City Council - Special Meeting

Thursday, June 4th, 2026 special meeting of the Boulder City Council, which is going to be a joint meeting with the planning board. We're looking forward to that very much, but we're going to start with a city council only section of the meeting. So I go ahead and I will go ahead and call the city council to order and ask Alicia to do a roll call, please.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. And good night. I mean, good evening, everyone. And thank you for joining us. We'll start the roll call as usual for tonight's meeting with council member Adams.

Present.

Benjamin.

Present.

Mayor Brockett.

Present.

Council member Kaplan.

Present.

Marquis.

She said here.

Thank you. I can't see her. So shoe hard.

Here.

Speer? Here. Wallach?

Here.

And Mayor Pro Tem Weiner?

Present.

Mayor, we have our quorum.

Thanks so much. Okay, we are going to start with item 2A, which is a declaration commemorating Pride Month, which is going to be presented by myself. So I'm going to come out here, and I would invite our recipients for this to come join us up on the dais.

Thank you, sir. Our consent agenda is item number two. Oh, I'm sorry, the declaration. My apologies.

All right. Pride Month, June 2026. More than 50 years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer LGBTQ plus community. Out of this resistance, the LGBTQ plus rights movement in America was born. During Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBTQ plus individuals. Boulder has a very diverse LGBTQ plus community that includes people of many ethnicities, religions, and professions. They keep our community going while dealing with the anti-LGBTQ plus bias and discrimination that persists sadly even here in Boulder and that is growing across the country. We are so grateful for local LGBTQ plus organizations such as Rocky Mountain Equality, Queer Asterisk, A Queer Endeavor, and the Pride Office at CU Boulder. that support our LGBTQ plus community members, many of whom have intersecting marginalized identities that are not always honored and celebrated in our city. Although LGBTQ plus rights continue to be attacked, advocacy across Colorado has produced meaningful victories in 2026. State lawmakers have worked to defend evidence-based healthcare, keep LGBTQ plus Coloradans safe, and ensure that all community members' civil rights are protected. Coloradans also come together to ensure the LGBTQ plus community in our state is safeguarded from discriminatory policies. That effort remains unfortunately urgent and necessary. As we celebrate pride, we honor our LGBTQ plus communities and restate our commitment to uplift everyone in our community, regardless of gender or sexuality. Therefore, we, the City Council of the City of Boulder, Colorado, declare June 2026 as Pride Month. and urge all community members to honor the diversity in our community, to continue building a culture of inclusiveness and acceptance, and to stand up against injustice in all forms. And with that, I'll hand over to Mark Lester this. So glad to be joined by Mark and Marty Moore here to receive this and say a few words. And I just want to say how grateful I am for the flag raising that we all did together on June 1st to celebrate the beginning of Pride Month. And with that, I'll hand the microphone over to you to say a few words.

Thank you to the members of Boulder City Council, to Mayor Brockett, and to Megs and the rest of city staff for helping to make this proclamation happen. Our community is deeply appreciative of your continued collaboration and support. We are living in a time in which statements of our values, such as these, are crucially important. Pride is both a celebration and a remembrance. It honors the generations of LGBTQ plus people who fought for the freedom to live openly, love authentically, and participate fully in public life. It is a time to celebrate the diversity, resilience, and contributions of LGBTQ plus people in Boulder and across our country. As a community, Boulder has long embraced values of inclusion, dignity, and respect for all people. This didn't just happen though. Countless people fought and sacrificed to make it so. In the 1970s, two members of this body, Penn Tate II and Tim Fuller, staked their futures and careers on the assertion that no one in Boulder, no matter their sexual orientation, should face discrimination. County Clerk and Recorder Cleo Roerichs did so too when granting the country's first same-sex marriage licenses just a few minutes from here. When Amendment 2 banned non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation, it was Boulderite Jean Dabowski who led the fight that successfully overturned it. In 1999, Boulder became one of the first cities in Colorado to incorporate gender identity into its human rights ordinance. Today, countless Boulderites, including this city council, are on the front lines defending LGBTQ plus rights, particularly transgender rights, which are under relentless attack across this country. Pride Month is an opportunity to affirm our values, to honor the hard work and sacrifice that has made Boulder into the welcoming place it is today, and to recommit ourselves to fighting for the preservation of human rights and dignity for everyone, no matter who they are. For myself, Rocky Mountain Equality, and every individual you are impacting with your proclamation tonight, we thank you.

