:13the Delhi camera entitled per term by pesticide in Boulder Weekly. During the campaign to start the ihold spraying of glyphosate and endosphlan. Border county resident demonstrated. The care for the public land, the approval of using drone to spray herbicide on BCPOs. Natural lands by two of our commissioner hit our community. Hub. However, we did not want to be left with a feeling of being abandoned and powerless. We created an email list for opportunities to join and support local ecosystem restoration projects on public network land without exposure to recent abide spraying. One of this project is the community based local ecosystem restoration project. On Winigo Ridge in collaboration with the National Forest Service. The project is approved by the local USFS ecologist with whom I coordinate. We also receive guidance from over local ecologists. Under my direction, volunteers manually collect cjs of Chigwas. Carnage and fistles and Mulene to limit the spread and to give an advantage. To native plants without disturbing the soul. Essentially, the community demonstrates that it can successfully steal the land. In boulder country. And achieve excellent results. This project was celebrated by the Society of Ecological Restoration. For an in person presentation during the 11th World Conference on Ecological Restoration in Denver. This October. I sent you the link towards the recording of our presentation. If BcPOs ever creates a restoration

0:05:11project. On natural lands, but have not been recently spread with a beside. Let us know so that we can advertise it on our list of volunteers. Such a project would align with the values of Boulder county residents. Would accurately elevate the effectiveness of a pilot project using volunteer to manually. Control invasive ways as an alternative to a beside and. Will support restoration efforts. Thank you. To revitalize the soul. Your time's up. I just have one question for you, if you have a moment. One of the pieces that you were talking about was a pilot project. And I remember the conversations with staff. We had some separate meetings. Administrative meetings. And your group was adamant about not working on any Boulder County Arps open space land that had ever had any kind of herbicide or treatment done to it. My question is simply, if you were able to, if parks and open space find any areas of boulder county parks and open space, land that hadn't ever been treated, that became could have been become a pilot project for the group that you were offering to do volunteer service. This was pointed. Even if it has been spread without this side in the past, it will be. Okay, if it would have been long enough, but in that. Was there a specific period of time that

0:06:37you were looking for? I'm just curious because. We are going to be working with staff on, okay? It's hard to say. I think it is going to depend on the quantity of herbicide but has been spread. What kind of herpecide so. I think we can reconnect and talk about that. I would be very happy to discuss with you. Okay. Thank you. We want to be rigid. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Eric Sweene. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Eric Sweene. And I want to talk about El Dorado Springs, where I live. I've spoken a few times before about the residential floor area being changed to 1500 sqft. Thanks, Claire, for talking with Dale case and checking that out. My request is twofold. Change the home size for El Dorado Springs and the other town. Sites to the median instead of 1500. Ask planning to complete the town site initiative. So I know this decision rolled out countywide was a huge endeavor, but on the ground in El Dorado springs made things worse.

0:07:52Took a system that was working with guardrails, some flexibility and really just broke it. Now it's 1500 size fits all. Doesn't fit. The. Community. I want to talk specifically about three things with the defined neighborhoods and that grouping. So the first one. As you know, home size depended on this countywide initiative on which the three defined neighborhoods. You were in subdivision. Other and then town sites. Only the town site group got smaller. There was an error that got presented to you. The town sites were always 1500 sqft, but. That was wrong. Effectively, it was 125% of the median, which was about 1800. Other two groups are their median. The only category that got smaller was the town sites. If there's a reason for that. Like the most monster homes, so be it. But there are no monster homes in the town sites. So just be consistent. Make the RFA or the home size the same as the other two. Categories. The median out there in El Dorado Springs is around 1800 sqft. Secondly, with those three categories, define neighborhood subdivision. Other town site. The smallest group is the town site by far. But beyond that, it's not a coherent category. It's a strange leftover. It was never meant as a permanent, defined neighborhood. You can just think of the other town sites that weren't chosen.

0:09:40There's only these five. And it's really a leftover from the town site initiative, which was supposed to be a two step process that goals implement them, then it got appendant half the way. So that town site category, it's just really a stranded category. Third. Last time tried to provide some history with the town site initiative. Town site initiative in El Dorado Springs involved a tremendous amount of county community effort. Gary Sanfordson was the lead. He did the same thing with the other Ford Town sites. The project never got completed. There was. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Lynn Siegel. Lynn siegel. Every time I come to this courthouse, I was 15ft from this fire attacker. And my neighbors that were, I thought. Acquaintances and friends for 2025 years. His wife was killed in that firetack. And now, when I saw him on the street finally. And I said, is that you, Lou? And he said, Fucking get away from me. I was sitting there. I followed them for a year, a full year. And I was sitting there 15ft from that fire attacker. And. Muhammad only deployed 16 of the 18 molotovs he had. And he blew the fire into the crown. And if he had deployed all 16, not only would everyone have been dead but me too. And I

0:11:34was sitting there and he saw me. He saw me. How could he kill another palestinian supporter? And then I get. Fucking get away from me. That's my reward for that. A Holocaust survivor from the JCC, where I'm now trespassed. She thanked me. Barbara Steinmuth, 97 years old. People in Gaza have to choose between. Using water to feed people. Water or use it? For agriculture. Food or water? You can't survive with that water. Now onto my situation. I'm passionate, as you know, about energy efficiency. For decades and decades and. My county. Screwed me over. Screwed me over. Ten years ago, I tried to get an energy retrofit and they did an unethical thing to one of their providers. Stellar, forcing them to do a solar installation under adverse conditions that would put them at liability. And Stella refused, and they dropped them after I'd spent hours talking to them. And that is supporting. Engaging your public to get energy efficiency improvements to their place. For ten years. I haven't had that as a result. And then I go and I'm. Eligible for the care program and EOC energy outreach Colorado and care Colorado. Affordable residential energy. I'm eligible for those now. That isn't my plan.

0:13:24What they had for me. $55,000 worth of stuff. My plan is better than that. It's for geothermal heat pump. It's $90,000. It's a huge investment, but at least maybe I could be a little bit warm. Until I can get together to do that. Do we have anybody else here in the room that was wanting to speak that didn't? Get a chance to sign up, go ahead and come up to the. You're fine. Go ahead and come up to the podium. And just a reminder to state. Your name before you speak. Sure. Good morning, commercials. My name is Carrie Chris Drainer. I live at 251 Gay street in Longmont. Glad to be here for Simpsons Covid, I think. A meeting like this. And I'm here today to talk about something that has touched my life extremely deeply. I have a family member that right around when Covid. Came upon us. Emerged with a mental illness that.

0:14:32Is very disturbing and difficult. And did go along with some substance stuff, kind of hand in hand. So this family member. Started with cocaine and ended up graduating to meth because it's cheaper. After she ran. Through her savings. Lived in California, owned her house. Had a regular life up to the age of 30. And long story short, over a dozen hospitalizations later m ones. Lengthy hospitalizations, treatments. I'm basically the person that is still there to always pick up the pieces as her. Mom. And I'm not going to mention her name, but. It's been an incredibly long journey and one that continues. She's on an IC. Right now, actually. Involuntary commitment here in Pueblo. And the reason I'm here today is because. I developed a sensitivity to meth residue. And unfortunately, it's really a horrible, horrible problem to have that be part of your life. And I started noticing about a year ago that I was going to businesses and getting that reaction. Including a very popular coffee shop here in town, my grocery store in Longmont, the Target in Longmont that I normally go to.

0:15:56And most of those places did admit to me that they were dealing with a problem. And so around that about six months ago, I contacted Senator Amabolay's office long story short, I'm an environmental advocate. Mostly in the electric sector and have been for many years, so this was a shift for me. But still an environmental issue. So. They basically, I talked to one of their aides who got back to me and they said, the problem is way, way worse than you could even imagine. We're seeing new construction that. Meth use is so rampant on the construction trade. That. They're finding that some of the buildings are contaminated before anyone moves in, so I'm. Just putting this on your radar. I can come back and speak about it again, but thank God we've got. Two b passed. And I'm hoping that you guys can think about working with the legislature on a task. Force. If possible, adding to what there may be resources, depending on what the budget cuts are and potential budget cuts. Thank you, Carrie. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else here in the room that didn't get a chance to sign up. Okay, so. We'll go ahead and close the in person portion of the public comment and we'll go to virtual. It looks like we've got a couple folks signed up, so

0:17:25we'll start with Larda Gonzalez. And just a reminder, just state your name. Ms. Laura Gonzalez. Thank you. As older county commissioners and settlers are responsible for setting a bit more than half a billion budget and I'm sure with the passing of measure two a, one a and one b, you. Will be happy to have the heart. Working citizens pay more taxes while you make $120,000 a. Year. This money you will fund out to programs that have been proven not to work as we have seen that the suicide rate at Boulder county is higher than it was 1520 years ago. To the person who just previously spoke. This money honestly has been funneled into the wrong programs. It's been proven that it's not working. And instead of having. People give money directly to the people to see where they needed the most. This county commissioners are divesting it to things that are not working. Why are we raising taxes and old people when we know it's going to impact the most marginalized. Does that make less than your own salary of $120,000 a year? Why are you not creating policies that are based on property value?

0:18:34Which majority? You already do decide. Where he goes. Why are you not creating policies that distribute the wealth equitably? What? Is the point of providing training to town employees around equity. You cannot. Lead by example. Is it because you don't know what equity is? Exactly and how it applies to all, including the palestinian people. I am here to demand that Ukraine policies which not only you have the power to do, but it's your responsibility to divest from corporations. That are implicit in the commission's international crimes connected to Israel's illegal occupation. Racial segregation, ethnic cleansing, LaNdF genital and opportune routine before October 7. Many of these companies are also completing the genocide of the Congo Amsterdam. And now they are here at home. Surveilling us. Just like talenteer working with police. Departments to deport our beloved immigrants. Just like flock is in the city of Boulder.

0:19:23You guys. As citizens who are present, you should look into flock. Are they violating your rights? I wonder the connection while you stand to support Israel, is it because you have that filler? Colonizer indoctrination that you can still land that consists of cutting women's breath so they cannot feed their babies, raping women, men and children, behaving babies which by the way, there is a lot of evidence that Israel doing this to Palestinians. Well, it had been debunked. Debunked? Hamas did the same to Israel. Israelis. That was just a lie to be able to amp up this genocide. I am here that you demand that? I am here to demand Ukraine policies that nonprofits must follow, both domestic and international law, such as the leashy law, you have been given the responsibility to make sure a budget follows both state and federal law. Many of our local nonprofits are not following the leaky. Law. One example is a jewish community center, which is funding money through tax accept donations to the iOS. Who's a foreign security force that is violating human rights with impunity, and they have been doing this before October 7, so you need to look at all nonprofits, including the jewish community center, including nonprofits that hide behind the name of a religion when actually they are trying to sustain a political ideology.

