Transcript

0:00:29Commissioner, are you ready? Yes, thank you so much. And we're recording. Good morning. Today is July 21st, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, and we have all three commissioners present this morning for our business meeting. We will start by sitting as the Boulder County Housing Authority Board of Directors, and we have one consent item. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. We have approved our consent agenda. We will now sit as the Netherland EcoPass Public Improvement District Board of Directors, and we have a consent item 5A for that. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. And now we will sit as the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, and we have a consent agenda consisting of 6A through J. MavOtion. Move approval? Second. All in favor.

0:01:29Aye. So we have approved our consent agenda. We have one discussion item, and this is an appointment to the Netherland EcoPass Public Improvement District Advisory. Committee, and we have Robin Valdez with us. Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners Robin Valdez with the County Commissioner's Office, and agenda item 7A. It's a request for appointment to the Netaluent EcoPass Public Improvement District Advisory Committee. The Netherland Town of Trustees are recommending Matthew Kennedy, who is one of the trustees to be the talent Netherland Representative on this particular advisory committee for your consideration. Thank you, Robin. Any questions or discussion. I don't have any questions, thank you. No, okay, then I think we're ready for a motion. Move approval of appointment as recommended. Second. All in favor. Aye. So thank you very much, Robin, for your work on this. We are now ready to confirm executive session topics. Good morning, Commissioners Natalie Spring at Commissioner of Deputy for the Record.

0:02:33I'm here to confirm that the executive session topics that were noticed that the July 7th, 2026 Regular Business Meeting of the Board were discussed as scheduled. And this is simply a note for the record, so I'm happy to move us to item 9A. I do have four separate requests for executive session this week, and I'll request a vote on each item. Commissioners for item 9A, I request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026 at 11 a. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E. Instructions to negotiators to discuss collective Bargate, collective bargaining agreement with the Boulder County employees union, and the fraternal order of police. Move approval. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you, Commissioners, and for item 9B.

0:03:27I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4B Legal Advice, as well as pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4E. Instructions to negotiators to discuss the City of Longmans Urban Renewal Authority and Tax Increment Financing. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. Thank you, Commissioners. And for item 9C, I'm here to recross authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, July 22nd. 2026 at 1 p. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402 subsection 4A to discuss the property located west of Longmont. At 11146, same framed road, and 11360 North 75th Street. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. And for our last request, item 9D.

0:04:35I'm here to request authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to go into Executive Session on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026 at 4 p. m. pursuant to CRS - 24 - 6 - 402, subsection 4F. Personnel matters to discuss the annual performance review of Susan Caskey, our human services director. Move approval. Second. All in favor. Aye. All right, thank you very much. The reason I paused, just as a comment on 9C, is just, it didn't. Normally we say that when we read the subsection, we describe what it is. So for example, when we say 4B, we say legal advice. And under the OpenSpace one, or the property one, I don't know if they're open space or not. But it didn't say property acquisition or disposition. So I'm just making that comment for the record that that subsection, CRS - 2464024A is regarding property acquisition or disposition, just in case anyone's watching and wondering. Yeah, that's great to have that. I was wondering myself. Okay, so we are now going to have our monthly meeting on Head Start. I see a Kane is joining us from a galaxy far, far away. There you are. So Akane, welcome.

0:05:55And you have the floor. Thank you so much. Good morning, Commissioners. I am going to share my screen. This is John East Lost with the record staff. For the upcoming presentation shared through Zoom, anyone participating in Zoom who needs or desires captions should turn on captions in the Zoom app at this time and leave them on until the presentation is over. Thank you. Thank you. Again, good morning, Commissioners. My name is Akane Ogren, and I'm the Division Manager for Boulder County Head Start. And this is a brief report for the summer, although we are coming the summer break is coming to an end. Boulder County had Start Leadership Return to Work from Break on July 27th next Monday. All staff returned to work for pre - service training on August 3rd, 2026. Training will focus on coaching staff to curriculum fidelity, school readiness goals, as well as teacher supports for challenging classroom behaviors by request.

0:06:58Classroom setup, home visits, and site open houses for parents start on August 10th, Return to School on August 17th. Um, to the second section staffing. We have three leadership positions open, one center director position is open for applications to family advocate positions. Um, we're open and interviews are in progress. And then we have two lead teacher positions that are going to open, um, in the process, um, for applications, uh, hopefully this week. Section three, program enrollment. Um, overall, um, funded enrollment, uh, slots are 110 total. Current enrollment for the next school year is at 93, 58 in Boulder and 35 in Lafayette. We will continue to enroll through the summer, the end of the summer and into the school year. Um, as those numbers do fluctuate and change, as you know. I'll pause there in case there are any questions on that first three sections.

0:08:09Great, thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Thanks, Akani. I just had a question on this staffing piece. And I understand the school year and contracts and the way that works. And the hires that happen right when the school you're starting. And it sounded like you all were going to be in next week. Not students, but, uh, lease staff. Where does one get the application? Like where would somebody who's looking for that type of position go to even find that? Is it head start website? Where is it? It's, um, a couple of places, um, one is on the Boulder County website. Our jobs page. Additionally, we post on the National Head Start Association page. And we post also on the zero to three in early childhood network, a national network. So that NHSA and then zero to three are across, um, the nation. Thank you. We've got a lot of folks interested in just that, that age range. Um, so just to be able to share that out as opportunities to work with the head start program here in Boulder County would be great. So appreciate that. Yeah. And just one more side note, I did hear from, um, a candidate that, um, linked somehow once we posted on the National Head Start and then zero to three, those positions actually got, um, linked to LinkedIn.

0:09:27So, um, they do end up getting, um, networked other ways. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Um, I will move to number four, The Budget. So the 25, 26 grant year ended on June 30th. Final reconciliation is still in progress. The graph that I'm going to move to below reflects the most current revenue and expenses through May, 2026. Um, and then the 26, 27 grant year began on July 1st, 2026. And so we have, um, the graph there. And this vertical green line affirmation point. So we're still waiting for data from June 2026 to close out the school year. In the fiscal year. Um, and then the last section, uh, ongoing monitoring and communication. So our education services team continues to receive, uh, regional TNTA support with the education specialist. Um, summer work includes preparing for pre - service training, um, as well as monthly professional development for the next school year. Um, as well as staff coaching plan and the onboarding plan, um, and a coaching contract for all staff. Um, a redeployment of the Regional Family Services specialist has been requested at the start of this next school year to support with onboarding new family advocates. That is our leadership component that has the most vacancies right now. So we're requesting, um, support again from the specialist to come in and support us with onboarding.

0:11:05And, um, the final data point is that the, uh, the notice of funding opportunity for the next grant cycle, um, the five year grant cycles, um, has not opened yet. We are still waiting. And that is the end of my report. Okay. Thanks, Akane. Commissioner Denny Additional questions. I don't have additional questions. Just thank you for the updates. And thank you to your team as the school year is getting ready. It's a lot. So appreciate that. Thank you, Commissioner. Great. Yeah. That's exciting that, well, exciting and a little bittersweet that we're already getting ready for another school year. I'm sure the kids are looking forward to it. Uh, so, all right. Well, we got a little bit of chuckling from the peanut gallery here in the hearing room. I meant that sincerely, this is preschool.

0:12:01Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for that, uh, monthly update. So the next item is going to be our, uh, work session on district level planning. I do have a, just a question. You know, this is on our, our homepage for 1130, you know, and it is open to the public and we encourage the public to attend and watch online. And I'm a little concerned that, um, we've moving very long and people may not be able to join this. As the commissioner Yvette Bowden Officer County Administrator, um, as you all would like, we can take a little break at this point to perhaps post on social media. I want to remind the board that of course this item is recorded. And we can get that information out as well. So whatever you'd like to do, chair. Well, let me ask my colleagues, um, feel that making just, you know, joining and finding the recording is adequate or whether we ought to take a recess until 1130. I'm just looking to see where, cause I saw it posted in the meeting, which wasn't posted that way. So I'm just trying to pull up what you saw posted differently. I just didn't see it that way. Well, if you just go to Boulder County. gov on that landing page. It has our. It actually has

0:13:36our business meeting, yeah, posted from 930 to 10. And then it has, it has the work session posted for 1130. Yes. Good morning, Commissioners, Natalie Spring at Commissioner's Deputy for the Record. In reference to Boulder County. gov. It does have on July 21st. The start time for the parks and open space district aerial. Planning work session is 930. Yes. And concluding at 1130. Thank you. I misread that. I just totally overlooked that. Thank you so much. Of course. Okay. And this is a public meeting and there's no public participation. So people wouldn't have missed their opportunity. Even if I hadn't stopped. No, I think it's a good catch if, you know, if it's posted somewhere that people wouldn't have seen. So I appreciate you making a point of that. Thank you. All right. So, um, we've got our open space. Leadership. That's pure and deputy County Administrator Yvette Bowden is going to take it away.

0:14:39Good morning. Um, we're happy to come back to you from a prior conversation. Yvette Bowden, Deputy County Administrator. I'm joined today with Parks and Open Space Leadership team to continue the board's earlier conversation regarding a district planning proposal. With that, I'll turn it over to Jason as we're just getting our slides uploaded. Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you, Yvette. Uh, this is Jason Suk, Director of Parks in Open Space. We're pleased to be back here again. We thank you for your interest in this topic and look forward to a productive discussion today. And with that, I'll pass it over to Heidi Wagner, Deputy Director of Strategic Foundations. Heavy needs a minute. We're happy to. Just wait. Where it. Comes up with the speaker not. Sometimes. It works for me. And sometimes it doesn't. You're welcome. All right. Good morning commissioners. It's nice to be back talking about district level planning. And just like last time before I begin, the people to think, uh, Justin, Atherton Wood. Jason Souk and Jana Yermakov, namely, they have all been instrumental in their research and support of this process.

0:16:16So today's objectives are threefold. We want to provide the additional information to you, um, as requested during the May 26 work session. Specifically around past planning actions, district comparisons, community engagement. Pozac involvement and consultant scope. We would like to request your approval to begin district level planning with the peak - to - peak district as the recommended pilot. And then lastly, we would like to give some opportunity for you to discuss values and priorities of OpenSpace. So as a brief recap, district planning organizes County Open Space until larger ecologically and operationally meaningful districts. Instead of planning property by property, this approach evaluates entire landscapes, considering ecosystem function, visitor use patterns, agricultural continuity, wildlife needs, and operational capacity together. This shift recognizes that ecosystem, recreation behaviors and management needs cross parcel boundaries. And district - level planning ensures consistency reduces the delays caused by that site - by - site focus and provides a predictable schedule for when planning will occur. So I want to shift into answering your questions from the May 26th work session, um, beginning with the status of past management action commitments.

0:17:58So we did an evaluation of the plan's created between 2010 and 2024. And we updated or completed seven management plans. And across those plans, we identified 468 individual management actions. And we found just over half of them complete about 40 percent in progress. Oh, slipped ahead, which mostly includes actions related to active work, such as monitoring. So they never really truly have an endpoint. And just a little over 10 percent of management actions were not started or unknown. And that really reflected staffing limitations, emergency demands. We had a flood, um, during that time period, evolving conditions, um, on the ground, things change. Um, and lack of a centralized prioritization structure. So district planning will address these issues by creating a countywide system for a prioritizing work, assigning ownership of that work and ensuring actions, advance consistently. Okay. You also asked about future site level planning commitments. So prior to developing the district model, staff internally had a sign properties or assessed properties that might logically be next for planning. Each site plan, um, listed here on your screen has various factors, uh, that prevented moving forward with a process. Um, and there were no public commitments made by either staff or the board. However, I do want to acknowledge that parks has spoken about management planning over the years in several different ways that might

0:19:51be confusing to the community. When we purchase a new property, it's common for us to use the statement that the property is closed until management plan review. Also sometimes when we acquire property that is adjacent to an already, um, park where we've envisioned future recreational infrastructure, we can move forward quickly with that amendment, um, to a plan. And basically it just boils down to it's not been consistent. And lastly in our existing plans, um, if you read those, sometimes you'll see a commitment to the community on a refresh interval of a certain time period, usually 10 years. Um, and that has not been consistently achieved either. So under district planning, all of the sites here are listed on the screen and others would be addressed within their district cycle, bringing predictability and preventing ad hoc planning. Okay. We were also asked to examine where the properties were in the county that did not have a management plan and how those could potentially be guided by existing policies. So this map on your screen here is displaying the percentage of acres in each district that is not governed by a management plan and to illustrate policy governance. We're showing where the cropland policies provide are the crop land policy provides direction. So you can see that five of our six districts have a range between 60

0:21:33to 80 percent of property without a management plan and policy coverage will depend on the resource in that district. Because as you know, our policies guide the how we manage a particular resource where it occurs on the landscape, management plans describe the what we do on a landscape. So district planning will really integrate both covering areas that currently lack comprehensive direction. So why are we recommending peak to peak. So peak to peak contains some of the county's highest value conservation lands. So this map here is illustrating where our critical wildlife habitat overlays our property boundaries. And we know that the peak - to - peak area has other important conservation designations as well as listed on the slide throughout the district. So 30 percent intersecting with our property to peak to peak is incredibly notable.