All right. Thanks again so much for joining us. And we'll see you at Boulder Pride on June 13th, yes?

Okay, we'll continue now.

Mark, did you want to say something?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. On a point of personal privilege, I'd like to read a brief statement. A student group at the University of Colorado, who call themselves Boulder Students for Justice in Palestine, have just published a letter attempting to justify the cold-blooded murder of Karen Diamond and the injuring of more than a dozen other local citizens on June 1st of last year by a cold-blooded act of terror. This act of terrorism by Mohammed Salman, who is now justly serving a sentence of life imprisonment plus 2,178 years, is now characterized as an act of freedom-fighting heroism. Allow me a moment to briefly respond. In an era when standards of decency and compassion seem to be declining by the day, we have now reached a new low, one that any decent human being would regard as simply despicable. It is beyond understanding how any individual could have reached adulthood with so little compassion and so little empathy as to celebrate the murder by burning alive of a woman who was a survivor of the Holocaust. Is it any wonder that when contacted by the Daily Camera, not one of these brave individuals would go on the record, hiding behind the anonymity of their group? To celebrate the murder and injury of peaceful protesters, whose only issue was their desire to see hostages return to their families, is the attitude of individuals who have lost all touch with their humanity. They are to be reviled, of course, but they are also to be pitied as individuals who have turned their back on every value that is necessary to be part of a community. This is one of the worst acts I have encountered during my tenure on this body. If I am fortunate, and I doubt I will be, I will not see its like again. I hope the members of this council will join me in the condemnation of this behavior. Thank you. Thank you for that, Mark.

And Tara, did you want to say a point of personal privilege?

A point of personal privilege, I'd want to read the statement that District Attorney, I'm just going to read part of the statement District Attorney Michael Daugherty gave. He said, the sentence we secured was justice for an inexcusable, unjustified act of terror and hate against members of our Jewish community. I join in the many rational voices condemning their statement as heartless and vile. Thankfully, the law does not justify or excuse a person setting other human beings on fire in an effort to kill them. So despite their view, that unauthorized student group, he will never be released from prison. My office will continue to stand against hate crimes, against the Jewish community, and any community.

Thanks for that. I appreciate you speaking out against that horrendous statement. And with that, we will now go to our consent agenda. Please, Elisha.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is item two on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 2A through 2F.

Very good. Do we have any questions or comments on the consent agenda? I'll make a motion to pass the consent agenda, please.

Second.

We've got a motion and a second. Alicia, can we have a roll call on that, please?

Yes, Sir, thank you will start the roll call on the consent agenda items to a through to F with councilmember shoe heart. Spear. Yes. Well like I may approach him why yes. Councilmember Adams, yes.

Benjamin yes, mayor Brock it yes.

Councilmember Kaplan yes and Marquis. The consent agenda items are hereby approved unanimously.

All right. Thanks so much. If we can go into our public hearing, please.

Yes, sir. Our public hearing is item four on tonight's agenda. It is the City Council and Planning Board public hearing and consideration by each body of a motion to approve the major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

Very good, I would like to invite now the planning board to those of them who are not already up here to come and join us on the dais. Okay, looks like we'll take a second. Does anybody have a card to let folks in? Come on down. All right, well, I will now invite Planning Board Chair Laura Kaplan to call the Planning Board to order.

Thank you. I call this meeting to order for the Planning Board of the City of Boulder. Do we need to do a roll call?

Yes. And I think there's, do you have language in front of you? Specific language to use?