0:20:34I am here to call on you for a resolution. Thank you. Legal occupation. Just like you did for standing rock free Palestine. Lynn, you'll be asked to leave the hearing room if you don't allow other folks to be heard and participate. Sharia maloy. Good morning. Sherry Malloy, long month speaking to compost in April, members of sustainable resilient long Monzero waste team had a tour of a one's compost operation. In Keynesburg, where, as you know, Boulder County's organics are processed. Much was learned about their. Operation, which the county's compost report found to be the best method. The big shocker was learning the extent of microplastic contamination after processing, because all sources of single use compostable materials end up causing contamination. A one stopped accepting these materials. Still these continue to be in the stream and causing huge problems. Unlike recycling in markets which tolerate ten to 20% contamination. Composting markets have.

0:21:44Zero tolerance for contaminants. There are no profitable markets with gartners farmers landscapers even on g reclamation. For this low grade compost, a one has 425 acres with massive massive heaps of low grade compost stockpiles, much of it from Boulder county. This is not an a one issue, as all commercial composting facilities are. Contamina. Contaminated with microplastics. Although it looks nice and clean, it is anything but no amount of presorting screens nor filtering exists that can remove these microscopic pollutants. A one is the expert doing this? For 50 years, with scientists and engineers constantly trying solutions again. All composting operators have this problem. Though most, like republics, don't share this dirty secret like a one has, though well, intentioned the universal policies bowler has, where all residents get bins and are expected to follow the only food and yard race rule confuse the public and cause significant contamination. Commissioner Stoltzman's? Reply to this huge problem is more education. Let's be honest. No amount of education can get to 100% compliance, which is what is needed for a clean end product. Longmont's Optin program is the cleanest at a one because opt in folks are invested in doing it right and aren't throwing in inappropriate waste found in universal streams. So now what? Honest conversations need to happen. It's no one's fault. And we absolutely still need

0:23:06to get organics out. Of our landfills. The unintended microplastic pollutant consequence is like natural gas. Initially hailed a clean energy answer. Until we learned about fracking, Maya angel said. When we know better. We need to do better. Our approach to municipal compost requires a big paradigm shift before we get further down this rabbit hole, honest policy discussion needs to include one revisiting universal versus opt in policies. Two, not intern. Internally eliminating a one who have a giant site that addresses odor concerns and proximity to development. Three. Assessing whether it's more wasteful and costly to sign land and build a facility. Rather than using a one's capacity and resources. Four, exploring whether an all electric fleet might mitigate the environmental impacts of the Keynesborough facility. Could there be more preprocessing? The county could do to lessen transportation volumes. It's never too late to. Take responsibility and do a course correction. At the very least, please have the conversation. Thank you, Sherry. And I'm just going to check really quick and see if there was anybody else.

0:24:15Online, the phone number if anyone was trying to switch devices or two different devices. Eight, three, three. 568864. I don't see anybody else join on the virtual list, but we'll just give it a 32nd in case because there's a little lag behind on the tech side. And then commissioners. If there's any comments that you'd like to make. Not saying any additional speakers and give an opportunity to do that in just a second. I don't see anybody else coming on from the virtual site, so we'll go. Ahead and close the. Public comment side thank you. Any comments, commissioners? No. Okay. Thank you. And just a reminder for folks, there was, one of the speakers was still talking, I think, when the timer went off. So if there's something that you want to share, you can always.

0:25:09Use the commissioners at Bouldercounty. Gov email and that goes to all three of us. And that's for everybody. I didn't say that at the beginning, but that's. Still an opportunity as they're on the agenda, so we'll move to item. Two B, and it may just take a moment. For that next staff team to come up so that we can start. This is a public meeting. So there isn't a hearing section to item two b, but a public meeting on zoning. Violation at 1561 south foot Hills Highway. And as soon as you're ready and set up, you're welcome to go ahead. And start. Okay. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Mariah Sullivan. I am with cpp code enforcement. Today I am here. To. Present a request for permission to abate a violation of rubbish in Boulder county.

0:26:20The address is. 1561 Southwood Hills drive. B eight. Our purpose for being here today is to request Article 14, authorization to arrange for the abatement. Of rubbish as needed throughout the property. Located at 1561 South Foothills Drive, lot B. Eight. Boulder as defined under Article 14 of the land use code, the property owner. Sorry. The property is owned by Kathleen Martindale. The subject property is in San Suu Chi Mobile Home park, approximately at the intersection of Highway 93 and Marshall Drive. This aerial map from 2024 shows the property sits within the 100 year floodplain. The subject property is outlined in red. You can see here. On the photo. On my right. Yeah. You can also see. That the lot is filled with structures and accessory outdoor storage, along with what may be considered rubbish. According to the Boulder county land use code. I've got some photos here coming up for you. The first complaint regarding rubbish was reported on December 2, 2022. Multiple inspections have occurred. Violations have been mailed and reinspections have been conducted since December 2022. In January 2023, a response was received from the property owner, who asked for an extension to use the free dump days in the summer of 2023. That extension was granted. Staff reinspected the property in August of 2024 for review of compliance. The property owner

0:28:13had removed some of the items and added an opaque vinyl sheet to the front fence to shield the remainder from the adjoining properties and the public right of way. However, the removal of only some of the items did not fully abate the violation. The property still. Had more than 5% of the lot covered. In accessory outside storage rubbish and unpermitted structures. A second notice of violation was mailed to the property owner in September. 2024. The property owner responded again and was connected with the Boulder County Area Agency on aging as well as wildfire partners for assistance with removal after multiple meetings with both agencies as well as CPP staff, the property owner stated she would remove the items in question. The property was reinspected again in December 2024, and the property owner had removed the attached unpermitted porch, but did not remove any other items.

0:29:07An attorney letter was sent December 2024 and no response was received. I'd like to read the article. 14 definition for rubbish. Rubbish consists of garbage, trash, and junk, including, but not limited to, unwanted or discarded household items. Waste from building construction, remodeling and repair tree branches, grass and shrub clippings, leaves. Or other general yard and garden waste. Motor vehicle parts tires are abandoned, unlicensed in an operable. Motor vehicles, including, without limitation, mobile or manufactured homes, newspapers, magazines, packing materials, waste paper or cardboard dead animal carcasses or any other unsightly or discarded material which causes or is likely to cause a public hazard or nuisance or is unacceptably offensive in light. Of community standards of cleanliness or generally accepted neighborhood aesthetics. I've also listed the definition for accessory outdoor storage, which is article four 5116. And I'll read that too. Accessory outdoor storage is.

0:30:30Permitted in the mobile home district, provided it complies with article four five, one six k. Of the Boulder county land use code. Specifically, you may place items which are customary and incidental to the main use as residential on your property for more than 24 hours provided a the area of placement does not exceed. 5% of the lot area. B items are adequately screened from the view of adjacent roadways or properties. See any unit, bin, room, or container used for storage as a permanent structure. D any vehicle or trailers are licensed and operable. And are not used for storage. And e with the exception of the prohibition of vehicles. Well, this one doesn't apply. This is for agriculture, so I'll pass on that one. I have some photos here from the initial site visit in January 25, 2023. You can see this was the. First visit to this property. More photos from August 14, 2023, which was a revisit after she hit added the vinyl to the front of the fence and removed some of the items, but not all of them. There are some tall weeds growing up here. Maybe. Some flowers, but it's hard to tell. And again, a site visit on December 2, 2024. You can still see that she still has unpermitted structures and quite a bit of. What may be considered

0:32:11rubbish or accessory outside storage on the property. Visible from the public right of way. Article 14 procedures, if approved by the commissioners, will authorize the community planning and permitting director to seek an administrative entry and seizure warrant from a district court. If the court approves, it will authorize the county to enter the property to remove. All rubbish. The cost of abatement plus an inspection fee of 5% will be billed. To the property owner. Therefore. For the reasons described above and as outlined in the staff recommendation for abatement of these violations. Staff recognizes the urgency to clear the property of rubbish, unpermitted structures and accessory outside storage due to the threats to public health, safety and welfare. And community impact. For the reasons described above. Community planning permitting staff recommends that the board of county commissioners find that the violation exists and authorize the community planning and permitting director to seek an administrative entry and seizure warrant from district court as authorized by article 14 of the Boulder county land use code and section 30. Of the Colorado revised statutes. And that completes my presentation. If you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Just a little logistical. Question. It looks like there might be two pieces. You're asking for one to determine if there's a violation that exists or doesn't exist, and

0:33:49then also for an authorization. So just want to know if you're expecting two different votes or if one vote, depending. On where the board gets one vote. I'm sorry. We've determined that the violation exists. We're asking for the allowance to abate it, okay? I'm just reading what's on the screen. My apologies. Go ahead. Colin Maybury, assistant Boulder county attorney. For the record. The approach here that I would recommend is that the commissioners first determine whether or not to uphold the director of CPP's determination that there is the article 14 violation. Once that has been decided. Then you would proceed with authorizing the CPP director to seek an administrative entry and seizure. Warrant. Okay. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? Commissioner Levy. Yeah. Thank you. I do have some questions. Thank you for being here. You may not be able to answer this question, but you mentioned having referred the owner of the property. To Boulder County's senior services. And you may have mentioned another resource as well. Yeah, wildfire partners. Wildfire partners. That's. Right. And I think what I'm wondering about is sometimes. In these situations where people have accumulated so much rubbish and just stuff on their property, it's. Just stuff. That can be indicative of an emotional issue. That would make it extremely difficult for them to let go of these things. While. I

0:35:36recognize what the code says. I recognize what is shown in the pictures. I understand your whole history. I do wonder. What kind of support we might be able to offer this individual. And I realize. Your code enforcement. You're not community services. But I do wonder whether there's a component here where this individual may need some emotional support. Yeah, I would agree with that. Maybe I can give a little history on what was offered to her that she refused, so I referred her to the area agency on aging, and they connected with her. They offered to bring assistance in to help her clean. I know that they were able to donate some funds from some of their grants to help. Put, I think, a furnace in her home as well. She had a lot of stuff going on. Additionally, I connected her with wildfire partners who purchased a dumpster and put it outside her. Home. For, I think, three weeks. She refused to use it. I met with her multiple times myself, and I offered her some other ideas. Maybe. To donate her art supplies in her yard to maybe a local nonprofit or someplace she could use. Them. She flat out refused any of the help that we offered to her repeatedly. I don't know that area. Agency and Aging referred her to mental health

0:37:03services. Once I referred them, I stepped back, so I don't know. There. Okay, well, thank you. For elaborating a little bit more. I would say that behavior is not necessarily. Inconsistent. With. Needing some mental health assistance and. It's beyond the scope of what you can do, but I think we do need to. Recognize that. That may be at play here. And we can get our community services or mental health partners involved here to try to assist the owner. Okay? Period. Thank you. Thank you. It doesn't look us. Any other questions? I don't have questions, necessarily. Thank you for sharing a little bit more about what you have done. I saw some of the in the packet, the memo. But to hear a little bit more about what you have done and I would just say that it sounds like you've gone above and beyond code compliance and. So just want to acknowledge that in regards to offering additional services, et cetera, and I'm just looking at what's in front of us as far as. What I heard. Ask about upholding the director's decision. I read it as recommendation. Of findings that a violation does exist.