0:22:39And these ecological conditions paired with large areas of unplanned acreage that you saw in the previous map make peak - to - peak a high priority district for establishing consistent management action. In addition, planning for implications for Countylands, facilities and capacity due to the potential ownership change at Eldora is also a factor here. And lastly, it has been more than 20 years. Um, since we've done any significant management planning in this district, that was Mud Lake in 2004. And at least one management plan has been completed for every other district in that timeframe. So additionally, I want to touch on operational and visitor pressures that are unique to the peak - to - peak district. In the height of the season, uh, this district has some of the highest visitation across the system. However, our formal visitor counts as shown on this map aren't going to reflect that. Uh, you get a better picture when you add the visitation to Hesse in 4th of July area that our department manages because of our shuttle enforcement commitment. Also this area draws the highest percentage of first time and out - of - state visitors in our system, meaning more education and enforcement is needed. Our rangers are often called to respond to community needs in a rising issues across the area regardless of property boundaries because

0:24:11of fire and law enforcement support are further away. So they pitch in and help. I've included additional information and data points in the memo, but these conditions taken together make peak to peak a strategically valuable place to start planning. Okay, so I want to shift gears and answer the questions regarding the proposed engagement approach for this process. To answer this question, staff review the newly released equitable community engagement framework, and we see strong alignment with district planning. And I believe taking the two pronged approach. Will help us hear from both the broader Boulder County Community and the community's closest to the peak - to - peak area, including Netherland and the surrounding mountain residents. Countywide engagement helps us understand system - level values and broad stewardship expectations we all care about these things, topics like climate resilience, wildlife protection, trail, demand across districts, and overall open space priorities. This includes countywide surveys, Open Meetings, and outreach through broader communication channels that reach residents no matter where they live. Place - based engagement focuses on mountain communities that interact with the peak - to - peak landscape every day. These residents experience visitor pressure, congestion, emergency response challenges, and wildlife disturbance in ways County - wide engagement can't fully capture. Meeting with them directly in local forums, community conversations, and filled visits helps ensure the plan

0:25:53reflects lived experience local knowledge and local priorities. Using both approaches gives us a balanced process, County - wide input that reflects shared values across Boulder County and place - based conversations that ground planning in the realities of the district. It creates an engagement structure that is both inclusive and responsive to the people most connected to the peak - to - peak landscape. And POSAC. So POSAC will remain a core advisory body throughout District Planning. We'll be presenting district planning to them this month's meeting, and they'll have the opportunity to weigh in on the model, um, and the pilot, and ways that they would like to be involved throughout the process. POSAC's role ensures transparency, public representation, and guidance to staff. At the conclusion of the process, of course, they will be responsible for the final recommendation to the board on the adoption of the district plan. This Thursday, if the pilot proceeds, we'll discuss with them other ways that they would like to be involved.

0:27:08Okay, and lastly, um, speaking to the consultant role of, uh, during this process, um, their role is to really expand staff capacity not to take over our core responsibilities. Staff will continue leading stewardship recommendations, technical analysis, and all public servant work. What the consultant provides is the support that makes piloting a district level plan feasible at this scale, helping with logistics, document production, and engagement coordination. So staff can stay focused on the complex resource issues that require internal expertise. They will also bring national best practice experience to our model. In short, the consultant handles much of the heavy lift behind the scenes. Why staff remain the once shaping recommendations and guiding the plan. Okay, thank you for your attention today, and we have two questions for conversation and happy to answer any other questions that you might have. Good morning again, Commissioners Yvette Bowden County Administrator Office. I want to make sure that you have an opportunity before we launch into our questions to ask any questions in addition that you might have. And with that, I believe we are starting with Commissioner Stoltzman, just on whether or not you all have additional questions. Um, you're prompt with somewhat confusing to my brain, but I think I'm allowed to answer these questions and ask questions.

0:28:51What? Sure, if you'd like, we, we had planned to just open up to your questions first. Okay, thank you. Um, so I had, Jason, I had sent you a note just asking about, um, the community concern around exactly what is allowed on the Switzerland Trail on the property that I call the Tucker Property because that's what it was called when we purchased it. And so I wonder if we're resolving that today, or if that's coming at a later meeting that we'll discuss just like what types of signage and things like that. And I guess part of my question that's broader is just as we develop these district plans, I feel like we'll probably say yes. How will we address issues like this that come up in the meantime? Like if signage that's missing, or if there's a wildlife closure that's needed or a reopening that's needed, like how will we address these day - to - day issues. Thanks so much, Commissioner. Jason Suk, Parks and Open Space Director. Um, so I think what we're looking at here for the peak - to - peak pilot would be more of the longer term management solution for the broader area that would include sort of the more future state of that Tucker property. Um, it would be based on significant, um, staff input, but as well

0:30:06as, uh, significant community input and would kind of result in the, I guess, the end state of that area. In the meantime, we look forward to discussing, you know, how we're thinking about addressing current issues at that we'll call it Tucker Complex area and look forward to discussing that with you all at some point soon. Okay, so it wouldn't be that we can't resolve anything for 18 months. If we move forward with this, we'll deal with issues as they arise. That's right. And then I think once. Absolutely, yeah, absolutely. And then I think once, you know, any management plan is in place. And my colleagues can speak much better to this, but, uh, you know, we want to be flexible, adaptable issues are going to come up. We need to address them with a good management plan, my understanding is that we're, we're able to do a lot of that. And, um, particularly if we're taking, you know, sort of a broader look across an entire district that gives us the flexibility, I think, to be able to be flexible, be adaptable, be resilient, and tackle issues and work with the community as those things come up. Um, and maybe I'll turn my colleagues here to see if they've got some other infant as well.

0:31:21It's well said. Thank you. No, that was very complete. Um, and so we'll have a, there's a meeting, is there a meeting scheduled with the board to discuss those issues? Not at this moment. We can get that schedule. Is it, I mean, is that something in the works, I guess is my question. We have a demo in process. Okay, great. Thank you. And then just my last question is, um, last time we had talked a little bit about, there was a proposal that talked about the districts and engagement within the districts. And there was some feedback that, you know, people in the whole community will want to participate in engagement. So is that clear at this point? Or are there still questions about that. I just, it seems like it would be like if we do this district that you've proposed first, certainly the people who live in the district would have an interest, but so would the rest of the community. Like some people live in Longmont and maybe they go to the district.

0:32:12Um, and other areas. And so is there a plan to engage everybody. Heidi, would you like to, I believe we had that planned? Yes. Thank you Commissioner Stoltzman. That is the plan. Yes, to have the two prong approach of both community wide engagement and place - based engagement. And we have a different, um, but similar set of tools to reach both of those audiences. And of course, everyone is able and willing to participate in all of that engagement. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you. Mr. Loach, can you do your question? Um, I had a question on the presentation. So thank you. Thank you all for being here and being ready to respond to anything that might come up in the presentation, Heidi, on one of the slides that was talking about, um, uh, consultant. That's the way I interpreted it is that the proposal from staff would be to have a consultant come in. Thank you. You knew exactly what side. On this provides national level expertise, I just want to be clear and thank you for the memo. I did read through that in the presentation, I heard it maybe a little differently. Are you suggesting or recommending that a requirement of this consultant would be that they have had national experience? Like that's going to be a must in a

0:33:28job posting or an RFP or however you all do that. Just to clarify. We would include that as a preferred option. Obviously, if we found of an amazing firm that checked every other box and was competitive according to our criteria, we would still consider them. The hope is though someone that has potentially, um, been involved in a model like this before could bring in and experience from doing that. Previously. So no, I agree on the second part. I just wasn't clear if the national experience was a requirement, but I heard you say is a preference. And I'm just thinking about our procurement work and our racial equity goals and where county staff are working to some records with MWBE, et cetera. So, um, I just wanted to make sure that I was interpreting the slide correctly. So thank you. Um, that was the only question I had on the presentation. Sounds like we're going to wait and then go through the prepared questions. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Lee, we do have additional questions. Um, I mean, the memo was very, very informative. And so I, you know, I actually, you know, rarely this time I had no questions that I put in the memo for myself just to prompt my memory here for this work session. I, I did just want to, um, maybe have

0:34:50you explain a little bit about, to me, one of the benefits of this approach obviously is, you know, looking more broadly at the landscape and how various open space parcels intersect with each other. Um, it's, is this, I think another benefit particularly in the peak to peak area is, uh, is having more sort of, again, landscape awareness of the federal lands that are up there. How are you going to engage in that? Um, you know, there it's a big model of a government. Is there, um, communication with like the forest service, the Department of Interior about, about that relationship. Morning commissioners, Bundestheodwood. I'm the principal planner, Parks and Open Space and run our planning and cultural resources group. Um, you know, we have over the years in doing our planning work in this area have built a pretty good relationship.

0:36:05I think with district Granger, um, and I would see them really excited actually to work with this on this work. Um, we worked with them a lot at Toland Ranch at Reynolds Ranch. I'm sure at Tucker, uh, they'll be interested in what we're up to. The biggest challenge obviously is they're not their staff level is very low right now compared to, um, five years ago, for instance. So, um, one of the ways that. I kind of have thought about this landscape in our approach to planning, um, is how can we each as agencies play to our strengths? You know, what are our assets, not just like facilities, but like, what do we bring to the table? Um, and so I think, you know, that is something that I'll be using as a way to think about working with the Forest Service up here. What do they do well? What do they have available? How can we work together? Um, and probably also like, uh, parks of wildlife, I think would be a big, um, partner up in this area. So yeah, I think that partnership engagement is going to be really important and really important to the success going forward for envisioning the future, right?