Yes, ma'am, you do have a script right in front of you.

Oh, okay, fancy. Alicia, you might have to guide me. Is there something in particular I need to do for the roll call?

No, you would just need to call the roll call as normal and then declare a quorum.

So we normally do this pretty informally. And I see all of our planning board members here except for Claudia Hanson theme. So that is six of seven of us. And so we have our quorum.

All righty. Thank you. You may want to read the purpose of the meeting into the record for this special planning board meeting.

Okay, so we would like to call to order a special Planning Board meeting tonight, June 4th, for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing with City Council to consider a motion to approve the recommended major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Planning Board will deliberate and consider a motion for further action on June 16th, 2026. We have six of our seven members in attendance tonight, which constitutes a quorum. And thank you for having us. I now turn the management of this joint special meeting back to the mayor to conduct and chair the joint public hearing. And thank you for the script, Alicia.

Thanks so much for that planning board chair, Kaplan. All right. Well, I will now turn to city staff to go into the staff presentation. So Nuri, do you want to get us started?

It's a lovely special meeting and really great to have the joint bodies here. I'm going to pass it to our director of planning and development services Brad Mueller to kick it off. Thank you.

Thank you. And good evening council members and planning board members. It's a pleasure to be here before you this evening. I wanted to share as we go into the presentation tonight that it's been almost 50 years ago that the first Boulder Valley comprehensive plan set out a bold vision that resulted in the community that we know and love today. A compact urban form that shows respect for the natural environment is a place of innovation in industry and living and which shows respect for different people and many different ideas. So the team here reminded me recently of something I've said since the beginning of this whole process namely that the process is as important as the product. Now we do hope that you accept and endorse the product. But the process of getting here matters as much as the product because it reflects the collective view of the community a view that we have tried to enhance with this update by bringing in as many voices as many opinions and as many perspectives as possible. I will say that some people see such an effort as a fool's errand because expecting a single common set of values for one hundred and fifty thousand such people in the valley is obviously an impossible task. And there are certainly jurisdictions that simply give lip service to the state mandated state mandated comprehensive plan. But as we look to the next 20 years the time horizon of this comprehensive plan and furthermore how this plan might be perceived in another 50 years we hope that this is an opportunity to be bold again. And so it is not foolishness to imagine a shared vision for the community but it does mean compromises. And it does mean recognizing that not everybody is going to get everything that they want. But in that regard people should take comfort because if we can generally agree on the what's and the why's that are important then as a community we can continue to do the hard work of determining the how in the years to come. So Kathleen King Sarah Horn and Christopher Johnson will be representing the work of the dozens of people who have led and supported this effort. So I will now turn it over to Kathleen.