0:38:26It doesn't look like there's no more questions. We don't have public comments. I think we just need to go into discussion board. Thank you, chair. I'll just add. I'm very uncomfortable talking about. The individuals. Of their personal life. I don't know anything about that. That's not what we're. Here to discuss today. I just am looking at if this is a life health safety issue and it is like this. Is a high wildfire risk area, and everyone in the neighborhood is being put at risk and I'm a little bit alarmed that this is taken. Three years. Something like that. And so I appreciate all of the efforts that were made, but it puts the entire community at risk to not abate this issue. So I would uphold the determination and approve the abatement. And I agree that there's a violation that exists, and so I don't know. If you want to do a motion for that part, that's the way. Heard the attorney was a motion for the first piece, and then we can discuss the second. I do. Just want to confirm that we do not need. To take testimony. From anybody else. The owner of the property? No. Okay. No. Okay, fine. I don't have the document in front of me, but. I assume so. I'll make a motion. And sorry, just for the

0:39:45record. The owner was provided with notice and the opportunity to appear and or participate in this hearing. Okay. Very important. So really quickly, just. From a procedural standpoint, was this notice as a public hearing, and then the applicant or the party opted not to, and so it was changed to a public meeting. I just want to understand. What's sitting in front of me on the screen and. How I read it out as a public meeting versus a hearing. Yes. So the way I would describe that is as a public meeting. It is not open to public comment generally. But. The affected property owner is able to appear and respond. Thank you. And chose not to. And chose not to. Okay. Thank you, commissioner levy. Yeah. Okay, so we've, made a record that the affected property owners had an opportunity to come. And contest. The finding and the recommendation, so. In Docket zon 220115. 415 61 Southwood Hills highway, lot B eight I move that. We uphold the determination that a zoning violation exists and authorize community planning and permitting to abate. The violation. To seek a warrant to have a. Seek a warrant to abate the violation. I have a second. I just had a friendly amendment, and it might have just been the way I heard it. I heard you say the zoning docket

0:41:22is 0115, and my screen in the packet says zero. 1117. Okay, if I said that. Just for the record. Thank you. So there's a motion, a second friendly amendment, all in. Favor. Aye. Thank you. And so it doesn't look like there's anything else you need from us. That covers both of the items that were in the ask. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. So we'll move to our next item, which is item two c, which is a public hearing on Perkins lands, editions and shops. Will allow our community planning and permitting teams to swap here so that. We can hear presentations. Just as far as what's going to happen here. We'll have presentation. The applicants will present. We'll have public comment both here in the room and also virtually. And then board. There might be some questions for folks, and then we will go into discussion and. Deliberation because we are being asked to make a decision on this item, and so we'll just give staff for a couple of minutes. To get screens and presentations.

0:47:31Sorry. Commissioners having some one drive issues, so it'll take another minute. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I believe I'm ready now. Great. Thank you. So go ahead and turn it over to staff as described. Kind of the plan of. What this hearing will be about. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, this is Sam Walker with the community planning and permitting department. I was the reviewing. Planner for spr 20 517 the Perkins Lance editions and shop at three eight five millionaire drive east. The applicants have requested an appeal of the director's determination for this application for site plan review. And so that's why we're here today, and that's what? I'll be speaking about. So Robert Lance and Elizabeth Perkins are the applicants. They also own the property. The zoning is forestry. And it's about three acres in size. It is a legal building lot. There's an existing 2684 square foot residence, according to the assessor's record. In the staff determination, that was revised down to 2313 sqft. There were also several unpermitted sheds and an abandoned mine shaft noted on the parcel. We reviewed a site plane review request to construct 980 total additions to the existing residents as well as the construction of an 864 square foot detached garage on this parcel.

0:50:52I'll note that this application for site plan review came in prior to the new regulations. For site planar view being adopted. So it's been being adopted, so it's been recording to the standards that were active at the time that the application was submitted. So we are still using the presumptive size maximum for this project, which in this case, was 4270. Total resulting size proposed was 4156.8. Residential floor area. The proposed site disturbance was 470 cubic yards of nonfoundational earthwork. And then 475 cubic yards of foundational earthwork. The proposed maximum height above existing grade for the additions was 22ft and then the applicant's proposed hardy board and stone siding and metal roofing for all of the structures, as well as charcoal brown colors on the siding and a dark gray roof. Just to orient everyone. Here's a vicinity map of the parcel. So it's located. On the south side of Sugarloaf Road, although it's not accessed from sugar loaf. Road directly. Generally west of the city of Boulder. Here's a location map so you can see the parcel does actually cross sugar loaf road. Although it's accessed from millionaire drive east, which we'll see in just a second. This is a 2024 aerial of the subject parcel. I'll point out that the existing residence is right here in that westernmost corner. Millionaire Drive east extends west

0:52:16from the residents past. The neighbor and then kind of loops back around and enters. Or intersects with sugar loaf road over here. The comprehensive plan identifies a repairing area associated with Bummers Gulch. There's a view protection score of 2.41 out of five along sugar Loaf Road. And then we also have an archaeologically sensitive area. Although, as noted in the determination letter, none of these resources are directly impacted by the proposal. We also have a contour map showing the slopes on the parcel, so it generally slopes downward. From west to east towards sugar low froat and bummers Gulch. There are nearby Us forest service lands kind of around the entire parcel. Although all of the unshaded parcels you see in this image are privately owned. And finally, as I stated earlier, it's in the forestry zoning district. So these are the fact sheets that were submitted with the application. I have the asterisks. There because. They didn't correctly indicate what was proposed. And so there was some discussion of that in the determination letter. I'm happy to pull that up if we want to take a look. But. It's not really terribly relevant to the discussion today. And then I have the neighborhood size analysis. The green line over the bar on the right is. Just supposed to indicate roughly their position with their resulting floor

0:53:35area relative to existing development in the neighborhood. These are the site plans that were submitted by the applicant. So on the left. We have kind of the first floor editions proposed, so they have some existing basement that they're proposing to reconstruct. And then some additions to the basement level of the residents. That's this structure right here. And then we have the detached garage shown to the left. And then in the right hand image, we have the main level editions, which for the residents is the upper level, so they're. Doing some bump outs on the north. And west sides of the structure. These are the elevations for the resonance. So this is the west facing elevation. Then we have the east facing elevation. The north elevation. And the south. And then we have all four elevations shown here for the detached garage. So now we'll take a look at a couple of site photos. We'll come back to this one. I'll explain why later, but this is one of the first photos. That I took when I visited the site. So this is a large cut area that is not actually on the parcel, but was a relatively recent cut. And it is basically directly above the split in the driveway that approaches the residence. And as usual, on the left hand side of the screen,

0:54:54I have an aerial photo. The arrow overlaid on that is the rough location and direction that the photo you're seeing was taken from. So, panning slightly to the right of that previous image, we have the driveway entry, which is again, not on the subject. Parcel so. It's a two pincer driveway. The left hand side or the west driveway approaches the main level of the residence and will approach the detached garage. The east driveway goes to the lower level of the existing residents. So in this photo, we are proceeding down the west driveway. You can see the residents off in the distance. And there's a view of the existing residents. And then on the left hand side, where the van is parked. That's a rough location of the detached garage. And just a slightly better view of that with another cut area. These were the unpermitted sheds that we noted during the site visit. The applicant's.

0:55:46Intention to remove them once the shop is constructed or the garage is constructed. So that was one of our recommended conditions of approval. This is a view facing to the west of the shop location. So the van is a good reference point there, but this is the rough footprint outlined in red. And then I have some lines showing. The approximate location of the various additions proposed to the residents. So this is the main level kind. Of southwest corner. Then we have a bump out under this existing covered porch. Now, we're on the north side of the residence, so this would be an addition on two levels, both the main and basement, and then moving around to the east side of the residence. We're looking at the basement level bumpout. And then. A view basically from the opposite angle. We also have the existing mine shaft that I noted a minute ago. And then just a view of the south face of the building. And again, some of those sheds. So then this photo and I think the next one are from the east driveway, so we're. Facing away from the residents, back up the hill.

0:56:53And then about halfway up the driveway, facing back toward the residence. The west driveway is just out of view to the left of this image. So referral responses. We got pretty standard comments from everyone listed on this slide. The building safety and inspection services team just noted general permitting requirements. Excel Energy had some recommended changes to the plans that we just want to see at the building permit to maintain radio clearances. From the various power lines. The public health boulder county public health department noted that the proposal would add a bedroom. And so had some additional septic permitting requirements. Once that bedroom is added. The wildfire mitigation team noted that wildfire mitigation would be required for the property and recommended increased ignition resistant materials due to the proximity to the property line. The parks and open space. Natural resource Planner had no significant natural resource concerns but required a revegetation. Plan at building permit. The access and engineering team referral response came in two parts, so I've tried to summarize that here. And that's kind of the main reason that we're discussing this application today.

0:58:01So the Access and engineering team referral response noted that Millionaire drive East, which is the access road to this parcel generally does not meet the county multimodal transportation standards in a variety of ways. They did note all of the deficiencies in their referral response. I didn't summarize them here. But the determination was made that it was a proportional agreement or a proportional response to the proposed additions to require some of the MMTs. Be met on the access road. And what that boiled down to was the installation of emergency pullouts. At 400 foot intervals along the road. An addendum submitted by the access and engineering team to their original referral indicated that the applicants could use existing driveway cuts for other residences along the road, as some of the pullouts so they wouldn't have to install.