0:37:29Like, how can we kind of work towards something together? Yeah. And the state should be involved as well. Um, that Switzerland Trail, you know, is one of those things where, you know, it's very unclear who actually owns it. And I know our county attorney's office has done a whole lot of work on trying to figure that out. And there are different sections that have different, um, different ownerships. But, you know, not having consistency in the management approach is going to be important. I think I raised this a couple of weeks ago when, when this idea was first presented of kind of that balance between, you know, wanting to look big, uh, across multiple properties and the kind of very detailed wildlife resources, habitat resources that really has traditionally gone into your management planning and not wanting for me anyway. I don't, I'm jumping ahead maybe, but, um, but not wanting to sacrifice that really important work of, you know, we bought this land for a reason, uh, we want to be sure that we're really understanding and respecting that. And that as we pull our lens out, we don't lose track of, of that in this approach. So I mean, I guess that's not a question. It's more of a comment. A question though, um, I don't know that we've typically done this. And this

0:39:05may be something that we ought to start considering, you know, when we make a management plan and we say, you know, here are the, here are the trails and here's what the loud on the trails and here the areas that are closed for restoration or for wildlife habitat or whatever it is. A lot of that depends, the success on having rain jards out. Not because we think the public is bad and disrespects these values. But it just, it just isn't necessity. And this question is kind of prompted by an interaction I had with OSMP ranger who used to work for Boulder County on. I was going up Green Mountain a couple weeks ago. And, you know, and she was just commenting on the ratio of, um, rangers that OSMP has to their acreage as compared to Boulder County. And, you know, we're very, very thin in that. And I think when we make these management plans and we don't have all these commitments and ideas about what's allowed and what isn't, and, you know, what we can do, you know, and interpretive way and all that other stuff. It does, it does beg the question of whether we also need to identify the resources that have to go along with it. And I just wonder how you're going to approach that question. Thank you so

0:40:34much, Commissioner Lovely. Um, we, we wholeheartedly agree. And there has been the desire to look at perhaps a resident ranger adding a resident ranger and additional resident ranger up in this peak to peak area. And this process would allow us to evaluate that staffing, um, rangers are also moving to a district model for their patrols to help them spread out across the county, uh, more equitably, um, but I think right now we don't have the solution, but I would foresee us bringing a proposal in front of you, um, to be able to enforce and educate more effectively by district with our ranger staff. And I don't know if Jason has anything to add to that. Jason Sue. Director Parks Love Space. Thank you for that. That perspective. I think we share that very wholeheartedly. Um, you know, our, since arriving here, I've been so impressed with our Rangers. They do so many things are involved in so many issues and our, you know, the face of a lot of the interaction that Boulder County has with its residents. So such an important role. And as we think through, you know, not only what we currently have and our current activities and current sort of management approach, as we also move forward, we need to make sure that, you know, we continue that. And so we're

0:42:04going to continue to think through that. I would love to speak with you more. Um, all of you on, on this issue and make sure that, um, you know, we're standing by the commitments to appropriately manage oversee and make sure the visitor experience for all, um, is what it should be for Boulder County. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks for that. I mean, I think, you know, it's, it's just part and parcel of, you know, we're trying to make sure that we're right sizing the balance between acquisitions and maintenance. And I do think having rangers is just another aspect of that, that we, you know, I mean, it's a question of public safety also. It's not just like, you know, the rules and all that. Those are, those are the questions I had. Thank you, commissioners. And so look at that. We're right back at Commissioner Stoltzman for the first of our two questions. And first we'd like just clarity on whether or not you support, um, us moving, against a district planning model, which would initiate the planning effort at peak to peak. And then we'll come back with a second question. But right now we're just interested in whether or not your supportive of that and Commissioner Stolten. I'm supportive of moving forward with the regional planning. And so I'm fine moving with this as the

0:43:25pilot, um, with the peak - to - peak region as the first one that we move forward with. Um, I don't think that we need to wait for this plan to properly budget the management of our open space department. And so I hope that that wasn't what I was hearing in the answer to Commissioner Levi's question. Like we do not need to wait 18 months to put together an appropriate budget to manage our resources. Like that's what we should be doing each year when we submit our budget requests. So, um, a lot of the things I just don't want this to be an excuse to not do the things that we need to from a management perspective on a day - to - day basis. And I didn't hear that in the answers to my questions that that was the case, but like we need to do this. We should have a good plan. We'll guide longer term investments, bigger capital investments, things like that and help us understand how to work with our partners.

0:44:11But the work that needs to be done as we move forward in any event. So those are my comments. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Lutzman, are you supportive of moving forward with district planning and starting with peak to peak. First, I have a question. Where is this photo taken. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Where's this photo taken of the site that we're looking at. I'm assuming it's barks and open space. It's just curiosity. Isn't it beautiful? It's amazing. I believe it's green mountain. But I can find out for you and I'll send you an email. Would you like to? Well, maybe Commissioner Levy can confirm because she was just there. She said, no, I just like that to me is remarkable. Like this is what we're talking about. The lands that were not ours that we have taken over as government in the United States and certainly Boulder County as well. And like how remarkable. So, um, your question though about the proposal, first of all, thank you for the presentation information. For me, it was just very, I was feeling like this is very informative. And it's like this baseline of where our way or what do we know in regards to the different percentages and different information that you showed about planning and other policy plans and things like that. So I am very interested

0:45:25in this district proposal that you all are presenting. And I'm going to be really, I, I'm, I mean, it's kind of like a whole nother project, it feels like, and to be able to get through such a white area versus the practice of doing parcel by parcel feels like it could be very positive, um, and hopefully that's positive for staff. Um, and also I think community will be really happy about like seeing something that wide and broad and all the partnerships you're talking about. So I am in support of the poster that you brought here about district planning. Thank you. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Great. So that's a great segue to our last question. And because you were so speedy, why don't we start with, um, commissioners Stoltzman and then we'll move to what would you like to see? One of the things we discovered when we last met with you is you wanted an opportunity to talk amongst yourself about what you'd like to see in open space visioning. How would you like that to, um, guide the planning process? What I'd love to do is for staff to now take vigorous notes as we listen to you of each of you could take a couple of minutes to share with us response to the second question. So in addition to the open space goals,

0:46:48what specific priorities should guide the planning process and recommendation? And in your packet, you have a copy of those open space goals. Do we have that on the slide? Thank you. Um, this is the existing vision mission and the goals of open space. And with that, if each of you can take a couple monets and do that, and Commissioner Stoltzman, if you'd like to start. I think the goals are well thought out and have come from a tremendous amount of community input over time. The trick is in the balancing of the conflicting goals. I mean, there are conflicts in life and nature and in the community. And so I think balancing those conflicts through the process and really, um, genuinely getting feedback from Community members through the process will be important. But I think the goals are on track. Thank you, Commissioner Ochman. Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate having this document ahead of time too. Um, to go back through the goals, I think for me, it was what I heard the question and some of our conversation previously was like, how do we prioritize it and how does parks in Open space as a department and staff know what the word is wanting?

0:47:57For me, one of the pending conversations was around agriculture and that, um, that focus of OpenSpace. And so that's kind of the way I was just looking at it and reading. But the goals themselves, I didn't have a concern with or feel like, oh, I needed to make some kind of change or edit. It was more of a, could we as a board, like I'm talking to the board, talk about if the prioritization for me, one of the questions that I've had, uh, has been about the use of tax funds on acquisition versus maintenance. Um, and like what is, how might we prioritize the maintenance? And I've heard a little bit more about that in the way I perceived it today. And also like even in the ranger conversation from safety and things like that.

0:48:46So that was kind of what I was thinking about. And I don't believe these goals are in an order of prioritization as much as just a list of goals. So, um, that, that I think is, I don't know if you want us to talk about that specifically or if there's interest in talking about it. Because I feel like one of the questions from the board, one of the questions that we have had in the past was about that budgeting. And so how does our staff know? How does our director know what to bring to us as any kind of proposal or change if we haven't been able to talk about where our priorities are. Before we move on from that, I'd love to hear if there's any reaction to Commissioner Loadz, it means suggestion that perhaps we look a little bit further and prioritize some of our agriculture. Um, focus as well as maintenance versus maintenance and stewardship versus acquisition. We'd love to hear your thoughts on that before we move on. Commissioner Levy, do you have any thoughts on that. Um, I actually would like to weigh in on the question that was posed.

0:50:00Okay. Um, I mean, that's another conversation to have. Um. But I guess I need to explore. Exactly what was meant. By, by, I mean, I don't know if that's elevating when, you know, agriculture or something else. But no, I, you know, the way the parson open space goals appears on our website, you know, they are numbered. And I've always taken that as just, you know, we have seven goals. Not that they're in any order of priority. And I, and I think, um, I think it does, you know, this Commissioner Stolzman pointed out. It's always about the tension between on any given parcel. You know, what is, what is the goal that we are really prioritizing? And I, um, I think it would be helpful in guiding, you know, we, this came up with, with the whole issue about, about, um, mountain bikes on Hyal Ranch.

0:51:04And, uh, you know, it's apparent that a significant part of the community, the, the mountain biking community, you know, believes that Boulder County Parks and OpenSpace is not providing enough recreational opportunities, high quality recreational opportunities for that particular sport. And the other segment of the community that says, well, you know, the reason we have open space is to preserve rural lands and buffers and to preserve and restore natural resources for the benefit of the environment of the public, et cetera, etc. And yes, quality recreation experiences are on the list too. While protecting Oath Space Resources, you know, so I think it's, it's like, this, this is really important that we be very clear to the public about what the expectations are. And, you know, they've approved these tax funds. And everybody has kind of an ownership, you know, feels that ownership. I don't want Chrome to relaunch. You know, as we look at this. And so I think it is helpful for us to really look at or reinforce. You know, these values and goals and priorities here. And, um, and it may be, uh, you know, I think we've all gotten some email on, on the issue of, you know, when we acquire a property, um, you know, to the extent we know anything about really what's on it. I hope we do. But

0:52:41you know that at the time we, we make it much clearer about, are we acquiring this to preserve a gosh hock nest? Are we acquiring it to do Community buffering and shaping? Are we acquiring, you know, what are we acquiring at for? Does it facilitate a nice trail connection between two properties? What's the reason? I think it would just be helpful at the front end so that people have those expectations. Um, so. You know, I think all items one through six are all the appropriate goals. I didn't include seven because it's really more about management of parks and open space. And it is about the land the way I interpreted it anyway. Um, I did have a question. About what we mean when we say promote and provide for sustainable agriculture in Boulder County. For the natural cultural and economic values that provides, I mean, are we, we love to put sustainable in every sense we possibly can. And I don't think we often understand what we're saying when we say that. So I think it would be helpful to explore that a little bit more about what we're talking about. But, um, otherwise, um, you know, I think we've got, as I said, all the goals were here. Thank you, Commissioner. Any comment from Commissioner Stoltzman, would you like to respond to the comments

0:54:29made by either? Yeah. So, I mean, I think it's really a question that we have in the budgeting process and budgeting meetings, um, we've, each year that I've been on the board given direction around, um, budgeting and hoped to have, um, different information presented in the proposed budget that the directors present to us. And, you know, Jason is new. So I look forward to seeing his proposed budget in a couple of weeks and seeing what the balance of. Resources that he's proposing are. You know, there was, for example, a big, um, increase in funding from the commissioners to fund fencing in the agricultural area because that was identified as the big need. And we've also increased funding for center pivots in the agricultural area because that was identified as the big need. So many times we have asked. To propose a budget that addresses, um, deferred maintenance and, you know, maintenance of our facilities, our buildings, our houses. And we just haven't gotten it yet.

0:55:29That's complete. So I look forward to seeing what we get in the budget process and keeping have that conversation. Um, I don't think it is a trade - off conversation. I think that that's incorrectly identified. I think it is a lack of, uh, prioritization and a lack of proposed budget to manage the business operation effectively. Thank you. Commissioner Loch meeting any other comment. Sure. Thanks. Yeah. In the spirit of having a conversation with the board, which I thought was part of what we're going to do today. I am curious about, like, could we, and I'm thinking about acquisition. And the question that, that I've asked many times over the years of like, do we know what are we planning on? What is that? And I think that's what you're all trying to get to now.