Great. Thank you Brad. Good evening. City Council. Good evening planning board. My name is Kathleen King. and the principal city planner on the comprehensive planning team and we are all really excited to be with you tonight to present the recommended major update to the comprehensive plan for your consideration. Tonight marks the initiation of the approval process and this meeting is the first of two sessions you will hold to consider approval of the plan. This evening there will be a staff presentation and Council and Planning Board will hear from community members in the public hearing. Your deliberations and considerations of a motion will take place at a future session. And as a reminder, all four of the approving bodies must approve the same plan. KJ's gonna talk through the details of that a little bit later. But here's how we're going to spend our time together tonight. We have about 20 minutes of a staff presentation to go over the recommended plan. There's some time to ask any clarifying questions that council or board members may have. And then you all will hold the public hearing to hear from community members. A reminder that we are at the very end of this process. At our last two sessions with you all in March at a joint study session and in April at the four body meeting, we reviewed the draft plan together. We took your feedback and comments to revise the plan. But you weren't the only ones who reviewed the draft and provided feedback. The plan was posted for community review on March 3. Since then, we've received over a thousand comments and so many people in the community dedicated time and energy to reviewing the draft plan and providing really thoughtful feedback on how to make it better. Since the plan was posted, we've met with policy makers, all of the city advisory boards. We've been meeting and iterating with dedicated staff from across the city and county to review policy choices and refine the maps. Our great partner organizations like BVSD, Growing Up Boulder, and staff at the state have reviewed the plan and provided critical feedback. And then finally, so many community members came to our open house, filled out forms, sent us emails, met with us at office hours, and contributed so many great thoughts and edits that we reviewed and used to make updates to the plan. It was a lot of input and a ton of comments to get through, in a relatively short window, but thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who offered your thoughts. Our team genuinely read and considered every single comment and used so many to revise a plan and put forward a recommended update to the comprehensive plan that we believe represents a community vision and path for the future. So let's take a look at the plan and see if we've achieved the goals that we set together 20 months ago. At the outset of this process, you all set some big goals for our team, our community, and yourselves. We wanted to carry out the most inclusive process that the comprehensive plan has ever gone through. We wanted to identify a clear values-based approach to the plan and the future. We wanted to deliver a set of policies that were clear and truly usable over time. And we wanted a modern and simple future land use strategy. These goals represented some significant updates to the plan, and council encouraged the team to be bold. You also wanted to achieve all of this work in 20 months, which is a shorter timeframe than the updates have historically taken. To achieve all of this on schedule, the community had to be more active, engaged, and willing to move at a quicker pace. You all had to take time to meet with us, study your packets, and bring ideas to the table, and provide confident direction, And we think that we've done it. I'm going to walk through both how the recommended plan and the process have achieved these goals, and we'll highlight some of the revisions we've made since the March draft. So the first goal was about delivering the most inclusive planning process the comprehensive plan has ever undergone. Over the last 20 months, we've hosted over 70 engagement opportunities. These included some traditional methods that some community members have come to expect and are really comfortable with, like surveys and open houses. But we also tried new ways to engage, hoping to ignite participation by members of our community who don't typically or have never participated in planning projects before. And we believe we've achieved our goal. Through engagement with community connectors, experiments in public art, the community assembly, and other methods, we heard from so many people. And that participation is felt in the plan. There are areas of interest that have never been included before. There are shifts in policy that represent the feedback from broader participation. So again, thank you to everyone who came to an event, hosted a community conversation in their home, or submitted photos to Voicing Boulder. We hope you see yourselves in this plan. The next goal was about establishing a clear approach based on community values. Those early stages of engagement really helped us identify the vision for the community and revisit our community values. As the plan moves forward through implementation, these elements will be important references for decision making and alignment across city departments and between city and county. We received very little feedback or suggestions for revision on the vision statement during the March draft, and perhaps that's because it was VETTED SO RIGOROUSLY IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, BUT WE DID RECEIVE SOME COMMENTS RELATED TO COMMUNITY VALUES AND AN INTEREST IN EXPANDING HOW THE PLAN ADDRESSES A FEW TOPICS IN PARTICULAR. TRANSPORTATION, RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS AND OPEN SPACE. TO ADDRESS THESE INTERESTS, WE EXPANDED THE TOPICS INCLUDED IN THE FUTURE OF SERIES AND IN THE CASE OF OPEN SPACE IN PARTICULAR, REVISITED LANGUAGE AND TOPIC AREAS THROUGHOUT THE to better feature and celebrate the community's long-time commitment to the natural world. The next goal centers around policy, and we set out to deliver a set of clear and usable policies that can allow for adaptability and implementation over time. Through the planning process, we were able to deliver a set of 104 policies that we've deemed essential to include at the level of the comprehensive plan. These policies are intentionally written in direct plain language and strive to remove ambiguity from interpretation. The policies also focus on the what and why of various topics. This intentionally removes specificity from how policy should be implemented and leaves room for creativity in the future as implementation occurs. We received hundreds of comments on the policies We read every single comment, considered the potential outcomes and alignment with policy intent, negotiated potential revisions with subject matter experts and department directors, and tried to accept as many changes as we could. So hopefully people really see their input in the policies because we truly considered each and every submission. If folks would like to review all of the comments we received on the draft plan or see how comments were implemented, You can find the full log through a link on the project website, aboulderfuture.org, and the log was also attached to the memo in tonight's packet. In general, there were a couple policy areas that received a lot of feedback, and we had to weigh different impacts of suggested revisions on issues like environment and climate change, open space, transportation and mobility, and community character. Again, a ton of really thoughtful feedback on this component of the plan, and we included a lot of the suggested revisions. Finally, we wanted to deliver a modern and simplified future land use strategy that provides clear and resilient direction for the future. This was perhaps the most daunting goal as our team has a deep respect for Boulder's long history of thoughtful land use planning and recognizes that many of the community members who helped shape the original framework in the 70s are still very actively engaged in the community today. What we heard throughout the process was not a desire to abandon this history, but to build on it and extend opportunities throughout the community. Through this update process, we heard a consistent desire to refresh the approach, to create a strategy that is easier to understand, more proactive, and flexible enough to respond to evolving community needs and unexpected challenges. We think we've achieved this while continuing to reflect Boulder's core values. So the recommended plan includes 12 land use designations and each designation defines expectations about use, urban design, and mobility facilities. The future land use strategy carefully considers our transportation future and aligns with plans for transportation and mobility options. Staff have worked across departments to ensure that the capacity of the land use strategy aligns with our goals for resource management, climate action, and economic success. This update to the plan also includes specific guidance on how to use the future land use map and when to consider context and allow for flexibility so that we remain resilient in the future. We received a great deal of feedback about the future land use strategy and some excellent suggestions that you'll see in the updated plan, including the addition of economic goals for each future land use class, updated expectations for mobility in all of the land use designations, the revision of the rural lands designation and creation of a rural class to respond to county interest, and an updated map that's better aligned with community interests for corridors and hubs throughout the city. So with that, our team feels confident that we've all accomplished the goals we set out to achieve together. I'm going to turn it over to Sarah Horn, who will dive deeper into the content and give you a clear overview of what the plan can do.