0:58:47I forget how many it was, but six or eight of them, they would only actually have to install. Two in areas where the distance between two driveways wasn't quite enough. To avoid that standard. They also had some other requirements around. Drainage and grading plans. Construction, staging and things like that. After the applicants appealed the director's determination, we also received a referral response from the Sugarlove fire protection district, which was forwarded to the applicants and the commissioners last week. So the sugar loaf Fire protection District also requested an emergency turnaround, which I should have mentioned. That was something that was also required by the. Access and engineering team located on the property. Specifically. So the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District referral echoed that requirement. They also gave more specific locations. For pullout that they feel should be installed along the access road and then noted that there's an existing pullout that should be improved in order to be used as one. That they wanted to have as well. So basically, they acknowledge that there's a partial pull out already. They still want two additional pullouts along the access road. We received. No concern. Response from the historic preservation team and no response from the real estate team. The parks and open space department, as well as the conservation easement team, the state's division of Water Resources,

1:00:14the Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Forest Service. So I've only included two of the site plan review standards. We can talk about the other ones if we need to. But the first one. Was the size standard. So just to make sure that we were all on the same page, that staff were okay or. The director determined that the size of the residence residential development would be compatible with the neighborhood there. Was some confusion based on. The fact sheet submitted with the application, but it was laid out in the determination letter, I think. Pretty clearly that the total resulting size is below the presumptive size maximum. We had no concerns about the square footage. The second standard that I've included is a three, which requires that the location of existing or proposed building structures, equipment, grading or uses shall not impose an undue burden on public services. And infrastructure. So again, as I stated earlier, staff found that. The millionaire drive east. The access road is not compliant with the multimodal transportation standards we recommended the installation of emergency pullouts at 400 foot intervals along the road, with the caveat that they can use the existing driveway cuts along the road. As pull outs.

1:01:23The Sugar low Fire Protection District referral also required one pull out and the improvement of an existing one that they found during a site visit. This slide was prepared for the hearing by our access and engineering team. I apologize. It's a little bit difficult to read on the screen. But this shows the approximate locations where staff would recommend the installation of pullouts. So this arrow indicates the intersection of millionaire drive. Oh, and hopefully you can see my cursory this area. Indicates. The intersection of Sugar Loaf Road and millionaire Drive east. We have the first pullout approximately in this location, we would ask that the applicants actually propose a location at building permit along with an easement, allowing them to construct one in that area, and then. We're requesting a second pull out location on this stretch of millionaire Drive east as it approaches three eight seven millionaire drive, which is the adjacent neighbor. I was able to speak with the sugar low fire protection district last night to get clarity on where their proposed locations were. So that's what's shown on this slide with the yellow circles. So the first one approximately matched the area where staff would like. One approaching three eight seven millionaire drive. That's the westernmost yellow circle you see here. And then the existing pull out that the fire protection district

1:02:43would like to see improved was that cut area that I showed in my first sight photo. Basically directly west of the split in the applicant's driveway. So just for reference here's. That photo again. I can always pull it back up if you would like to take a look. So staff are recommending that the board of county commissioners uphold the director's determination for SPR 25 0017. The Perkins Lance editions and shop, subject to the conditions that were described in the staff recommendation. I have a summary of those conditions on the next slide. The site plan review determinations are structured a little bit differently. So if we want to edit text, we'll have to pull up the actual letter, but otherwise I'm. Available for questions if you have them. Thank you, Sam, for the presentation, the materials and the updates. As the. Date has gotten closer to us in records. And the update on the phone call or the conversation. With that updated slide in regards to sugar loaf. Commissioners, any questions? I don't have any. Questions.

1:03:43Thank you. Thank you. Kushner, Sulfon. None for me either. Thank you. And. I do have one question. And. I was looking at the determination letter and just trying to figure out which piece of the code. That the appeal was addressing. I'm looking at land use codes. I feel like maybe I'm in the wrong spot, so I just want a clarification. If you don't. Mind. I'm looking at article four, eight, six, say plan review standards. And I've read it as a three. And what was in the slide? To me, looks like a one. So, sam walker, cpmp. So again, this application came in prior to the current spr standards. And so the old standards, that was standard three. When the updated site pointer view regulations were adopted. Some of the standards were changed, and some of them got new numbers as part of that, okay? Thank you. That's what I was confused about. And the way that I was reading. The first paragraph a in here that it says when two or more of the standards listed below conflict, then we look at the applicability. So I feel like I'm looking at the wrong document with the different numbers, et cetera. And. I don't argue. With the piece that was in the packet around location of existing or proposed Boeing structures equipment and grading, but. I

1:05:09was looking at the other language of what was previously a three in regards to the wildfire. Risk and appropriate mitigation measures, so. For me. There were two items, but I just felt like I was looking at something different, so. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you for that. If there's any additional questions. So then we'll go over to the applicant for. Presentation that you have and just a reminder to get close to the microphones and state your name for the record, and if you have anybody online, just let us know, and then commissioners may have some questions for you. And either way, after the public comment, you'll have the last word. When we hear back from staff. So just to give you an idea of kind of the flow, on what we'll be expecting this morning. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Elizabeth perkins, this is rob lance. We are the homeowners. And the only thing that we're appealing here is the requirement that we do off site. Pull outs on our neighbor's property. We don't believe that what we're doing. To our home has any impact on millionaire Road. We're not changing the use there's. Not going to be more cars going back and forth. So we just think it's out of proportion to require. Us to do things off site for

1:06:31purposes of doing some modest changes to our existing structure. I had submitted a letter that I hope you all received. And I'm not going to read from the letter and just assume that it is part of the packet and part of the record. Thanks. So what I'd just like to do is actually. Mr. Walker covered a lot of this. But just kind of give you some visuals in order to understand what it is that we're up to and how little it's going to be changing things. So what you see right here. That's our house. From the front, that's looking east. This is an aerial view from the back. Many of these pictures are the listing photos. We didn't go and make others. One point of clarification. I would like to make. This is a picture of a survey that was done just before we purchased the land. This is actually not what the current survey would look like. But the differences are really not material.

1:07:34We had a minor land swap. In order to get our well on our land, but it didn't really change things very much so. What you're looking at here. Why my mouse isn't working. This is a very touchy mouse, okay? You can see, that's. Our home there. And. This road here. We call it the Shelf road. It actually isn't millionaire drive east. It's gone by the name of millionaire road north at sometimes. But right now. It's just a driveway that. Accesses. 385, that's us. And 387 right here. There aren't any other homes that are accessed by that driveway. That road is a shelf road and it's about 10ft wide. We have an easement that goes from millionaire across. The shelf road. The shelf road. Yeah, okay. But this here is millionaire drive east. That connects with sugar loaf, and we have an easement. For the existing road. It is Indonesian, like what you see in modern east, where it's defined by meats.

1:09:01And bounds or by the standards that, say, 20ft or 28. For the purposes of pull outs. So in order for us to comply with this requirement, We went to our neighbors and asked them if. They cared if we put pull outs on their property. And in the places where both the fire department had recommended and where we assumed. We would need to put the pullouts. The subject property owners objected. They don't want us to do it so we don't have their consent. And that sort of puts us in a position where we would either have to do it without their consent, and I think that would subject us to liability and trespass. Or take them to court and get the right to do it. I don't think the fact that the standards say that right of ways in Boulder are 20ft. Has the effect of allowing us to make something 20ft wide. When our easement is only as wide as the existing road. This is a drawing that Rob prepared, and you can see the distances between the existing pullouts. When you consider that driveway.

1:10:32As you see, the driveway is in brown. And the structures are in gray. And. The distances that you see between. It's never more than 500ft. In every instance, there at least is a pull out. Within 460ft. Or so. Putting the pull outs within 400ft. Yes, that would bring. Excuse me. Bring it closer to compliance with the standards, but. It wouldn't really make a material difference in. How the fire department accesses. Our road. These are the drawings that we submitted. Sam presented them to you already, so I'm not going to belabor it, but from a visual aspect. Except for the new structure. What we're proposing isn't really going to change what you see from a distance. We're staying within sort of the framework of the house as it exists. This is just to understand what our house is like and why we want to do certain things. This is a listing picture. It's not 100% accurate.

1:11:54But we have one bedroom on the first floor. It has a very tiny little bathroom and a tiny little closet. So what we're proposing to do is bump out. To give a walk in closet in an en suite bathroom and knock down the tiny ones that exist. You'll see. This staircase right here is exceptionally steep. I don't let my parents use the staircase. And when I go up and down, I hold on for dear life. So we are proposing. To open up a little bump out here to have a nice, wide code compliant staircase. With a landing going down to the basement. Our kitchen. Is tiny and it's in the living room. What we would like to do is move the kitchen into where the formal dining room is, right? Now, the dining room is also my office. And have a proper eating kitchen. This is a drawing of the basement. Also not completely accurate.

1:13:00It's missing a crawl space. That goes across the lower level, but. What we're proposing to do is take the existing two car garage, which is not functional. At all. And I'll show you pictures in a moment. And make that a mud room entrance, which we desperately need. We have all dirt roads up there. Things get very muddy and then. A utility closet, laundry and that kind of thing. And then. Make. A play area and then two small offices downstairs. Changing to have the. So, two small bedrooms downstairs. We don't anticipate, we'll. Be doing that very soon. I think with the expansion, we'd like to probably just. Rough it out, and then when we're able to basically refinance to afford a new septic system. Then we'll add the third bedroom. So that's not on the near term horizon. What we want to do is start with the two car garage in the shop. You've seen these drawings? So I won't. Be labor that. But just by way of illustration, this is our existing garage. It's six foot five with the door closed. Less than that with the door open, Rob. Is six foot four and. His headphones going in and out. None of our vehicles can fit into the existing garage, so that's the reason for wanting to build a separate structure. And in addition, we

1:14:29want to do a lot of the renovations on the interior on our own. And so to have a shop for us to be able to do that would be very helpful. The reason why we want to redo the basement. This is what is called the bedroom in the basement. I would call it a hallway. This picture is taken from the advantage of the garage. So you're standing in the garage, looking in at the bedroom. It's got this. Very, very janky fireplace in there that we'd like to take out. And then up here it goes directly to the staircase. So it's not really much of a room. This angle is from inside the staircase. The rest of the basement is bare dirt floor. So there's only a couple of square feet. That is ostensibly habitable, but it really isn't. It's not insulated. On the floor, it's ice cold. So just flipping through rest of the basement.

1:15:28We have done our wildfire assessment. We did that right away when we moved in, and one of the important things that they're requiring is that they're requiring that we redo our Eve's structurally. They're open. And that safire hazard and just the condition is so decrepit. That there's holes. And it's a fire trap. So that's something that we need to do. And in addition, having a non combustible. Finish. Was recommended, and that's something that we would like to do. So we plan to do Hardy board. Of something of the like. Here is the pictures. That wildfire partners took of the eve's and explain why we need to completely close them off. To avoid that fire hazard. And here's a picture of the conditions of the eve. If you look up there. That's where the woodpeckers live.