0:56:16So just maybe curious looking at these goals and having a conversation together about liquid staff, um, present a recommendation to the Board of future acquisition based on goal. And I heard, you know, the numbers somewhere right now, they're just bullet points, but could we narrow that down to at least, you know, maybe it's one, maybe it's two or three goals that we're thinking, understanding that, that typically then some kind of either environmental assessment or something else done on, on the different properties that are acquired in the spirit of just responding a little bit more to, um, some of the public curiosity, but also to help us narrow down and know a little bit more about how we're prioritizing goals, um, of acquisition just in general. So that seemed like I heard what you were saying, Commissioner Lee. And so I was trying to kind of put some of those together. And just curious what you're thinking about that, Heidi. Thank you. We could bring that presentation to you because we do have a prioritization structure for our acquisitions. And the real estate team has worked really hard over the years to create that structure and they have all of that information. And I think they'd be delighted to come present that along with, um, potential budgetary needs to support those priorities for your feedback and

0:57:41guidance. And I believe we can do that in light of things that are already in the queue to make you aware of what has already been allocated over time and things that you'll have an opportunity to. Is there interest. Are the other two commissioners interested in such direction for us to bring that kind of acquisition, prioritization conversation to you. Um, maybe just cause I'm the next one in the line. Sure. I mean, I, I think we get that. Um, irregularly, you know, I, I think you get what's next in queue, but we can refine that a little bit. We see a list. And that we get that every year of what's on our priorities and what, you know, what we're, you know, paying option paint making option payments on what are we next targeting. So I don't feel like, um, we need that. I guess I, I suppose it's helpful periodically to look. It's quite a long list. And it's probably helpful to look periodically at whether all of those continue to be targets. I, you know, I don't have anything in mind to say something shouldn't be a target anymore, but I mean, I feel like we already do that. So, so that, that wouldn't be an additional task that I would, you know, as far as, you know, addressing certain needs in the

0:59:12budget, you know, Senator pivots or fencing or, or, you know, whatever it may be. Restrooms. That's, you know, I think what I understood we were talking about today is, you know, the goals of the acquisition program, the goals of the department, you know, what are the values that we're trying to implement. In, you know, fulfilling the taxpayers desire for us to have this open space tax and use those funds. And so I was, I was really thinking not in the, you know, kind of, should we be shifting from acquisition to maintenance and this and that. I was really thinking in terms of have we really adequately expressed why we have this program. So, um, I mean, I'm happy to have the other conversation, you know, when we look at our budget. And maybe I just didn't hear it correctly. And so if I didn't, you know, I appreciate clarification on that. Yeah. And I also think we have gotten an overview presentation. We get the list and things. I think that if people have questions, they should always be able to meet with the team and, you know, get a refresher, get that information if I think that that's good to have from my perspective, the, the list is built from Community Feedback. It's good.

1:00:39And then when things come up because we don't, um, we are opportunistic in some ways. And so for example, the Batasso connector was a recent acquisition. Like it came up because we want to create a trail that connects from the Canyon up to potassio. Like that, we know why we bought it. Like, so some of the comments don't match for me. Like we, we know when we're buying a buffer property, the property, uh, the gateway property in the Lewisville that was acquired is a buffer property. That's like, it's, it's serving to preserve rural lands and buffers. So the separation between communities, it wasn't bought for a trail. It wasn't bought because it has particularly high agricultural value. It was bought as a buffer property. It has some other values that can be used for, but it's like so many of these acquisitions have been very clear in why they were purchased and what the goals are. And I think we need this district level planning to get it on paper and work toward the Capitol Project list that we have so we can build out a more sophisticated plan on, you know, what's the phasing, how will we get the capital done. I believe the community talks about this shift from acquisition to maintenance because they do not understand how much funding we have for

1:01:46maintenance. And in part because staff says that to Community members at Community Events rather than presenting a maintenance budget that's appropriate and appropriately maintains our property. So I would love to see a budget that's prepared that address is the backlog. And I think that would be fantastic. Thank you. So Commissioners, I believe we've heard from all of you. Steph, I think we have direction to proceed with the district model. Looking forward to working with all of you on getting that started and working with POSAC and coming back to you board with the results of this first session in District Planning. Your additional feedback to us will help us not only, um, look at the district planning model, but how we budget, how we bring information to you. And so I really appreciate this conversation. And I'll turn it back over to Commissioner Levy. Well, I just, um, you know, thank you for that summary. And so we've done what we came here to do in this work session. But, um, I think Commissioner Stolzman was sort of getting at this. There is another unresolved conversation about, about Tucker. And we continue to get emails about, about access. And this is, you know, this is a different conversation. This is what, you know, then exactly what are we going to do with which trails and which

1:03:12ones are going to be open and which ones aren't. And so, and I think we still have to address that. And communicate it out. Um, because that's, you know, saying we're doing this district planning isn't going to resolve that issue. So it's just, it's just to put a pin in that, that it's an unresolved issue. We can get something scheduled for you. Thank you. Yeah. So no, I think, um, I guess what I'm supposed to do now is put us into recess until one o'clock and we will be back. For a public meeting slash hearing on the Boulder Valley Count Plan Major update. Thank you. Commissioners, are you ready. Yes, we are. Thank you so much. And we're recording. Okay, good afternoon. We are back on the record here. We still have all three commissioners present. And we are here this afternoon. To consider the updates to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. I do want to note that this was actually noticed as a public hearing and a public meeting. And so I have been advised that we should go ahead and take that testimony.

1:05:02I think we hadn't actually anticipated that we would have additional testimony, but because it was noticed and we had several people sign up, we'll go ahead and take that three minute testimony. So I think Hannah, I know you prepared two memos for us. And those address the areas of agreement and disagreement with the other four bodies. Let's go ahead. I think subject to any concerns from my fellow commissioners. I'm inclined to go ahead and take the public testimony before we turn to the areas that still remain open. I support the men. So, okay. Then we will do that. So if, John, if you could show us. Okay, so we have three people online and one person who's here with us in the hearing room, we'll start with Stacey Harrison online. If you could please promote her to panelists.

1:06:27I chair, Liebie, this is Brienna Barber. Commissioner's Office staff that does not look like Stacey or Josh are in the Virtual Room. Okay. I see that they are now yellow. If they do join us later, let me know. So then next up is Karen Holweg. Thank you. Karen Holweg, I'm speaking for Plan Boulder County about the final Boulder Valley Count Plan Revisions that you're considering today. First of all, we fully agree with your decision that this 50 years of planning section should be deleted for all the reasons that you've already given. There have been suggestions made to post this section in a different place on the city's website. But in our view, it should be revised considerably before it could pass muster and be ready for such a posting. Secondly, we support your revisions that prioritize middle - income housing. Claiming that the full spectrum of housing types and price points are needed ignores reality. There is ample evidence that it is middle income housing types and price points that are needed now. We understand that there's disagreement on this point. For example, Kurt Vernhaber argues that we can get more housing affordable to low and very low income residents because of the financial leverage and various grants available to that level of affordability. But what is missing from our housing stock

1:08:10is houses that middle income folks can afford to buy. We have ignored making that happen because it is hard and no one wants to invest the imagination and effort in it. But middle - income housing is what Boulder needs. And we had to have a well - rounded community. In terms of the municipal airport. The people who are being most impacted by this airport are residents of the county and Commissioner Stoltzman has been working with all the various regional governments and airports to try to resolve the flight impacts. So it seems like the County should be included in the Boulder Valley COP Plan Airport Policy Decisions. And also we agree with your proposal to change all areas designated as neighborhood one within the area two urban edge planning area to rural lands. However, we would also support applying this change only to the Gunboro area should you do that decide to do that. And finally we support the two non - binding recommendations that the City Council has made on page 36 and 72, and we encourage you to either concur with or remain silent regarding these recommendations. Thank you for your thoughtful deliberation. Okay, thank you so much for your comments. Matthew Caraway.

1:09:49Okay, you can unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes and please start by stating your name. Okay, looks like you've unmuted. If you could go ahead and start by stating your name and then you'll have three minutes. Bree, are you able to communicate with Matthew. Hey Chair, Lee, be this is Brianna Barber. I've just sent Matthew Carraway a comment or a message in the chat and we'll let you know if I hear back. Okay, thank you. All right, and it looks like he's no longer a panelist. I will ask if the one in the hearing room who would like to address the updates to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. If so, please come on forward and we'll ask you to sign in after that. And okay, Lynn, come on. Forward. Do you know the drill. You'll start by studying your name and then you'll have three minutes. Lynn Siegel, yeah, I don't approve anything with the Boulder Valley Top Plan unless jobs and housing is balanced. Um, the need for middle income housing is an afterthought when what she was saying about, um, that of housing human services is that they push for Lytec funds. Lo - income housing tax credits. And the private equity lenders going and buy up and then to balance this, there's extra high and housing that doesn't balance it.

1:12:10That's why the middle is missing. And so there's, as long as you don't balance those things as well as the job's housing imbalance, you're never going to have any kind of a success. This is intuitive, it's obvious. And it's something that should have been done decades ago and that we're now resulting in having economic crises with our city and with the county and consequent beggings from the public for childcare and such when we've got a war in Israel - Palestine and Iran and everywhere else, that these things are really a perfect storm of impossibilities. But mostly what we can do is let the developers pay. The developers are making off like Trump is on all of this. And so I don't support anything in the Boulder Valley Complan moving forward because I don't think the premise of how it's been set up is feasible and is productive and will have an outcome that we actually want, which is a broad housing opportunity for everyone. Because it's a cycle. It's set up in a cycle. As long as you're pushing the LITEC and the private equity lenders and rental housing, you're never ever, ever going to have middle income housing. And you're going to have plenty of high, high income, and especially with SunDance coming, especially with potentially CUAL. And that's going to make a disaster

1:13:54of everything because water is the main issue that we have. And Boulder Valley Complant does not address the water demand for all of this population that's coming in. And the way they're bringing it in is people like Kurt Vernhaube pushing for LITEC funds and allowing the private equity lenders to take over the housing market in the process. Thanks. Okay. Thank you for sharing those thoughts. Um, I think we can now close the public hearing. Brie, if you're still trying to get Matthew promoted and able to speak, please let me know before I close the public hearing. This is Brianna Barber, Commissioner's Office staff. None of the people listed on the list. It highlighted in yellow. I've joined the Virtual Meeting so we can proceed. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much for your help. All right, so Hannah, you're going to help us maybe get this across the finish line today. I was certainly try.

1:15:01Thank you Commissioner. Good afternoon, Hannity Himpley. For Boulder County Community Planning and Permitting. And I have Christopher Johnson with me here from the City of Boulder to help us today. Um, we do have a number of items to work through. I think we could go about this one of two ways. I can kind of quickly go through all the slides and then we can come back and work through them one by one. And you can make decisions one by one. Or you could talk about them all at once. I don't, I think you'll have to lead me there. But for now, I think I'll just start by going through the slides. Um, so we know what the scope of our conversation is today. Let's do that. Okay. Um, so we are now in the second round of review of the Boulder Rally Comprehensive Plan where we are attempting to reconcile all the changes put forth during that first round of review. Some of the changes included as conditions of approval put forth by the Board were accepted by city Council in Planning Commission. And if they're approved by planning board later today, those changes will be made to the plan. However, some of the conditions of approval were not accepted by the other boards in commissions. And the Board of County Commissioners is today asked

1:16:14to reconsider those conditions. Um, Eurastic Considering two changes recommended by city Council. And one item returned to you from planning commission. So diving into the first of those, which is the Board of County Commissioners Conditional Approval. The Board of County Commissioners recommended deleting the history section on page 14 through 17. This was, um, a change not accepted by city Council or Planning Commission. On the housing diversity and supply, um, this proposed change. Was rejected by city Council and Planning Commission, both accepted the change and made a motion to approve the plan with or without this edit on some of these, they felt they could take them either way. And so, um, we'll accept the decisions others moving forward. In regards to the condition of approval regarding the edits, uh, related to the airport. Again, this was a change that city Council did not accept on June 25th and one which planning commission voted, um, approve the plan with or without these edits. On the change to the future, land use map, which was to move all the neighborhood one designated lands within planning area two, to the rural lands designation. This was a change that city Council did not, um, accept.

1:17:59Um, planning commission on this item. They do not weigh in on the map change itself. There is some language. Needed to facilitate this change if, um, if it's made to the plan and so they considered that text change and, um, did not accept the text change. So, uh, the Board County Commissioners has asked to reconsider the change the future land use map that they made, um, but we also have some text for you to consider, to facilitate that change. And that first of the two items recommended by Citi Council are these non binding recommendations. Um, this section, the future of housing is in introductory section. It is being considered by all bodies. The proposed edits builds on the approval of the other edits by planning board, planning commission in the Board of County Commissioners by inserting the words near transit, highlighted in yellow on the screen. Um, city Council intended to provide more context through an example of where a multi - unit building might be appropriate and neighborhood one. But the edit does not change a policy or land use classification. The second recommendation is around the fire adapted communities policy and ads wildfire risk as a consideration for city decision makers to include when they are thinking about residential density and wildfire zones.