Thank you, Kathleen. Hello, planning board and council members. I'm Sarah Horn. a senior planner on the comp team, comp planning team, and I'm really excited to be here with you, with my team members, with all of our subject matter experts, our colleagues at the city, and all of the community members who are here tonight, here and online, to kick off the approval process. Before I go over the plan highlights, as Kathleen mentioned, I just want to take a minute to remind everyone that the comprehensive plan operates at a high level. It defines what's possible, as Kathleen mentioned, by establishing a shared community vision and values and provides policies and a future land use strategy that guide other plans, projects, code updates, investments, and other implementation efforts. These future actions determine how, when, and to what extent that vision is realized. This distinction is important because we've heard a range of perspectives throughout the update process. Some people are eager to see progress happen as quickly as possible, dare I say yesterday in some cases, while others are concerned that some of the changes or updates envisioned in the plan could happen immediately or rather quickly, and they want to see slower or in some cases no change at all. The reality is that the comp plan documents what could happen and what we'd like to see over time, but it doesn't guarantee particular outcomes or that every change will occur. Implementation takes time, resources, public process, and future decision-making. The plan sets the direction. Future actions determine the details, pace, and amount of change. The power of the plan is not that it changes everything or transforms the community overnight, but that every 10 years, it reestablishes a shared framework for the future, helping ensure decisions, day-to-day actions, and long-term investments are all moving in the agreed-to direction. one our community has envisioned together. So with that in mind, on to the major highlights. So what does this comprehensive plan actually do? Well, one of the major shifts is centering equity. The plan provides clear expectations surrounding equity, both in policy and implementation over time. It considers the community as a whole and works to plan for a future that is equitable and age inclusive, considering the needs of youth and children, students, young professionals, families, and older adults. The plan also identifies important improvements to support and increase opportunities to strengthen the local food system and support local food access. Through both policies and the future land use strategy, the plan establishes a commitment to increasing the housing supply to meet community needs. The land use strategy also helps implement this commitment by expanding the kinds of homes that can be built throughout the community creating more choices in more places across the city. The plan also supports the evolution of areas of the city to be more walkable, expanding opportunities for people to access everyday destinations closer to home. The plan supports more opportunities for social connection, gathering and interacting with each other. This is accomplished through multiple associated policies in the future land use strategy, which allows for more mixing of uses and support for dynamic environments. The plan continues Boulder's legacy of expanding choices for mobility, giving community members many options for how to connect to places and to each other. It also anticipates the future of access and connection, establishing the expectation that future technologies supported by the city must align with our community values. On the economic front, the plan offers new ways for local entrepreneurs and small businesses to start and grow. It supports commercial activity in residential areas and helps create more opportunities for affordable commercial spaces. It considers how the local economy should evolve to be more expansive, and it supports places that foster community activity and experiences throughout the day and at night. And it recommits to supporting the long-term success and stability of Boulder's wide variety of businesses, which play an important role in shaping the city's character and economy and help make Boulder the active place it is today. The plan also importantly reaffirms the city and county's commitment to ongoing stewardship of open space, agriculture, and natural resources to help support the natural environment, humans, and wildlife. It recognizes natural resources as vital infrastructure in the community, and it elevates the importance of resource and energy efficiency as critical to the future health of the Boulder Valley community. The plan also renews Boulder's commitment to Vision Zero and defines this important community goal. It acknowledges the impact of climate change and the increasing risks our community faces. It supports proactive planning, response, and recovery efforts to help Boulder adapt and build resilience to these risks. In addition, the plan recognizes that creating a safe and healthy community requires addressing underlying causes of harm and takes a more holistic, community-centered approach to these issues. And the final highlights I'll go over relate to governance. The update provides greater clarity about how the city and county work together and collaborate to manage growth and change in the valley. It expands the city's options for investing in local infrastructure programs and services, and it aligns local planning with the latest state legislation. Okay, so the plan does all of what we just walked through and more, which I know most of you already know since I'm guessing you've read the plan cover to cover. As I mentioned earlier, the power of the plan is evident in its policies and future land use strategy, but also, and maybe most importantly, as Kathleen and Brad touched on earlier in the incredible collaborative collaborative process that got us here. We hope you agree that both the plan and process have achieved the goals Kathleen went over and we set out to accomplish. And we hope this major update meets both your and the community's expectations for this important once in a decade opportunity. We think it provides a strong foundation for the decisions, actions, and investments that will help us move toward the future. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to KJ to walk through the rest of the update process.