1:16:26And wasps. You can also see that we have these overhanging fireplace here and an overhanging bay window here. Those are things that it's recommended that we get rid of. For fire safety reasons. Similarly, this is the bedroom fireplace that you see right here. That's overhanging. None of this is compliant whatsoever. We don't use that fireplace at all. So that'll be removed, you can see. That here in the bedroom. Here's the tiny closet and here's the tiny bathroom. Which prompted us to want. To replace with the bump out and then tiny kitchen in the living room. This is where the future kitchen is going to go. So what I'm trying to say is that this is a modest proposal. We're not really changing the use. We're not creating an undue burden on the fire department by making the changes that we want to make. In fact, I would contend that what we are doing. Will vastly improve the fire safety and just the physical safety of our home. As to the question of turnouts. We do have existing turnouts. At. The end of the lower driveway.

1:17:48Where the sheds that aren't supposed to be there are. There is a turnout there, we'd probably have to take down a tree. In order to make the fire department happy, but we don't think that they would actually. Use that turnout just because the steepness of the driveway. The turnout. That the cutout land. That. Sam was referring to. That's actually not on our property, so I don't know. If that would satisfy. The requirements that were stated. It is the best turnout. It's the one the fire department. Would use. And Rob is a member of the fire department and has done his training. On how they would approach 385. We have a turnout on our property that will comply, but it really isn't practical. The practical turnout is on our neighbor's property. And should there be a desire to change it, we know that the existing owner.

1:18:54As of a week ago, the then existing owner had no problem. With doing any cutouts there. But the current owner, we haven't met. The house just closed on a sale, so we don't know what their position would be at the moment. We have a compliant turnout. On the top of our yard. This is Rob driving a fire truck. But as soon as we. Put that? For one thing, it's too close to the house. For it to be compliant, you need to be 50ft away. And once we put the shed in, it would no longer be compliant or no longer be functional. I want to see if there's anything else. Just the mine. Do you have any questions? Thank you for your presentation and any questions. Christchurch. Thank you. Chairla, I had a question. Could you go back to the slide for me? That. Had sort of the locations of the turnouts that are proposed on your neighbor's property. In Green trapezoids. Okay, that is. Toward the beginning. Sorry to do that. Okay. Thank you is what Rob proposed to the neighbors. And the neighbors here at 241. You can't really see it from the picture, but topographically. You've got your shelf road above. This is millionaire Gulch, so they are down at the bottom of the gulch. In order to do this, pull out. If

1:20:38you don't mind, I'll just ask a question in case. My question is. Different than where you're going. I don't want you to overshare information. You don't want us to. Have or under share. So if you don't mind me interrupting you. Sorry to do that. So first, just wondering, you were talking about the current owner of 387. So the fire department. Had. There's basically three turnouts. I'm going to ask you about one. Is both the fire department and the transportation staff identified a need for public service turnout. One the fire department determined and one the transportation staff. So the first one I want to talk about is the one that is not on this picture, but it's on 387. It sounded like. You were supportive of having a turnout in that location. Somewhere on your neighbor's property between 387 and 385, and you just don't. Know yet. If the new owner will be supportive of improving that turnout. It sounded like there's already something there. It just needs improvement. Actually, this is Rob Lance. So the fire department requested a turnout. In the road or the driveway between. 387 and 385. Our property. That road is actually 341ft. Between existing turnouts, so that's not even needed by code. So I'm just asking. In the referral document, the fire district has said they can't provide service to

1:22:03this house without a turnout there, so I'm just asking you. If you have any issue with the turnout there. I do because it's not needed. The code says 400ft. So why would we put one. For 300ft. Well, 300 section, if you want me to stick to it, has to be every. 400ft, you're going to get an unfriendly. Then I'm going to make there be one every 400ft. So I was going to. Lean on the fire district's recommendation, which was not to have one every 400ft and I thought I heard you saying that you guys were okay with that one. We're okay with the turnout on the top because it is existing and that is the turnout the fire department would use to attack a fire at our house. That's what they've stated to me personally, right, and it sounded like it needed some improvement, so I'm just trying to understand. You don't know yet, I think is what I'm understanding you to say, and. I just want to clarify that about whether or not you can get permission to improve the turnout. On 380 Seven's property, correct? Okay, and then the second turnout I want to talk about is the one you have shown it.

1:23:07On 241, but I'm not sure that I read in the transportation staff's evaluation. Or. In the fire district's request that it was that prescriptive, so I just wonder. If you've explored other locations on that stretch, that would be somewhere between. 395 and 387. So this little portion here. Is forest. This portion here. We could do it anywhere here because 380 is fine with it, but it's. Kind of superfluous because this driveway right here. That I'm pointing to. You could land a helicopter there. So it was our understanding that. At least where Sam drew the circles that it was on this 241 parcel. Okay, I'll ask a question to him later. There may be some options somewhere in that stretch that could work. Yes and no. They could work if our neighbors were ordered to do it. But we can't. Is what I'm saying. We don't have the rights to do it without their consent. I appreciate that. It's not unheard of. For the county to order off site improvements, and you might tell a developer to go acquire the easements. What we're saying. Is to require us to do that. To go to the mat with our neighbors is an undue burden in itself that.

1:24:56It wouldn't really. It's not materially changing the situation. And. It basically keeps us from being able to do our project altogether. And I know it's kind of funny because I'm asking questions and not explaining. What I'm thinking at the moment, but it's the time for questions, and so. I appreciate and understand what your argument is. I'm just trying to get questions answered to. Have a discussion about all the different inputs, so I'm just trying to understand. How much investigation has been done into the location of this potential turnout? Between 387 and 395. So Rob has measured it out, staked it out. Let's see if I go to the next slide. Where you have the distances. This 241 parcel really is. The spot. Most beneficial spot. The most beneficial spot. There's a non compliant turnout here, but it's actually. How wide did you say? It was pretty big. It's 18ft. Across the total road, so it's only lacking a couple. Here. There's a tiny turnout, but again, this is a shelf road with a wall. Of rock here. You kind of have to go on the shelf road side. Down the gulch. And fill dirt rather than cut out here, because this is the opening of a mine that's. Been closed. So the other side just opens up a whole other can of

1:26:39worms. Reclamation. And I'm just looking at it looks like 193 plus 168 plus 450 is a really long stretch, and it looks like we have two agencies that both are saying that's a really long stretch. It is. And physically what you're able to do with that really long stretch. Is tough. Okay, can I cliffs off and then it's a wall on the other side. Can I ask a question? Connected? I think I have my questions answered, too, so thank you. Okay, well, since we're on this diagram. Along that area that you were just talking about between 387 and 395. Get the feet measurements, the little areas along 241 and then looks like 391 and 395. I just heard you described those. As. Pull outs or turnout areas already that are there. 18 foot was one that you mentioned. Do you know the measurement of the other one? It's a little shorter. I think it's like 16 or 17, something like that. And the requirement was 20ft, is that right? So you would need a twelve foot road with. An eight foot. Yeah, 20ft. Okay. And they are maintained. We grade them every year. And those two. Both. Is that true? You said 241 you've talked to and they're not interested. In helping right now. And then 391 and 395 are in the same spot. Is

1:28:20that what you're saying. 391 does not object. 389. Does not object. But unfortunately, I don't think that gets us where we need to be. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure I was interpreting the diagram right. But then also that I heard you write in regards to what's already there. Thank you. Additional questions. Commissioner stole. I guess I do have one question that will come up later. And you might think that this is a wild question right now, but I think it's important for maybe a future discussion, depending where this goes. Did you consider eliminating adding an extra bedroom? From the proposal. Yeah. Well, for one thing, we don't think we're even going to get, we have nine years of useful life on our sewer and it's going to cost 40,000. Or so.

1:29:13To replace. And so the thinking. Was in the future, we could have a third bedroom. We don't need a third bedroom. We're just us. But that would be something. Down the road. Sort of more to be able to recoup. The value of all the investments that we're making. To be able to reappraise at a three bedroom, two bath level instead of a two bedroom, two bath. Would be substantial. But. And I have no idea where our discussion will go, and this may be a bit out of order, but. Where I disagree with you primarily is just, I think adding an additional bedroom is what adds significant additional need for public service. You have an additional at least one person sleeping there that needs an ambulance to come save them. There are additional car trips for an additional bedroom, like there's a lot of data on that, so I think. Where I see it, different than how you've presented it is really around the bedroom, not what you're saying that you're going to do is a shop in a garage. Which I would agree doesn't add an additional amount of trips, but I don't. Agree with you on the bedroom, so they're just wondering if you would remove the bedroom. From the proposal. I would, because.

1:30:31It's not important to see for the future. Commissioner, lady. Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to clarify dimensions here again. I know. We've discussed them. But. You mentioned Rob, I think. A 20 foot length, and I'm looking at the Sugarloaf fire protection letter that was talking about. 40ft in length. Actually, I was 20 foot width, so across the road and the pull out would be 20 foot. For code. I heard you say long, so I took that to me. Sorry. And then you have 40 foot would be. The pull out length. And I don't believe the one on 241 would need to be lengthened. To go to code. It's close. It's like 35ft or something. Yeah, it's pretty close. I'm assuming it was built from an old code or something. I don't know. Okay. And then one more time here on which properties you said are okay. With allowing the work to be done. 380.

1:31:5495, 91. We never. Thank you. Okay, looks like there's no additional questions. So thank you for that. So. It's a public hearing, so we'll go to public comment. And then we'll go back to staff and then back to you applicants before we have discussion and deliberation. So we're here to listen to any public comments specific to docket SPR 25. Fiveteen. That's the Perkins Lance editions and shop. So I'll just do. A real check in does not go. We have anybody in person signed up, but I want to make sure there's nobody in the room. Doesn't look like it's all going close the in person portion of. The public comment for this docket, and then we'll move to virtual. And it looks like we've got Laura. Gonzalez signed up and Laura were looking for comments. Specific to Perkins lands, additions and shop.

1:32:52And I'll just give another invitation because I only see one person signed up right now. If there is somebody else now that. They've heard the beginning and. Wanted to provide comments for this applicant. The phone number is 8335-6864 and a reminder, if someone does get on their phone to hit star nine to raise their hand and then star six to unmute. Would you like to speak to this docket for the applicants that are in the room in regards to Perkins Lance editions and shop. Okay, go ahead and come to the podium. I didn't see. You can speak now if you'd like. And otherwise? I've already closed the public. Comment in the room, Lynn, but I'm happy I didn't see you move. I didn't see you raise your hand, but I'm happy. I'm offering to let you come and speak at the podium right now, if you'd. Like to, but. I've already asked you a question.