1:19:36Uh, this edition is a city only element. So a decision regarding this change is not needed, but we are bringing it to you for awareness as the county is referenced in this policy overall. Lastly, um, recommendation from planning commission, uh, Planning Commission had recommended and edit to the rural class description. Land use goals. List to enable economic livelihoods based on natural resource management and land stewardship. This change was not accepted by the Board. A county commissioners, but you did provide them the direction to work on the language and bring it back to you. So they did have a discussion about this language. Um, and eventually, ultimately found that the proposed expressed their sentiment, they are asking the board to reconsider this. And, um, to propose any language changes, the board might have to address the concerns that you expressed. And that is the list of subjects for us to discuss today. Okay. Um, we could have some questions at this time or just go back and take them one at a time. Seems like that's the most efficient thing to do. So let's, let's see.

1:21:03I have both, you have, you've provided two letters to us. And I'm, um. That's sort of the order that I would understand to work through that. I, we can do that either way, I guess actually. Um, so, um. The difference, um, in the letters is the first one. Includes kind of the feedback on the board's conditions of approval from planning, or I'm sorry, from city Council in the second, the Supplement, um, is brings in planning commissions, recommendations on those items as well. Um, so they're the same list. I think they should be in the same order. Okay. Sam list. Okay. All right. Good. Well then we will start with the history. 50 years of planning looking back and moving forward. Um. Our idea wasn't very popular. Um, commissioners, um, you know, I guess so just to lay out what our options are. We can modify the decision that we made earlier to see if we can come to some resolution with the other bodies. Or we can, if we, if we decide we want to stick with on any of these, the action that we previously took, then Hannah or KJ Water, what's, what happens after that. Good afternoon, Commissioners Christopher Johnson. Uh, City of Boulder Company Manager. So if you, uh, if you decide to maintain one of your conditions, then we would just

1:23:05bring that back to the other bodies for, for their reconsideration. Um, and, uh, we have a meeting with planning board later this evening. And then have time schedule. The City Council on Thursday. Okay. Okay. So we could potentially see some subsequent iterations of this process. Yes. That's possible. Try to get to resolution. Okay. Just, just thought it would be helpful to have that context. Um, okay. Who would like to lead us off on, on what we might do on, on this issue of accurately stating the history of planning and Boulder County. I'm happy to put my comments out there to get us started perhaps. So I think that this section needs a complete rewrite, which is why I didn't take the time to go through word by word when you look at city Council's comments back. To us, um, they say that there's pride in telling a more well - rounded history of planning decisions and diverse perspective. And I don't find that an accurate statement. It's, it's not well - rounded. So if you read like just by way of example, and this is just an example, these are throughout the whole thing, but 1970s to today, the second paragraph under it says these policies successfully limited sprawl and protected open space. However, they also contributed to rising housing costs and reinforced narrow definitions

1:24:32of community character that were not equally accessible to everyone in the community. So if you just simply look from 1970 to today for Boulder and compare it to a community that doesn't have an open space program like Denver, the home price index in Denver has exceeded Boulder. So Denver's home price index, which is a characteristic that looks at a particular year and talks about the cost of housing compared over time. So Denver's has gone to 496 and Boulders is at 480. You can do a similar comparison to Douglas County or other communities that similarly don't have, um, these types of types of, um, sprawl limiting programs and urban growth management programs and see throughout the region that there are areas that the home prices, um, at a similar or at higher rate than in Boulder.

1:25:26So there's just not been evidence presented to support the statement that's made there. And I couldn't find any on my own when evaluating it. And you can go through this entire section about a number of these comments. And there's just, there's not data and information within the plan to support the comments that are made. So I don't know how to go through and rewrite it without doing the data analysis and historic, the work of historian would need to do to actually collect the information that's being asserted here and actually presented in a way that we could draw these conclusions. So I would actually just continue to say we should strike pages 14 to 17 because I don't think it's appropriate to try to rewrite it to like rewrite the history from the dais. I don't think that's appropriate either. Like then we're just picking and choosing what we like and don't like. I just, I don't think it is well done. And I don't think we should approve it. That's consistent with, uh, what we said, uh, when we were last year, Commissioner Lochwien, any, uh, any change in your position on this. Thank you.

1:26:35And thanks Steph for the presentation that paperwork, et cetera. I had a time. I just have a question before I kind of get my comments. I think we shared some of our concerns and I see that in the, in the packet on the appreciation for BOCC conversation maybe, um, but listen, there are a couple of the items that we had brought up at the di. So my curiosity is if we were to, um, support city Council and Planning Commissions take on this particular, um, paragraph. Would there be any changes? Like, are they going to take into our consideration before a final, um, page 14 through 17s there? Or would we, if we were to rescind our condition on this item, would it just go in as is. If you strike the condition of approval, I believe the outcome of what it would just stay as in the plan was drafted as it was drafted. Okay.

1:27:33And I'm not looking at that, um, section of the pan right now, but I was just curious because this is the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. So it's like, we're not the owners. Um, some of the plan, it's really clear like County or City and County. And so I'm just trying to consider if it was our document as a board. Like we would do a rewrite or we would do something different or we would pick a different option to tell the story or the history. But I'm just trying to consider that it's not. It's not our soul document. And so, um, I think for me, if the City Council isn't accepting that, um, condition and planning commission is and accepting that, um, condition. Given the amount of time that this process has gone through. Like I feel like the count has a county. We have the ability to do our history and data analysis and do however we want to do in the bodies of work that we are working on. I feel like on the record, we've been really clear about some of the concerns that we have. But I don't want to hold up the work on that piece of it. Well, I think just to state, you know, where I am in general.

1:28:56There's a way for us to resolve, uh, our three positions. At our previous hearing, and I don't remember the date. But, um, there were, I wanted to make slightly more surgical. Changes to this section. And, uh, and I'm happy to review them again. Um, you know, to keep the, you know, the structure of kind of the evolution of, of planning and land use in the Boulder Valley, but the parts that I had the most concern about are is the, what in my view is a false narrative that, um, that growth limits and planning policies have led to high housing costs and exclusivity. I mean, exclusivity comes from high housing costs, but they, I think this history section is also driven by a narrative. That a desire for exclusivity was a motivating factor, uh, in the planning and land use policies. And I've been in this town for 40 years. And I just, I do not think that that is accurate. And so, you know, what I had suggested, and I'll just throw that out as a way to possibly move forward with this was on page 15. Under the 1970s to today. The last 50 years of comprehensive planning to simply delete the second paragraph about contributing to rising housing costs and reinforced neurodefinition of community character. There is no evidence of that. You know,

1:31:05thank you, Commissioner Stoltzman for providing some comparative data. I've cited Douglas County as for exactly the same proposition. So, you know, I think for me anyway taking that paragraph out still kind of sets the context of post - World War II housing growth, which occurred all over the country actually, but you know, that was, that was a very big factor in like the Martin Acres and other areas table mesa in City of Boulder. On page 16. The 1990s section. The first. I think this is all one sentence, uh, first sentence of the second paragraph. I think also. Is unfounded. And then on page 17. Sustainability increased density and mixed use. It identifies longstanding growth limits as, um, well, it just, it, it lists that as a factor, uh, that motor was facing. And again, there is no, there's, there's no data. That growth limits over limited. Issuance of residential bill minutes. So I would, I would just take that, I would say in the 2000s, planning emphasized, efficient land use, mixed use development, et cetera. So I would just take that portion that. Um.

1:32:55That includes the growth limits out of there. So, you know, I'd be happy with a slightly more surgical approach to this than just leading it entirely. You know, the alternative, of course, is. Body suggested. Let's just take it out and have some context on the website. But then we have no editorial control whatsoever. And they'll just put the same thing back up again. So there are more sections than that. If you want to continue going through, like if you want me to weigh in on the more sections, I just, I am, I don't think that us doing this in this way. Is the best way to have a history written. Like I do think some, but a historian should have done this. Yeah. I'm not trying to rewrite. I was just like, you're just trying to remove it. I know. So like for me in the 1930s to 1960s, the second paragraph. I think is trying to get at something that's important. But I can't substantiate it. So it's talking about open space. And it says it's often benefited wealthier community members while excluding low income households and communities of color. I don't know if that means excluding the communities from housing opportunities or excluding them from OpenSpace. So I don't understand what is meant by it. And so if you're looking at census data

1:34:15from the 60s to today, the community has become much more diverse. Um, the percent of people incensus data that are only white has decreased substantially over that period of time. So if the idea is that communities of color have not, because, because of this, there are a fewer. That's not supported by the census data. I just don't understand what it's saying. And I feel like somebody could have a story and could have done something that would have like drawn out data and reach conclusions, but I don't understand the second paragraph. So I would delete that. And then in the area where you had in the 90s deleted the first sentence, I also think the word in response needs to be deleted in the second sentence to then make it readable if we delete the first sentence. And then in the 2000s, the last part of the paragraph, um, that's there that says at this time Boulder emerged as a national leader in climate change planning, but affordability pressures continued to intensify. Like that's just not consistent with like narratives I've heard from people that have been in town for a long time. So intensify compared to what, like when you talk to people about what was happening for the affordability pressures in the 80s, like people from that period talk about it really differently than

1:35:39maybe what was experienced by whoever wrote this in the 2000. So maybe this is when that person experienced it. But I don't understand the justification of the intensify word or what data was used to support that. Like were there more, uh, letters written to city council. Were there more permits? There's just nothing that justifies that comment or a footnote that explains where that's coming from. It's just sort of a personal sentiment put forward by the author. Um, and then. In both the 2010s and 2020s, I think there are opinions throughout those sections. What I didn't make an effort to rewrite them so I don't have anything to propose. I mean, it says remote work led to mass migrations to lifestyles like Boulder that accelerated rising costs. But anyway, I just, I don't have the information that's needed to support this history. Okay. I think I understand where you're coming from. This. We don't know whether somebody actually did some, some research. On pressures, you know, the forces shaping the city census data. We don't really know what went into this at all. And Commissioner Oshman, could you just restate what your position is on whether to retain or delete this section. Sure. I have a very different perspective on page 14 to 17, 50 years of planning. Looking back and moving forward. And my belief

1:37:25is that all the folks that gave input and there's that experts in the area. It's not a complete history by any means. And I do think there is a thing called supply and demand. And so when we put in growth boundaries, there is an outcome and a result. The exact language, I think as part of like what makes it challenging. And I do believe that in this country communities of color have been excluded from housing, um, not just, um, not just some ownership, but rentals and policies that have been written and in regards to how somebody can access and even access a rental and credit requirements and all the things that have existed over time. So I just have a very different perspective. What I had stated previously was that, and I'm happy to put emotion, um, on the table. If it's helpful to set up some conversation, um, but because it's not like, and I didn't come today with on this item with rewrites or suggestions because I thought we had already agreed that we weren't going to rewrite from the dais. So, um, I'm happy to move to strike the condition approval that the Board of County Commissioners made on page 14 to 17. On that previous decision. Uh, from June 25th. So that would be my motion. Strikes a condition of approval.

1:38:48So the document would move forward with the language intact. Correct. That was what I wanted to make sure I understood. I don't think. You're going to get a second on that motion. I don't think I am either, but in the spirit of moving along and putting a motion on a table for conversations. Well, I want to, I did want to just make sure I understood your position. Um, I think we're not able to actually come off of our original position. And so, um, I think we continue to feel that this is not accurate. There are some, um, there's a narrative that's driving it that is not an accurate narrative. Uh, I guess I'm restating my position. Um, but I think if the three of us can't come together on it, then we'll continue that condition.

1:39:43Uh, invite the city to try to do a better job. Um, on their own website and not in a document that we are represented as being one of four bodies that has approved. Moving right along. Did you want to? We were just discussing if we thought we needed a motion from you to keep your condition of approval. And I don't think so. We can do, if you'd like a motion on that, yeah, I was sort of in the position of we're not going to get emotions. So therefore it continues. But Hannah said that the original motion stands. Right from the previous meeting. I'm okay with that. Okay. Do you want to change this? Did you already advance the slide? Thank you. Okay. So. Then the next topic is the policy 82 on page 70. Correct. And this was a policy that originally did not include the county. The Board of County Commissioners in their condition of approval added the County, um, and supported the changes that have been made by planning board. To insert the words more affordable striking a full spectrum inserting more affordable striking, including and adding prioritizing. All right. Commissioner.