1:33:51No, you can't. But I'm happy to reopen an answer, yes or no. Thank you. It sounds reasonable to me. Go for it. Those are comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. That was Lynn Siegel, for the record. And so then we'll go to virtual public comment. Thank you for your patience, Laura. Go ahead. My name is Laurentelle. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. So my opinion, this is honestly. As we can tell, the Boulder county commissioners keeps infringing on people's rights to make their own decisions. And the fact that we are spending over, what, an hour talking, if you want to give permission to someone to do what they want with their own property. Well, still following safety. You haven't even given it two minutes to talk about. The millions of dollars. That multiple cities like Boulder, Longman lions are invested in the genocidal. Corporations that are complicit. In the ethnic classic apertheid and genocide of the palestinian people by a foreign entity. Of Israel. It is so wild to me that you talk about equity and inclusion and in around the early 30s. This county commissioners and city council. Actually, they adopt their resolution to deport Mexicans. Don't be crying, Martalo Chamin. When our people start getting deported because you did. Not speak up on time about the

1:35:26genocide of the palestinian people. The same intelligence and surveillance that is being used by the state of Israel. To murder, rape, kill and kidnap innocent palestinian civilians without any right to court. It's happening. Here. Now we have the flock cameras. Why are you not talking about the flock cameras in the city of Boulder and all the cities in the county, all the money that we're investing. In surveillance flock cameras in talenteer and. They are working with the police departments, even though you keep saying that they are not. There is data out there. How? The police department are using flux data so they can identify supposedly criminals who are undocumented. Immigrants, many of them who are indigenous, who are not sellers, like most of you, are settlers. To this county. And I wonder if that is why you refuse to say anything against the genocide. Because exactly what is happening in the settler colony of Israel is what happened in. The United States. And, Martha, I would honestly assume that you would stand by us as an indigenous. Person from Ecuador. But no whiteness has bought you. You have been corrupted. The fact that you guys did a proclamation for Standing Rock to stand by Standing Rock when standing rock has always stood. By the pales.

1:36:39Palestinian indigenous people, where you cannot even do the bare minimum, which is just some words that say, it's a ceasefire that does nothing. But you have the responsibility to control the budget more. Than half a billion dollars. And instead of actually monitoring all the nonprofits, just like the Jewish Community center and the sister city of Israel and Boulder were actually. Funneling money to the IoF of rain entity and military force that's murdering people. Left and right. With our money. That is your job. Your job is to make sure that every single investment that we have in the cities that the money is going to, where it should be, it should be going to us. Look at us now without Snap, and we're not ready for that. However, you continue to sustain nonprofits that for your money to. Thank you. Moral. Let staffers approve their thing.

1:37:32I'm just going to check and make sure that there's. Lynn, I'm going to ask you one more time this morning to stop. Interfering with the public hearing. I'm just going to give another invitation in case there's anybody else that was. Trying to join us in regards to Perkins Lands editions and shop for this public hearing. And it doesn't look like there's anybody else joining us, virtually, so thank you. Stefan the background for helping us with the virtual public comment period. On this application, and so we'll go back to staff in case there's any other comments that you wanted to make before we hear from the applicants again. Thank you, Commissioner Sam. Walker CPMP. I just had clarification based on the question you asked me earlier, Commissioner Lomin, about the article four eight six of the land use code. Four eight six a. So that particular section of code didn't change in the updated regulations. But I just wanted to clarify what the two standard. Standards language that you were talking about meant. So the specific sentence in four, eight, six a says, when two or more of the standards listed below conflict, the director shall evaluate the applicability and importance of each of the conflicting standards under the facts of the specific application and make a reasonable attempt to balance the conflicting standards in reaching

1:38:53a site plan decision. So. They don't necessarily have to meet or conflict with two standards. It's just telling. Us to try to balance them when we find a conflict between two of the standards. So I just wanted to clarify that I didn't have any comments about any of the discussion earlier. But I'm happy to answer any other questions from the commissioners. Thank you. I appreciate that. Because. It's the way that I interpret. What you just said. I actually read it a little differently. So thank you. I really do appreciate that. Commissioner Soldman I saw your hand. Thank you. I have a question. So just with regard to the location of. The pull out that both access and engineering and the fire department. Identified as necessary. How prescriptive do you see both of those agencies? And they might have. Different answers. They might have the same answers as to exactly where the location of that pull out. Is. Sam Walker, CPMP. I don't know if I said that a minute ago, I'm not really comfortable trying to determine how prescriptive the fire protection district would be.

1:39:50On behalf of the community planning and permitting department. It's not really our practice to try. To prescriptively say you have to locate a pull out for this project in this specific location. Generally, we apply the condition of approval, saying you have to install pullouts that meet the MMTs. We give the guidelines for that in the staff determination and the referral response from the. Access and engineering team, and then we leave it up to the applicants to propose that location as part of their permit plan set, so it would simply have to reduce the distance below 400ft. To satisfy the design standard that you've written. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't have additional questions. No, thank you. Okay, so, applicants, it's your opportunity and anything additional that you'd. Like to add before commissioners go into discussion deliberation as we're asked to make a decision today. I've done all the talking. Okay. No, thank you.

1:40:46Thank you. All right, so we'll close that part of the hearing, and commissioners who'd like. To start us off in conversation in regards to docket SPR 25. Fiveteen. I'll go ahead and start us. What I'm understanding here is that we're. Being asked. And recommendation from staff is regarding upholding the director's determination. Of the docket, and I'm really looking. What I'm looking at is going back to what was previous. SPR, and it was a good reminder. There's not a question in regards to the PSM. But really looking at both of the recommendations on the pullout turnout conversation, and I think it was helpful to hear. I don't know. That has to be in a specific spot, so I'd rather. Not have. I don't know where everyone's at, but I would rather not try. And choose. The spot right now, but I do think it gives. The applicants the opportunity to use the property. The description was really nice and it was good to hear some background on your house and properties and kind of dreams and aspirations for doing some significant remodel in a property and being able to use it in different ways. So I don't have questions about that. It looks like the director didn't either. Absolutely do what you'd like to do in these role models and your plans, and we have this.

1:42:14Multimodal transportation standards. That, from the code to me is really clear in regards to the safety. And we hear this every once in a while. Once the docket comes to us at this point. It's. A different reasoning of what's happening in the concerns, and sometimes it happens in the middle. Of all of the construction. Of a really unique area in Boulder county, and it tends to be up in the mountains, but. I will just say I continue to hear the concerns around ingress egress, how people are going to be able to get emergency services when people are concerned about their road being blocked. Or just not. And it was helpful to see the picture. For her, and you'll have a real intimate understanding of what wildlife wildfire response and emergency preparedness can look like. And so when I look at that, I am in agreement with what the director is reading in the code and also what we've received from the fire district as well in regards to needing another pull out or turnout, so I'm hopeful that the neighbors will see the benefits. And I don't feel like we should be the ones saying this is the neighbor and. This is a spot that it has to happen. It sure be nice to be able to use an area that already has 18 foot

1:43:30that was described or similar. With a 20 foot wide requirement. I don't know where, uhr, but that's kind of where I am at. Least to get us started in conversation. Well, I'm happy. Yeah. Thank you. I'm happy to jump in. I think the analysis is here, whether the changes to the residents, at least the way I'm looking at this, whether the changes to the residents that the applicants are proposing to make. Is sufficiently. Burdensome or causes a significant enough impact on. Public safety. On safe ingress egress to the property. That it warrants require them to do. Requiring them to do these off site movements. As I look at it. And so then maybe the converse or flipping it around. Is. If they're unable to do that. They do not have permission from their neighbors to take a portion of their property and make these improvements.

1:44:43Would it be unreasonable to allow this improvement to go forward or. The instruction to go forward. I think as they've stated, and they do not have a legal right, they cannot condemn. Their neighbor's land. They're not a public entity. They can't force their neighbors. To widen the easement. Give them any portion of their property. And for me. The improvements they're making. I think they stated it very well in their appeal statement. They are going to be lessening the overall wildlife or wildfire risk by closing in the soffits by replacing the siding. All the other improvements that they cited in their letter. So I have a hard time saying, concluding. That we should be imposing our multimodal transportation standards on this property. When the applicants do not have the ability to comply. So that's where I am, right? Now. Thank you. Just adding my voice of the conversation, as I sort of alluded to earlier. I think looking at whether or not this proposal creates any additional burden, I think for me, it comes down to the addition of the bedroom. Maybe not how you're proposing using it, but. A structure that has additional bedrooms can have additional people in it that need to be saved that need to potentially have cars. If you have roommates or teenagers or different living situations. So I think additional

1:46:21bedrooms can clearly create additional. Trips, access, risk, all of the things. That can cause the need. For ambulance, a fire department, police officer, sheriff's officer, all of those trips needing to make. Safe access to the home. And visits and things like that. So I do think that the additional bedroom. Does necessitate us to look at the offsite improvements. Under our land use code. So from my perspective, I think there's a couple of ways. To look at it. I think it is reasonable to look at the multimodal transportation standards and see that it acknowledges that the board of county commissioners. Retains discretion on whether. A design exception is appropriate. In the context of the land use application, and so. From my perspective, I think it's reasonable to accept the two turnouts that the fire district has proposed. So rather than the three total, that would be the two from access and engineering and the one from the fire district. I think the two from the fire district. Seem like they clearly address the issues around the public services that are needed to serve the home. I agree that we shouldn't be prescriptive today on how and where and all of those things. So I would slightly modify the director's determination to change the locations of the pull outs. To match what the fire district has requested.