1:41:39Just a couple of thoughts. So. There was a comment from the city Council on why they didn't accept the condition of approval that said the addition of the county in this policy's inconsistent with the BOC approach to changing area two to rural lands. Blah, blah. And so I just would like to respond to that. I, I fully disagree because the idea of planning is that you give people an indication of where you want intense development and where you don't. Like that different like areas. So for example, the downtown Boulder Transit Center doesn't have very much housing around it. Um, but the county supports a lot of investment and transit service to that area. Um, and so there are costs, uh, associated for the entire community to provide that level of service. So that might be an area where we would want additional housing or additional jobs because it has better access to transit service. So all of those areas might not be in the unincorporated areas where we, where we're trying to focus investment of, um, resources. And further, the county provides substantial funding to support, um, the City of Boulder. And so I don't think that it does make sense to remove the county from this section. We try to partner with the city in creating, uh, deed restricted affordable housing by way of

1:43:00financial support to the program and then have them, of course, they make the decisions about where it's appropriate within their jurisdiction or not. Um, but we provide substantial financial support. And it does seem like prioritizing middle housing is consistent with the comments that community members have provided throughout this process. Okay, thank you. So, um, you would, um, continue to support the language that was revised by, this was planning board that made these revisions. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Lord Truman. Thank you. I mean, just listening to the conversation, I'm wondering in reading the information ahead of time. I wonder, maybe it's just based on the comment that you had just brought up. Commissioner Stolzman and the bullet two under the widen, the Council didn't accept. I'm just curious if maybe it's more around. Like what where we could be possibly depending on where we go with this where the county could be considering our support versus what the way I read that bullet point is the City Council. Thinking about support in a different way maybe. And so, um, so I kind of feel like it's, it's the interpretation of the party. And I think the word support gets thrown away in a lot of different ways.

1:44:28So, um, I'm, I'm fine. If the, this board is interested in leaving the condition of approval as we had presented on page 70. Okay. And I am as well. I think the Council's rationale that our decision on the area to lands and what the future land use designation of that should be that that does not reflect support for affordable housing. I think that just fundamentally misunderstands the reason that we voted to move those, um, those areas into the rural lands designation. And we can say more about that later. Because that is, that is not the effect of that decision in my view. Uh, and I think there is an ample evidence that the county does support. Promoting more affordable housing types and price points. Now we don't support as a rule in this and this is consistent with the many, many policies in the plan.

1:45:50We don't support increasing the housing supply in unincorporated Boulder County, um, because of the direction of this comp plan to focus, uh, urban level and more, a more dense housing in municipalities where they can be served by transit where they're approximate to retail and schools and things like that. Um, so there may be just a misperception here and you are alluding to this commission of, um, on what it means when we say we support. So I want, you know, I. Support a policy of increasing housing supply. In the city, you know, in accordance with the policies in the comprehensive plan. And I don't know if that's maybe a better way to gloss it. So take County out of where we put it. And, um, and just have a separate sentence. It says that the County supports the policies in the comprehensive plan that would promote.

1:47:06Additional housing supply. And I mean, I'm trying to draft on the fly here, which I shouldn't do. But, you know, something, Hannah, you're jotting things down. I mean, maybe we take the county out of that sentence and just indicate that we support those policies. Um, I do think I'm very supportive of the other, uh, edits about more affordable housing types and price points and prioritizing middle housing. It should not just be included as a, almost an afterthought it needs to be prioritized because what the market builds is high end housing. And that's what we're getting in the city of Boulder. We're getting that in Boulder County too other than in our subsidized BCHA housing. So, um, maybe I could throw that out as an idea that we take County out of that sentence. Or perhaps with that additional. That additional explanation that City Council would get that we, we support the policies that lead to additional housing supply. And they can get over there. Objection to our rural end use change. We just clarify. Did you just suggest to take out and County? Yeah. And put it in a different sentence. Or just, or take it out. And I, I mean, I'm asking because I could go pretty either way on this one because the Council rejected it. And for me, the sentence completely is

1:49:03very clear that either the city is focusing on all these items in the city or the city and the county is focusing on these items in the city. So for me, it's like, it's really, for me, it's kind of a performative statement of if we add the county, because we're not doing this in the county or unincorporated county, I should say. But if the way the sentence is written and the way I interpret it is that it would just be us saying us as county, we too support you doing that work in the city. Yeah. That's what I was thinking by putting it in a separate sentence. I wouldn't put it in a separate sentence. If you wanted to remove County, I would just, um, I would just remove our condition of approval. Because the other words in there for me are pretty similar. Full spectrum versus more. Affordable housing. Including versus prioritizing. I just, I just see it slightly differently. I don't see it as us saying city you do this in the city.

1:50:05The county actively spends money on accomplishing these things in the city. Like the County runs programs in the city for city residents to address these things. So taking County out is confusing to me. And I think if we took County out altogether, that then the city staff would probably say, then we wouldn't have the right to weigh in on this policy. Under the IgA, because then the county's not in it. I just, if we take County out, does it mean we get to reduce our budget by all those expenditures? Like that's interesting. Well, I mean, we, we distribute a HT funds in the city. Yeah. Is that what you're referring to? I mean, for affordable housing, that's one thing that we do. We do housing vouchers. Like we, we do housing resident support. We invest transit funding and advocate to invest federal and state transit funding on top of our transit funding that we put into the city to support diversity of affordable housing supply.

1:51:11So like several of the ways that we invest BIP Capitol funds end up going into the city. And that's good. I mean, there's a lot of county residents in the city. Every city has County residence in it. Right. We serve everybody. But to me, we do, we are part of this more than just encouraging them to do it. We actually do a number of things that directly impact this. Yeah. I think if I, you know, just to really for me anyway, parse the sentence and the structure and what it is saying, um, it is saying that, that the county that we support a policy of increasing the housing supply by promoting more affordable housing types and price points prioritizing middle, et cetera, um, we do not have a policy of increasing housing supply in on incorporated Boulder County. And so, I mean, that's where I can see them saying, well, but that's not your position.

1:52:20But I think that's an unfair criticism because this whole document says that we should not increase housing supply and unincorporated Boulder County because that would constitute over intensive and urbanized levels of development. Um. I think to resolve this, I do think that changing full spectrum to more affordable and changing, including to prioritizing. I do think those are substantive changes. And I think they're appropriate. Um, and I think for me, I guess to resolve it, I think I would exceed to, uh, striking and county, but hold on the other changes. Because I do think, you know, a full spectrum of housing types. That says, you know, we're going to do the whole range from, you know, 500 square foot ADUs to the kind of 14, 000 square foot mega mansion up the street from me. We don't need the full spectrum. We need more affordable housing types and price points. I just, I wonder, Hannah, um, if we were to strike and County. And then the Council. In each scenario, rejected or accepted, what does that mean to you? Like, so if we say strike the county, do you still think we get to weigh in on this policy. And, and then like, if we strike and County and the city rejects it, does that then just move forward as it was originally written and not

1:54:10come back to us? I'm just trying to understand what the effect of that is. Would you consider this a policy that we get to keep weighing in on. I think striking and county makes this a city only policy about what they're going to do within this city. I think the, the point that you've been making about the work that we do at the City and even Commissioner Levy are some of the points that you've made and the county supporting our policies or the policies that are in the plan around increasing housing supply and diversity. To some extent might be, um, inferred by adoption of the plan. There are other policies in the plan about affordable housing. And housing diversity and supply. This isn't the only place this is mentioned. I think also, um, if I remember correctly, one of the reasons city council rejected this was this idea around prioritizing the word prioritizing, um, because I think the housing needs assessment for the City of Boulder actually showed that a different level of housing is the most pressing need. So.

1:55:36I didn't see that in the explanation. That you provided, I did not listen to the Council Full Council hearing. Maybe I'll just propose that we go ahead and strike the county from this. And retain the other edits. If the city wants to reject that and then tell us it's none of our business, then that's fine. But if, if we do, um, have support for the other edits. I think I, I'd like to go ahead and express support for those edits at this point. Yeah. I mean, I can live with that if we can make it clear somehow that it's still a city and County policy for us to weigh in on. I just think if it's rejected, it ought to come back. Like if that amendment of having more affordable and prioritizing changed, if that's rejected, I think we should talk about it again. I just don't want it to then be considered a city only policy and it wouldn't even be in the slideshow next time. Do you understand what I'm saying? I do understand what you're saying. And I think it would be a city only policy. And I think it then would not come back to us. But I think what I'm trying to say is let's go, let's, let's remove ourselves from this. And express continued support for these other edits.

1:57:02And then they can do with that what they want. That's what I guess I'm going to reduce our budget. No. Well, I can't. That's not your aspect. It was just a job. Yeah. I think for me, I'm just, I'm just trying to figure out like if we, and I can support taking the County out of it, but then. I feel like we don't have a say in which case I wouldn't expect it to come back. I'm just thinking about the process and when he's happy. Sounds like if I heard the conversation or the presentation initially correct Thursday, this is going to go back to the Boulder City Council. So then we would know. But I would just say if the Board of County Commissioners is interested in us out, I just, I wouldn't expect it to come back to us because it feels like a suggestion to another org about how to focus their policy.

1:57:58So this again, this change, the more affordable and the prioritizing, that was the city of Boulder Planning Board. Correct? So I think what I, what I'm saying is I would leave that language alone. And take us out. And then I fully understand I would not apply to us anymore. And we'd be out of it. But, you know, just by the way, City Council, we support what you're planning board did. I think we're saying the same thing. Okay. All right. Then, um, would you like to make a motion, Commissioner? What do you mean? Okay. Oh, go ahead. Okay. I move. Cause I don't think I'm going to do this because I don't think Commissioner Stolzman supports it. I'm just really thinking. I mean, I'm trying to be reasonable, but I just don't understand. If their objection is to and County, it doesn't make any sense to me. And I'm just trying to wrestle with that in my head. That's not the part. They're trying to, they're trying to reprimand us about, about our rural lands decision.

1:59:11I just don't, I don't, I can't say when you say we, I'm not in that we just to be clear on that because I have not had a conversation with Council Members to know what else was involved in that decision. So I feel like we're just speculating right now. And that's my perspective. Well, I think we're trying, when I say we, I mean, we, the Board of County Commissioners, I mean, all of us collectively, but what I'm, I think we're trying to compromise to come up with something that we think they would like more. That's why we're doing this. I don't think any of us strongly objects to the red language on the screen. And so I'm just, that's, I was just trying to explain what I was thinking about. And it's that. If what we think is more palatable to not have the word county there. That just, I can't get to a place where I think the city, that's what the city Council's objection is. I think it's prioritizing mental housing. I think you're right. But I think this came to us with this amendment. And we then further amended it with Anne County. And so what I'm trying to take us out of it and make this between planning board and city Council. Okay. To resolve. And so that's, that's, so I'm

2:00:30going to make that motion. And maybe it'll pass and maybe it won't. So I move that we, um, that we, um, agree with two strike and county from policy 82. And that we not, um. Take a possession on the other edits. Second. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Uh, all in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. No. So that's a two to one. Okay. Next. Is. The airport. So a little back history here too. This was also, um. A set of changes. That was included from planning board. That the Boarda County Commissioners considered, um, and also included in their decision as a condition of approval. Um, because it does, it does pull the county in enough that the Boarda County Commissioners needed to weigh in. So I, on this particular one, I felt a bit like Queen Gertrude when I was looking at the, um, city's comments just thinking that the Council doth protest too much, me thinks. When you read what's written here, there is the most benign. Amendment. That tries to address a substantial amount of public comment, but doesn't go all the way to conceding what the public comments were. So I don't really understand the Strong Objection to this if you just actually read it. Um. It, it is curious to

2:02:39me. When I look at the written comments airport comments, um, exceeded there were over 127 mentions of airport in the written comments, 30 or more mentions of noise. And the majority, like when you just summarize the dominant themes is actually Strong Community Support for closing or repurposing the airport. There's widespread frustration among the commenters that provided written comment about noise and pollution. Skepticism about the airport claimed benefits. And a desire for city policies that align with Boulder's broader goals for sustainability, equity and quality of life. There were many comments about housing and other things like that. So this, this, what's written here in red doesn't at all go to those things. It simply says that we are going to, uh, create a safe environment for aviation. Aviation related businesses and events, aviation related research and education. And it will strive to minimize and mitigate impacts.

2:03:44And then it talks about coordinating with some education around the area of the airport and providing outreach about lead and about, um, noise. So the FAA actually requires airports to consider airport influence areas and provide this sort of information to areas that are approximate. Areas in the airport influence area are in the county. And so it is a city and county policy. Because if someone were to come in and try to develop an area to the east of the city that's in the airport influence area, we should consider that and must consider that in the development that's proposed there. So I'm just having a hard time squaring the rejection of this because it is fairly benign. It does try to address. The public comments, but doesn't go nearly as far as the majority of the public comments have called for. And so on one hand, I sort of want to propose just taking the public sentiment and trying that as an edit to see if they think that's better or just resubmitting this again. Because I do think it's exceedingly reasonable. It still maintains that they can operate and have an airport and that will consider the impacts in the area around it. I just wonder on this one thinking about the way that some of the other policies read that is more kind of

2:05:15like high level. This is like our vision. And this is what we're hope, it's like hopeful, optimistic, et cetera. Whereas the last two questions or last two sentences in this paragraph to me feel like tasks and like the way we would work. Um, and so as I'm looking at it now today, I would strike out those last two sentences because those are the way that house city is going to do their work or how they're going to coordinate. Oh, I'm sorry. It's the City will coordinate with the County to understand the City will coordinate with the county to provide education. Like those to me are just like work plans. It's somewhere else outside of a comprehensive plan. So I don't know if either of you would be supportive of that. Yes, I could support that.

2:06:10I think that's, um, I think that is committing to work that we have not ever actually discussed. And, uh, I don't know that we actually do plan to do it. So I would support taking those last two sentences out. On the balance of the amendments that City Boulder Planning Board proposed, I think they are a much more accurate statement of the role that the airport has in Boulder. And, you know, and in a wider sense, I don't believe the airport. Has any kind of significant impact on tourism. As I understand it, um, aerial firefighting is not conducted from the airport. I'm not sure about medical flights. Um, but they put in the medical and disaster related support for the CN County and that disaster related support could encompass firefighting, um, if, if in fact, that does occur there. I believe it's done by helicopter out of the City of Boulder and not by aircraft. Um, so I would, I think if it helps, um, I would agree with you, Commissioner, let me know, to take those last two sentences out. And then leave the balance as it is. Again, that just makes this an issue between the city Council and, um, in the city of Boulder Planning Board. And they can resolve these differences. I think it's important to leave what was originally written, the

2:08:16black, um, text the City will coordinate with the county to provide consistent regulation addressing noise and other airport influences where possible because of the airport influence area and how that affects code. That was what was originally in there. But I could support taking the red parts out of the last two. They do, I agree, look like tactics and just leaving what was originally in. And then still, still taking the other things proposed above, including the strike through. The part I didn't understand about that in the first place was the regulations addressing noise. Um, I didn't know that we coordinate with the county. Um, I mean, isn't it just the noise ordinance? I don't know. I didn't know what that was referring to. Yeah. And the part that is more coming up for me is the other airport influences with the airport influence area in the land use. That I get. But, uh, but I don't, I just don't know what the consistency is in addressing noise. I do know people report issues to the sheriff, um, but I don't know. I don't know what was meant by that by the original author. Yeah. Well, I mean, I could do, I could support striking the sentence about the City World coordinate with the County Genders, and Address and ECO2 impacts. And then revert to the original

2:09:38language of the Second Sentence, you know, just with maybe a note back and, uh, and, and, uh, KJ that we are a little confused about what the reference to noise is. I mean, we enforce the noise ordinances. In unincorporated Boulder County. Um, I don't know that we have special things that we're doing on noise at the airport. So I would try making a motion to send with a condition of approval, amending the municipal airport section. To include the proposal. Up through the strike through Boulder Community. And then to remove the red, the city will coordinate with the county. All of the red from there on. Is that what we said? Second. Okay. We have a motion. Is that clear to you, Hannah? Okay. It is. Thank you, Jay. Oh, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Hi. Hi. Okay. Moving on. This little matter.

2:10:53I'm happy to get us started. For me, I didn't, um, I was the one on the previous vote and so on in respective page 121, the future land use map. I think for me what I've been hearing again from the previous conversation hearings that we had and the two body hearing as well, uh, through emails and public comments just really like a fear of what's going to happen in my area. And I would not, um, change these planning area lounge to rule. I would leave it as neighborhood one for some of the same reasons I had expressed previously. All of the other processes and the lot of government processes to do any types of changes. Um, and so for me, I just felt like I heard a lot of those concerns and want to acknowledge that. And I also, um, acknowledge that there's all this processes are still there. They would still exist. And we will lose an opportunity to adapt. It's 2026. It will, um, address an effect any possibilities. That could happen with this comprehensive plan. Making these, you know, making a change to rural lands really does to me jump into that fear. And I just, I don't think it's a, I don't think it's necessary because, um, all of the other process that still exist and was so will exist. So

2:12:33for me, I'm not, I would, um, and I'm happy to do a motion. But when I have, you know, give an opportunity for other comments, I would, um. I wouldn't make this change in regards to rural lands. Commissioners told me, would you like to weigh in? Well, so I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding, just in like process and planning and what would happen. And so I think from my perspective, um, compact development, benefits the community to try to reduce the carbon emissions per square foot. It helps so that we can coordinate resources in a more efficient way. So the cost per capita of providing a transportation solution in a dense area is more cost effective than in a really sprawling and urban, rural area, I should say. And same thing for provision of water service. And there's a number of reasons why we want to promote a compact urban form. So from my perspective right on the edge where we have these, um, incorporated areas that are largely built out in a suburban fashion.

2:13:50The idea that we would encourage the same density and type of development as you would say a few blocks from the downtown core in Boulder doesn't make any sense to me. There's not best service. There's not planned for bus service in like a 50 or horizon. There's not a way to provide access to transit in that way. So to say, we're going to have a mix of commercial and three story and these things in all these areas. It doesn't make any sense. So what I had proposed last time was making up a new type so that it wouldn't be rural. So I suggested we could make up a neighborhood three and define it to show that like as you move away from the areas that have more access to urban services that it would reduce in density gradually to those areas. And I think the effect that that would have is it would make it more likely that these areas which are largely built out would consider incorporating because they would have more predictability to know that it wouldn't be for story, three story, you know, whatever it might be that they would have more certainty. Um, but I agreed with Commissioner Leevy's proposal because I do think it accomplishes a similar thing in that the conversation about the zoning would happen at the time

2:15:04of incorporation. And so then if someone wanted to have the conversation, that's when they would have the conversation about what type of zoning they would have. So it's not that you would have a comprehensive plan change. It's not that you'd have any types of things like that. You would have that conversation at that time. So I think that accomplishes a similar outcome and I'm happy to stay on that same track and doing it that way. I think the few ways to accomplish it. But what I don't think it makes any sense to label like particularly gun barrel in the area that is to the, um, east of cherry veil as neighborhood one. It just, it's a different land use, um, in the current state that's largely subdivided into predominantly suburban context. And then sidewalk infrastructure and many of the areas. So it's just, I don't think it makes sense for it to be neighborhood one.

2:16:03I think the few ways we can get to something and I'm open to different discussions and ideas around how to do that. Um, I would just also point out, I think that both of these areas are in district three for the county. And the county commissioners are the only group, the only body that's elected to represent the people that live in the neighborhoods and both are in my district. And so some of the comments about, you know, not telling us this, that and the other. It's like, I feel like I was elected to represent the people that live in these neighborhoods. And I am the district three representative. So I just, I did feel like I had some personal feelings with some of the comments about whether or not we should weigh in on this.

2:16:43It was like, these are our people and there is no one else who has elected to represent these people. I don't want this to sound like parallel play. Like I'm just going to say something now. And we have three people say three different things. I mean, I, I also, I mean, for many of the reasons that you said Commissioner Stolzman, I think we made the right decision to not have them be designated as neighborhood one. And, um, and, but, but I don't want to lose the thought of what you were saying at the end that you were elected to represent these people. I think I was as well. And, uh, I think I listened very, very hard and seriously to the people who came to speak to us. And I didn't know if they were in District 1, District 2, District 3. We were all elected to represent all of the people. And I feel that responsibility very heavily. And we are the only elected representatives for these people. Um, I think the neighborhood one classification is just simply inappropriate, uh, for these areas in unincorporated Boulder Boulder County. And I understand that this is a future land use designation. But this carries tremendous.

2:18:05Freight to the people whose lands, whose property is being redesignated. It's very meaningful to them. It reflects a pattern of development that they are adamantly opposed to and given that. To be consistent with all the policies, the other policies in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan around additional development and unincorporated Boulder County. It is not necessary. It's superfluous to put a designation on these lands that we will not do. We have been, you know, we're instructed in various policies around development and area two urban edge. This policy number seven policy number five about planning areas. Uh, I didn't find them all as I was quickly leafing through lands or in unancorporporata Boulder County. They are governed by both the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. They are governed by Boulder County Land use regulations and zoning. And it is not our policy to have attached multifamily retail office commercial in unincorporated Boulder County. And so it, it will not be developed consistent with a neighborhood one designation. Um, so I understand that rural does not really fit. And I think we had, we had talked, we had suggested a small change to that narrative about what rolands are to try to make it fit. I'm open to additional, you know, some additional way or alternative way to address this, whether

2:20:08it's, um, developing at this late stage in the process. Oh, here we go. Thanks for putting that up. Um, you know, something that is like a, you know, low density suburban development, you know, it, it is currently in the COP plan as low density residential. And I had advocated that we retained that in uncorporate a Boulder County. That was evidently, I guess rejected by this, by the city. And, um, and somehow the city's desire is for what happens in uncorporated Boulder County outweighs the County Commissioners desires for what happens in uncorporated Boulder County. Uh, so. Yeah, so this language, I think it helps with clarifying what we are doing, which is simply saying as long as this is unincorporated, um, that it will retain this, it will carry this rule and designation. Uh, I just don't understand, you know, getting letters, saying this is going to make it harder to develop affordable housing. You know, that's just not the case. Um, when the studio is ready to annex and when the, when the residents, um, agree to be annexed, you know, then the city's policies will control. But in uncorporated Boulder County, we're not doing higher density development. So I don't know. I guess I feel very strongly that we need to continue with this condition of approval. I agree. So do we need to

2:22:03take no action. What do we need to do? Without action to change at your previous decision will stand. Okay. Thanks. Excuse me. Hannah. I just want to, for the record, just I want to acknowledge all of the work that, um, both city and County staff have done in this process. And there will be another opportunity in 10 years. And so I just, I feel like we're being dismissive. And I understand and acknowledge all the comments. I just also feel like it's very dismissive of a significant process to consider a vision and a future of what the entire region needs. Um, and so I just am in a different place, but also, um, I want to acknowledge staff's work. If I may. Um. Just to move us on the same topic, but just on the text, um, so the last decision was to not change the condition of approval. Um, I think it would be helpful for us to have a decision about this edit to the text that would make that outcome. Work. Yeah.

2:23:23Move to support. So that's, we presented this language to the other bodies already, correct? Planning Commission considered it. Planning Commission considered a very similar. But slightly differently worded. Concept of this, which they rejected. Planning Board, um, we'll look at this version on the screen. Okay. You were saying you need us to Just for good measure in case we're pants fall down. Okay. Uh, all in favor. Aye. Aye. I'm just going to, yeah, I can, I can do an A. I think that's where you're going right now. I just, I don't support the move to rural lands for that area. I just don't see the same. I don't see that same. We have a very different perspective of what neighborhood one means based on, um, the packet. Okay. My reference to pants falling down. It's the first. We got it.