1:47:54And identified that they need to serve the home. But leave the turnaround, leave all the others. Just modify that one. And then I think alternatively, for the offsite improvements. I think it would be reasonable to say if the proposal eliminated the bedroom, that the offsite improvements wouldn't be necessary, because I think if the proposal were simply. Siding, garage. Shop, then I think the arguments and the clarity that I have around. The risk and need for offsite improvements is eliminated. So I think we could add a condition. Of. Or don't put in a bedroom and remove that from the proposal. That's where I am. Yeah. Thank you, everybody. Let me see. I'm just trying to. Was looking at the documents the same time. What I heard in regards to the two verses three. That makes sense to me. And I heard you also say, That you're in agreement of not having a prescriptive and I think you said. Something similar to that. I just want to clarify that you're talking about turnouts and. Not bedrooms, because I think it's two versus three for both. Yeah. Thank you. Pronounce is what I was speaking to. And I think for me, I would want to check in and see. Maybe from the attorney. I'm just thinking what I heard you say. Back to the bedrooms. Was about adding

1:49:24a condition, but I don't know that. It would be a condition. And. Or maybe I need to see what the conditions of the original approval that created the determination were. I'll propose it. Maybe I should just be quiet and let the attorney talk. This is Eric Rogers, assistant county attorney. I'm not sure if I fully understand your question. Could you restate it? Sure. What I heard was a suggestion to add a condition. That said something. And if you have different wording that you've already put together, that's great. But a condition that said something like, if the applicant. And this is just the way I'm interpreting. If the applicant. Changed or modified their proposal. And no longer wanted to have a bedroom. As part of the house remodel. Then the multimodal transportation standard requirement would no longer apply. That's what I heard. What I was trying to say was just the offsite improvements. I think there are some, if you read through all of the things that are conditional? They weren't all objected to. The applicant was accepting of almost all of them. It was just the offsite improvements that was the objectionable. So I was just sort of actually proposing that we would add language on the because I do think with the proposal that's in front of us, it necessitates offsite improvements, and so

1:50:45I was sort of doing something a bit out of the ordinary. Suggesting? That. Another way to get around it would be to change the proposal. So it would be either the offside improvements had to be completed or the proposal had to be modified to not have the additional bedroom, because in my opinion, that is what necessitates the additional. Offsite improvements because. There is then necessarily additional burden. I hear what you're saying, and I'm just trying to figure out if that's. The way to get to that, or. If we were to uphold the determination and make the other modification in regards to the turnouts. And the two verses three in my mind. The other option would be. Then the applicants just wouldn't move forward. Right. I was trying to be nice. Table. Correct. If they wanted to think a little bit more. About what we're asking so that they could determine all of the plans and I'm guessing conversations with engineers and architects and things like that, too, so go ahead. I appreciate where Commissioner Stolzman is coming from, and I think that helps me somewhat.

1:51:51I think the reason I still have a little bit of trouble with the analysis is. Yes? More bedrooms. Can allow for more people. But. In any given home in Boulder county. We don't know how many bedrooms are actually used. We don't know whether. There are two beds in the bedroom, one bed in the bedroom. Whether it's converted to an office. We just don't know. And so I don't know. I feel like. I guess it's just that. We just really don't know that there's. Necessarily a correlation between the number of bedrooms and the number of people in the house, and I see that it does allow for more. So. I think what I'm looking at really, is that on balance, The improvements that they want to make. Do a lot more to mitigate the risk of harm, the risk of fire, the risk of needing evacuation.

1:52:53So that. Would be an improvement to allow that to go forward. If we continue to require the offsite improvements. Either that Fairlow fire protection district is asking for or contained in our mmts. That the applicants just may decide that it's too burdensome and they're not. Going to go forward. And then we have a house that actually, as constructed, does present a significant fire risk. So. That's what I'm looking at as I think about this. And I'll just add in real quick on the way I was interpreting the wildfire. Wildfire partners list. And some of that part of the presentation was really. What I heard as learnings from the applicants, which I think is the hope of the world. Our partners project to think about. Oh, maybe I had never thought about this piece of the house. Or this part of the house, or the way that my wood piles lined up, or all the pieces around defensible space. But I guess I'm not thinking about.

1:54:00Using changes to the interior of a home as a way to mitigate from a land use. Code. Perspective. I haven't done that. I haven't thought about it that way. And I'm thinking about. From the use of the land use and what we approve forever? Not necessarily. The applicants who've been willing to share their story. But. I'm just not thinking about it. It's just the folks that are in front. Of us. But what could be approved? And I'm looking at the application that we've got. Right now. And so I do think that. The way that the code is set up right now and the way that we're reviewing it. Does create the need. For the pullouts for the property, period. Well, I would make a motion, but I think it would fail. So I'm not going to make an emotion. I think I've proposed. We each have a slightly different perspective here today. And. I actually hear quite a lot of agreement.

1:55:15I think that. We don't know how anyone will ever use any particular structure like people cannot live in. It at all. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to. Have people live in it. So, like, if someone said, I'm building this home, and I'm. Only using it to have my family come celebrate Halloween. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have to provide mitigation. Because it could be used on all the other days of the year. And I hear that we're not planning on using the bedroom now and this, that and the other, but it creates. The ability to have an additional bedroom. The point of bedrooms are for people to sleep in them, in my opinion. That is why bedrooms exist. And so. The sort of nature of what that is is.

1:55:59A capacity creating. An artifact of architecture. That's the point of a bedroom, is to grow the capacity of the house. And so that to me. Is really what in this application is necessitating offsite improvement, so I'm trying. To give a solution. And it actually even sounded from the conversation today that the applicants are really working hard to try. To figure out how to improve the drive and grade it and take good care of it and be good neighbors. The one that the fire district has asked for next to the house. It sounded like from most likelihood that that one is going to be done. I mean, we don't know. 100%. The house is just sold. But it's already there, and it sounded like there's going to be a very good faith effort, so. That one is. It doesn't even really sound like there's a dispute about it. The trickier one. I mean, I heard, like, yeah, it's a really long stretch, and. We should really try to locate one there. That would be the right thing to do in adding this capacity. And if those things can't be done, we could just not put in a bedroom. So, I mean, that's what I'm proposing, which I think kind of does. Try to address what everyone's hoping for and helping everyone move forward with the project

1:57:08and not creating an undue burden. So that's what I would propose us. Moving forward with collectively today, if everyone could live with it. I think that's a perfectly logical analysis. Okay. So I would make a motion to modify the director's determination. I guess I'll ask Erica. Would I be making a motion to modify. Or. What would the appropriate motion be? This, is there, Grudger. So. You could uphold the director's interpretation with. The additional condition that you've been discussing. Thank you. I'm sorry. I don't mean to. Dropped. I want to get the sunset from Sam, too. Sam Walker, CPMP. I think that's correct. Okay. It will come back to us how this comes out. Yeah. I'll make a motion we'll see if it's good. And if it's not all withdrawn, we'll. Try another one. So I would make a motion to uphold the director's determination, but.

1:58:03Add an additional condition that would state that the offsite improvements are not required. If the new bedroom is removed from the plan. And it would modify the conditions around the pullout such that it would require the two pull outs that the fire district. Had identified, rather than the polas as identified by the transportation engineering referral. This is Erica Rogers. I'm just reviewing. I just wrote down what you said, and I want to just take. A second to read it. That's fine. Take your time. So what I have done, I. Pulled the director's determination, but add an additional condition that the offside improvements are not required if the new bedroom is removed from the plan. In which case they would submit new plans for staff review and approval. Showing the removal. Sure. It would just be an amended plan showing the removal of the bedroom. I mean, it's. Not like it would start the whole thing over, right? And then the second part is to modify the approval. So that the offsite improvements consist of the required offside improvements consist of the pullouts. Required by the fire protection district, as opposed to what was in the initial staff determination. Yeah, because in the staff determination. It had the pull lots in different locations than where the fire district proposed. Okay. And the reasoning, just to put

1:59:31on the record for. Why I've got. The heuristics that were used by. The transportation staff. Are simply heuristics, whereas the fire district was looking at this particular site more specifically. And their ability to serve the additional capacity at this site. And so it seems that it would be appropriate to accept their proposal. It's more specific to this site. This is Eric Rogers. I understand that language, and I think that we can take that and craft it into a condition. To meet your intent and then just checking if that meant the intent of the discussion of the board also. I believe so. What I'm trying to listen for is in regards to. I'm just not understanding. If it's. I guess for me it was in the reverse order because I was addressing the original modification of the two pull outs versus the three pull outs, because that, to me, isn't contingent on whether they make a decision about the bedroom or not, but if it's. Meant to be those two tied together. It was just the way I was hearing the and. Between them, potentially, but I. Haven't seen the language. So if staff and attorney feel like it's clear, that's I wasn't. Trying to do what you've said. I tried to separate them as to separate conditions, to avoid. The very confusion that I created.

2:00:56That's fine. And again, I'm not looking at in writing, so it might just. Be the way I'm hearing it right now, but as long as that's cleared. Everybody about what the intent is. Commissioner stolesman. What you're saying if they. Modify their plans for the interior of the house so that there is not an additional bedroom. Then there would be no outside improvements required. Correct. And the reason I said it the way I did is because there's an existing condition since we were upholding. I was trying to, in my brain, go through and modify what is already written in the packet. Yes. And this will come back to a business meeting with the appropriate official language. But the intent is that if is exactly what Commissioner Levy has just said. If the additional capacity from the bedroom is removed from the project, then the off site improvements would not be required if they want to move forward with the bedroom. The two locations at the fire district. Determined would need to be built off site. This is Eric Rogers. Just to quick clarification, since this is an SPR appeal, it won't come before you for a resolution. Just an action letter that Sam will write. Thank you. So I guess just making sure everyone, I feel like we're all very clear at this. Point. Yes. No.

2:02:17Can I ask a question? Yeah. I think I am going to allow the applicants. Typically, you wouldn't. Be speaking it at this time, but I do want to make sure that it's. Clear because we've had some discussion. Absolutely. Go ahead. Can I go first? I want to make sure that I'm. Just state your name again for the record. And Elizabeth Perkins. Thank you. I want to understand what Commissioner Stoltsman is getting at. Would you say? You are upholding. The director's decision. Modifying the condition that we're appealing. By saying go with what the fire department recommended as opposed to. What transportation recommended. If we come back with an amended application. And say we're only going to do two buildings. Two bedrooms. Then. There is no off site condition. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Rob lance. I just want to clarify that even though the fire department circled specific locations, You're saying we could do it anywhere. In that road, though. Wherever we could get neighbors to agree.

2:03:47Yeah, the fire department. Gave in their letter to us, gave areas that they needed to be. They're not exactly prescriptive, and so it really is somewhere between. I'm not looking at the map, but your next door neighbor and your house where the turnout already is that needs to be improved. And then the one on that long stretch somewhere in that range. Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure. There of that. Thanks. Thank you both for your patience and also just hanging in here so that we're all clear. Okay. I made a motion. Yeah, we have a motion. Did you have any more discussion? No. I think that's an improvement. However, I'm not going to second it, but I do think that's an improvement over what we have. Okay. So was that a second or not? No. Okay. I said I'm not going to second.