2:24:57We got it. We knew about the suspenders. Okay. All right. So. Okay, so these next two are non binding recommendations from City Council. This one on the screen again adds the words near transit to language that was, um, supported and edit that was supported by Planning Board, Planning Commission and the Board. Move approval. If you had a chance to consider this Commissioner, what do you mean. Well, I think, um, I heard a motion. I like, I can see a preference of near transit. And I just think about all of the other areas where we have housing. And transit isn't like feasible in some areas. So I just, um, I wouldn't. I wouldn't make that a requirement. Okay. Well, then I'll second that motion. All in favor. Aye. And this is the addition. Just before we move, do you want to call for a post? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Would you like to vote? Nay. Nay.

2:26:17Sorry. Thank you. Okay. And I think this was language that, um, Councilmember Kaplan had proposed. Um, I, if I, if I can, um, uh, put myself first. I had a question about. Emergency management planning and egress capacity. The city considers an integrated approach to wildfire risk, including emergency planning, emergency management planning and egress capacity when evaluating development that affects residential disease. Are they, is this a reference to. Just the emergency management and egress capacity for a specific development? Like, does it have two places of ingress egress? Is it a development planned and organized to facilitate emergency management. Or is this looking at more of cumulative effect of new development? And I'm thinking about, um, you know, you can, you can plan a wonderful new planned community, like what's going in on, um, at the mouth of the canyon.

2:27:53I'm, okay, strike wonderful. I knew, you know, a new development at the mouth of the canyon. And it may be designed very, very well. But as a cumulative matter, should we be putting new development right at the edge of the well end urban interface. So I don't really know what, I mean, it's their saying that the city does this, but I don't know that the city is or will. Yeah. It's a great question. So, um, the context of this edition was speaking more in the aggregate of, so not an individual development plan per se. Although that could potentially be a factor in a discussion of a site review, uh, or an approval on a specific project, but this was more about just thinking about in the aggregate as we look at the city and we think about zoning changes or areas where we might allow some additional, um, density or growth over time, making sure that we're cognizant of those eGRIS capacity, particularly the areas of the wildland urban interface. So that was really more of what the context of this edition was about. Okay.

2:29:03So, so that is they are looking at that cumulative more, okay. Well, that's, that's fine. I hope that they're actually doing that. Yeah. I think this is a really important addition. Just when you look at the international wildland urban interface codes, one of the things, um, that is one of the first order factors and spread is density of structures. And in the state wildland urban interface code board that I served on for a couple of years, we were actually forbidden from considering, um, land use or structure density in our recommendations on how to implement the code. And I understand that that has some tension with some of the state's housing goals, but there are, you know, significant risks, um, that we're facing in our communities in the WUI in particular. And egress and water access and structure density are all things that the IWIC consider says that you need to consider as a first order and those were all taken off the table. So this to me gives the city council the tools that they'll need when they consider, um, rezonings or proposals and PEDs and plan units. So I think they need this in here. And I think it's important for the county to support it. Because of course when, um, these disasters grow and spread, um, they, you know, it's a team effort.

2:30:26So I think it is a really thoughtful change. This last sentence for me when I read it initially is like back to the task comment that I made earlier. It feels like this is the way we're going to do our work. And I was kind of, if they want to put that in there versus kind of the more visionary pieces of the policies, um, and it's the city in there. So I feel like if the city wants to add something in the, I don't have any concern about it. I agree with all of the reasons why it's important to have the different approaches in regards to all of it. But I just, I kind of felt like this wasn't a county. And that's the way I read the document that we don't need to make a decision. It was just kind of awareness. It's the city's decision to add that the way it's written at the very end of that section for me. So I'm happy to support it. I just wasn't expecting us to make a decision about it. I mean, I think it's important. I just wanted to understand, you know, what scale that they're considering this on. So, um, because this is a, uh, yes, that sentence only refers to the city, but I gather they want us to do this because

2:31:37it leads with city and county. It's a city County section. I think since we support their change, then they want us to weigh in. Yeah. Move approval. Okay. Would you like to? I'll move approval. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second all in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Okay. The last item for today is a recommendation from planning commission. They had originally proposed and edit to the rural class under the land use goals shown here in red on the screen, which was to add a bullet enable economic livelihoods based on natural resource management and land stewardship. Um, this has written the Boarda County Commissioners did not accept this edit. And therefore the city Council didn't take up consider of this consideration of this language either. However, the board did make a motion for planning commission to work on the language. And, uh, they did try to rework it, but ultimately found that the proposed language expressed their sentiment in the way they could agree on and believed was appropriate. So they have asked, uh, the county commissioners to reconsider this language and suggest any edits that you might have to address the concerns that you had with this proposed edit. I'm happy to start on this one. I, and thanks for the, I don't know, I hope at the link in there

2:33:18to the conversation, I did take a listen into that section to understand a little bit more and really appreciate the conversation that Commission had to help understand. For me, I'm supportive of what they're asking. I think for me, maybe the question will be and then be interested to hear from the county commissioners about, is it the word based that is the issue. And so if so, like that, that we could potentially look for a different, um, a word. But I am supportive of what they've got conceptually. So I could go with it as it is, or I'm happy to do some synonyms that would be similar to base, but not based. The word for me that I can't get past is enable. So, oh, I see. I had a, I had yet a different take on it. Um, so that three people read it three different ways. Um, what I, what concerned me, the flag that went up on this is a concern that this could support extractive industries on our rural lands.

2:34:35Yeah, I don't know about enable what they were getting at. Because that implies something different. But I did, um, I did craft something and I'm happy to read it and see if anybody likes it. Uh, so, and keep in mind, these are bullet points that start with verbs. Support economic livelihoods that are based on the land and are consistent with responsible land stewardship in environmental sustainability. I support that. I can read it again. No, I think I'm okay because I had support as the alternative to enable in my notes as well. And I just wanted to ask Steph if you felt like that. Captures what was discussed in the conversation because I didn't hear you talk about natural resource management. But I heard land stewardship and environmental sustainability. And I did not listen to the Planning Commission discussion and you did. So yeah. I think we could, um, used to hear that again. Okay. And so I inferred that what, what they're trying to get at, and especially considering the member of the planning commission who made who, who proposed the language, who is a farmer, you know, that they're trying, they're trying to also acknowledge that these rural lands, um, do provide economic livelihoods for people. And that maintaining that economic value, that economic opportunity is one of the ways that we, that these

2:36:28lands, um, are they're productive, they don't go fallow and be overcome by weeds, you know, so that's what I inferred they were trying to achieve. So, and I'll read this again. And if it doesn't support that intention, let me know. Support economic livelihoods. And maybe that's redundant. Maybe it's just livelihoods that are based on the land. That are consistent with responsible land stewardship and environmental sustainability. I can write that in a teams chat, Hannah, if that helps. We can get it from the recording. I just need to be able to think about it right this minute. Okay. Um. I do think one of the elements of this that was important for planning commission was the recognition of the working nature of these lands being part of rural character. You mentioned it, Commissioner Lee, yes, it provides a livelihood. Yes, we, when they're active, the lands are cared for, et cetera. But also, um, that idea that rural lands are working lands. And that's part of the character of the area. These unincorporated areas aren't just, you know, they're not just a visual benefit. It's not a filler empty space. Right. They have value on their own. Um, so that. I think I recognize that. And I think it actually does it more than what they wrote. Maybe not. I don't want that. To. Don't tell.

2:38:09I'm wondering if we could add, um, part of add the words, maintain the working character of these lands and contribute to the rural character. Okay. I thought so it doesn't replace. I thought this was in addition to the list. It is in addition. I support your language. Okay. Okay. Well, I want something that Planning Commission is going to feel honors, the sentiment. Because I agree with this sentiment. I think the language just to me opened up some concerns. Well, maintain that. As a bullet. Point. And just. Ever as a new one. Right. So Commissioner Levy, your bullet point would be new. We do have that second bullet point there. That's about maintaining rural character. Um, so perhaps that captures what planning commission was trying to get out or we could add something there as well about the working component over on character. I, so, uh, maybe I missed something. Is there some other language that, um. That refers to working lands. I thought the only change was what's up on the screen. Oh, I'm just, I think I'm just pulling that from the discussion with planning commission about part of what was important to them in this. Okay. But that's not what they wrote. No, it is not a thing. I will. Yeah. May I just throw another alternative option out there on the support

2:39:53economiclihood's contemplating natural resource management and land stewardship. I'm sorry. So the reason that doesn't work for me is like how would, how does that not suggest that we would support gravel mining on rural lands? Like that we think we should have an expansion of gravel mining. Yeah, this. Is her. That's her. I guess I wasn't anticipating we'd have gravel mining. Boulder County, so I wasn't thinking about that. But if you, if the way you interpret that would allow that, then yeah, that's not my intent. Yeah. That's, I mean, that's like, that comes to mind when I read theirs as well. Like, and that is something that's very real in Boulder County and Longmont outside of Erie. Like that's a, oh yeah, it's not like a, like, yeah, yeah. Not a, it's like a real one that comes to mind for me that I felt like I don't think that's what they were intending on promoting, but that is a way over time that families have supported their livelihood in unincorporated Boulder County. And these were a lands. So what came up? Like, so like that's where Commissioner Lee's put some additional language in there around the environment that I felt like you still would have that economic livelihood piece of it, which I, you said, was redundant, but I think it needs to stay in

2:41:12there to be true to their original sentiment. And it puts the guardrails up that, like I was thinking through some of the extractive, like there are extractive ways to manage land and regenerative ways to manage land. And so those things were coming up for me. Yeah. No, I understand that. And that's why I was trying to get back to the natural resource management because for me, that's how we would address any of those other uses that wouldn't be able to kind of values. But I'm also happy with what you had Commissioner Levy. I was just wanting to consider something closer to what was on the screen, but it doesn't have to be. Yeah. I just, for me, I can imagine a mining company really carrying a lot about natural resource management and just like using those exact same words, but meaning it so very differently than how we would be meaning it. So, but I mean, I think they would genuinely feel like they care deeply for natural resource management. So I think the proposal works better. Maybe we'll just see if they, if they think it addresses what they were looking for. Well, I could, let me try one other version here that I just modified what I wrote a little bit. So support economic livelihoods that work the lands consistent with responsible land

2:42:37stewardship and environmental sustainable ability. That acknowledges that working lands component. I don't know. Does that, would that include beekeeping. Um, but we're not writing a land use code either. I don't know. If it's, I just was trying to get working lands in there. I think working lands is listed somewhere else in the plan. I can have the hard copy in front of me today, not the, I think working lands is written. Somewhere. I can't control F because it's physically in front of me, but yeah, actually down. Um, on that same page under the environmental goals. The second bullet point says promote land stewardship and soil health water conservation and sustainable agricultural practices that support the long - term viability and resilience of rural working lands. We do get to that. Yeah. Okay. Well, I mean, I think either way. Oh, I was just going to say, so your first proposal. I think. The working lands, it sounds like it's already in there, which so that's fine. We'll go with the first one. Move approval of the suggested proposal. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor. Hi.

2:43:55Hi. And I just have a question. Should we make that a conditional approval or we're trying to be agreeable with this particular one. I would be okay with that one. Just not being a conditional. I'm fine with that. So that last motion is for the change in language to be a recommended. Set of language. Yes. Yeah. Okay. This was a planning commission recommended, um, element as well. So it's consistent with that. Now since these rural lands are entirely unincorporated, are they not. Who's going to, who's, which body resolves this. Does the city Council and the planning board even address this? They will have to because they do review everything associated with the land use map and this will be the definition. Um, applied to the lane use framework. I, I would not anticipate any concerns with that. Okay. Additional. I thought I appropriate appropriate things.

2:45:15Yeah. I thought, I thought I heard maybe used Hannah saying if we make ours a recommendation and the planning commission is a recommendation that both recommendations would go to city Council. I think I was proposing an alternative to planning commission recommendation and that we would not bring that one forward. I think that's consistent with the direction that planning commission gave. Yeah. Which was if you don't like ours, try some, you know, do it yourself. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's the end of our agenda. Okay. Um, well, we've done some good work here this afternoon. And, um, we'll see. What, uh, what happens next. Thanks to everybody for continuing to work on this. And I know it's a lot of meetings and a lot of scheduling and a lot of words. And we all love every aspect of it. And that's why we're here. Uh, so if we have no other comment and no other business than we're adjourned.