2:04:41It. Okay, so there's a motion. Thanks, staff, for the support, to make sure we've. Captured. Motion. I'm happy to go ahead and second the motion. All in favor? Aye. I in. Opposition. No, thank you. Thank you, steph. And that takes us through. Item two, savings applicants for your patients. And we are going to take a recess. All right, commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are. Thank you. And we are recording. Thank you. We're returning for item number three on the agenda, this afternoon. All three commissioners are present for our 01:00 public meeting. This is a 2026 budget work session. And just to clarify, it's not a hearing, so we won't. Have public comment today, but we do have a presentation. From staff and Globn sure will participate in giving an update in regards to where we are with our budget. And so I'm thinking I'm turnover to there we go. There's the screen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. Emily Beam with the Office of financial management. Today we will receive direction from the board of county Commissioners for the creation of the fiscal year 2026 budget. First, I would like to thank the board for all the time they spend carefully reviewing all the budget requests. Your support is greatly appreciated. I'd also like to thank all the departments and

2:06:35offices for their work, putting this budget together, as well as all the hard work from the office. Of financial management budget team, including Joe, Melissa, Mitch, Heroko and Don. And, of course, thanking Ramona, the CFO, for all of her support and guidance during the process. I'm now going to turn it over to Ashley to talk through compensation. Thank you so. Much. Emily so first today, we'll be talking about our 2026 compensation and benefits. The commissioners have made a commitment over the last several years to start the budget process looking at compensation and benefits to recognize that. We can't provide the best in public service without our valuable staff. And recognizing the contribution that they make to provide services. And opportunities for the community to thrive. So we have been able to agree to a 2026 wage memorandum agreement with the Boulder county employees union, and as an interim agreement, And so we are able to bring forward today for the budget. A living wage increase from $50,000 to $52,000 annually for full time employees. This means that regardless of what the market pays for a position that we won't, have Boulder county full time employees that are making less than $52,000. There'll be a bonus for the lowest paid workers in the county. There will be a 1% one time bonus to the lowest paid

2:08:0310% of workers. The average salary increase that people will see is about four and a half percent, which means that the lowest paid employees will be receiving a 10.6% increase next year. And that's. A combination of a standard increase that will be applied at 2.4% standard pay. Increase pool, which means that employees that are below. Midpoint will get 2.7% of the standard increase. And employees that are at a salary above the midpoint for their position will receive a 2.2% standard increase and on top of that, there'll be a cost of living adjustment. Or you could flip that. Conversely, there'll be cost of living adjustment, and on top of that, a standard decrease is what I should have said. And the cost of living adjustment is 100. And $52 a month, which equates to an average of 2%. While the increase is 3.6%. For staff earning the living wage. Our health plan benefits. Approximately 8% increase there to health and dental premiums and maintaining the existing cost share between employees and employer premiums with no change to vision premiums. And just thank you to the union members and. To the folks on the benefits advisory board for all of their hard work coming together on all this. Okay. Now for the sheriff's compensation package. The sheriff's office has. A separate collective bargaining agreement with the Fraternal

2:09:27Order of Police, and they had previously negotiated increases for 2026 at 3% for sergeants and 4% for deputies. And both of those are in the sheriff's step plan program. And I'm going to speak to general Friend 101. And just want to acknowledge and we've talked about. The structural deficit that Boulder county is faced with currently based on decisions that board of directors in the past have made. And here we are, Boulder County. Set a structural deficit goal to cut 2026 General fund budget by 13.2 million using the current 70% personnel. 30% of operations split. All departments and elective offices were expected to participate in reduction planning. Through programmatic assessments, staff have identified and recommended approximately 8.8 million in proposed reductions, including two point. 3 million in operating reduction and 6.5 million in personnel reductions. Through layoffs, they could position eliminations. And. The voluntary severance incentive package that was similar to something that was used previously during other. Significant global events and market economy crashes, we continue to work diligently with county leadership to identify 4.4 million of additional cuts to achieve the original budget reduction goal for 2026. Thank you. Now, we'll go through the specific funds. So in the general fund, which is. Fund 101. We had a number of decision points. Line one.

2:11:13You'll see there from the human Services department regarding emergency ops, position 8325. To general fund. We've approved. It's a review with a comment of review. Duplication of disaster response and recovery services. Across Boulder county departments and office and revenue recovery. For lines two and three. They are approved. Lines four through seven are from the four through eleven. Sorry about that. Are from the sheriff's. Office and the sheriff has withdrawn. Those. He had stated in his comments that he's potentially going to come back if things change. For opening the facility next year, but is able to do it at this time. Line twelve was not approved. Line 13 is a new request that the commissioners would like to add. The board approved a one time transfer of $2.7 million to restore the fund balance in the risk management fund. Which is 174 to ensure that it's in compliance with the required minimum balance. And Line 14 is a new request the commissioners would like to add.

2:12:16The board approved reallocating the Climate Equity fund budget of a million dollars currently budgeted for 2025 into 2026. Which will align the funding with the actual project start dates. Still in fund 101. I just want to make sure I'm on the same slide that is up on the screen. And it is. Lines one through seven are approved. Line eight. Is the email case management system has been withdrawn as this was already included in the quarter three. Carry forward and repurposed meant. That was approved by the board of county commissioners. Line nine is not approved. Line ten is approved. At lines eleven and twelve are not approved. The board of county commissioners approves the shift. Approves the shift. There's a fire truck for the sheriff. If you look at that last line there, it's the sheriff's fleet replacement. So that line twelve, this comment is in regards to that we have agreed to shift the fire truck purchase from the fleet replacement budget. Into the emergency services sales tax so that can be funded, that fire truck can be funded out. Of 151. Okay, so now we're moving to the Rodent bridge fund, which is fund 111, and. You'll see a 13 lines on this screen that are all in public works and their road maintenance and facilities maintenance. The board has approved all of these

2:13:50lines. Now still in fund 111. And this is the road sales tax. We have approved lines one through four. And line five is approved as a one time request only for 2026. This was submitted. As a two year request for local match, and at this time, we're only approving the first year. Moving. To the dedicated Resources Fund, fund 117. Again, in community planning and permitting, line one is approved. Line two. Is not approved. Line three is not approved. We do support the request. We wanted to make that clearer. But the way it was presented to us. We felt that with CPMP, could work with OFM to identify the best way to actually budget. The ask. There was some conversation about just doing it a different way so we understand the request and just wanted to consider a different way of going forward. Line four is not approved. And line five is approved. We'll take a look at parks and open space, and that's fund 126. And so line item one has been approved. Line.

2:15:24Item two, the budget will be moved to the capital expenditure fund. And then line three, four and five have all been approved. We continue in parks and open space, fund 126 and so on. This slide lines one through eight. Have all been approved. Lines nine and ten are not approved. Similar to what Commissioner Lee just said. We're supportive. Of the project. But we're looking at the fund out of the base budget for those two line items. Okay, moving to the human Services safety net fund. That's fund 132. So this is a new request, and the amount requested is $2 million. We have approved a one time transfer from the Human Services Safety net fund to the social services. Fund, which is fund 112, and this is based on an identified surf plus in the HSSN.

2:16:29Funding resulting from prior year revenue collections. And an increase in anticipated property tax revenue in future years based on the 2025 preliminary assessed valuation. So we find that we have an additional $2 million in HSSN that we have asked our human services director. To make recommendations and will be receiving those recommendations on November 19. As far as how we can allocate. These additional funds. Next is a sustainability sales tax fund, and that's fund 136. Line one has been approved. Line two is listed there as a new request. The board approved reallocating the Climate equity fund budget of $1 million, currently budgeted for 2025. So that really is just moving into 2026 based on a request by that team aligning the funding with the actual project start date. Thank you. The next slide is in regards to capital Expenditure Fund 141 on the first project. It's partially approved as an amount of $443,000 to support the tower. Design and public engagement around a potential Allens park tower. The board supports the need for a tower solution in southeast county, but we would prioritize updating the lease and discussing that further. Line two is not approved long.

2:18:05Term organizational plan is needed before this can be approved. Line three. Is approved. At a different funding amount. It is approved at a million dollars for the demolition of the existing facility only. We can reconsider the additional planning money in the future. Line four is approved. Line five. Is not approved to design the Family justice center planning and design, but we are interested in seeing. Financial details from the district attorney. Line six is approved. Line seven and eight are not approved. Sorry for the delay. Just hung up on my end. We're still in capital expenditure fund. 141. On this slide. Lines one through five on the slide are approved. Line six is the exhibit building roof repairs, and this is withdrawn. Due to that, we approved the entire. Roof project. Pre commissioner Richmond already mentioned that one earlier in the presentation. Line seven is not approved. And then this next fund is the wildfire mitigation sales tax fund. And the only line on this slide for the sort yards is approved. Next, we'll take a look at the emergency services sales fund. That's fund 151.

2:19:39Line one was approved. Line two through six were not approved. Line seven. Is, and Commissioner Solsen spoke to this a moment ago. The budget request is being moved from the general fund. As it is an eligible expense under the sales tax ballot language. Okay, now, turning to our fleet services fund, which is fund 175. Line one. Is approved, the Netherland fuel tank replacement. We do need to replace that. Because of environmental concerns. However. We had a discussion about the fact that over the long term, we're hoping that we will be transitioning away from the need to even store fuel in Netherland as we transition our fleet to electric vehicles. Lines two and three are approved. Moving to fund 199, which is our recycling center enterprise fund. We have approved line one. Line two is not approved. Lines three and four are approved. And line five was withdrawn. Thank you, commissioners. That concludes the decisions for all our budget decision points. We will use this data in order to put together our formal resolution. This will be adopted on December 9, 2025 at 01:00. P.m. So please feel free to. Attend that hearing. And just another thank you. And a note that if you do have additional questions regarding our budget, you can view this information on our budget page. Our budget books available and members

2:21:39of the public can share comments online through the form@boco.org. budget. Thank Emily. Any comments, commissions that you wanted to make or remarks. It doesn't look like it. I did want to just thank all the union rep stewards. Folks in the negotiating team spent a lot of time and a lot of effort, and we've gotten to a really great place in regards to. At least the beginning on compensation. So I just want to acknowledge the work that's been put into that. Also to staffer OFM team and I won't try and name the names. I heard you say them because I'll miss somebody, but really just appreciate that. I also want to just acknowledge this is a really difficult time, not just for us here at a local level, but just from a state funding. And also a federal funding piece. So we see you all. It's challenging, and I do want to just appreciate the board.

2:22:31For spending a lot of hours together with our Fm team to try and get. To an area where. We're not even always in agreement, and yet we're here together to try and. Lead right now on a really complicated budget time, and so I just want to appreciate each of you for that. And I also wanted to let folks know we have been getting some public comment in regards to what was just talked about, that form. And we received a new set of those this morning, and there are concerns around the safety net. So just want to remind folks that we do have some of our other voter proof taxes and we're really looking at this. Concerns around food security, what was described as housing stability, rental assistance, eviction and things like that, which are all pieces that our different departments are. Talking about as well.

2:23:19So. We are open to hear some more comment and we will see folks on December 9 specific to the finalization of the budget for 2026. So thank you, everybody. There's not any additional items on our agenda for business meeting today, so I'm going to go ahead and adjourn.