Thank you, Sarah.

Thank you. Let's see. Okay, that one's working. I will just migrate this briefly.

Okay.

Okay, let's, everything was going so smoothly and then I took over. Okay, so thank you, Sarah. Good evening, council and planning board members. My name is Christopher Johnson. I serve as the comprehensive planning senior manager and I will now take everyone through the logistics for how the comprehensive plan approval process works and a few near term next steps. So as you know, there are four bodies that must review and approve the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Each body holds a public hearing and ultimately will take action on the plan. Tonight we are hosting the city's joint public hearing and then each of these two bodies will deliberate and vote in a separate meeting. An important reminder that we've mentioned before is that final adoption requires that all four bodies approve the exact same plan and language. Because of this, we kindly ask, to the best of your ability, please check your wordsmithing hat at the door if you can. And if a body feels that an amendment is necessary, which is certainly within your ability as the recommended draft plan is still a draft, we ask that it be a substantive change and not a minor language edit. Any revisions that are included as a condition of approval must be brought back to the other bodies for their review. And we're hoping to avoid the need for a series of follow-up meetings to reconcile differences. Given the summer recesses and agenda backlogs on both the city and the county side, scheduling additional meetings could prove to be challenging. So while the four bodies must review and approve the comprehensive plan, there are slight differences in the role that each one plays. The comprehensive plan serves as the city's only long-range land use plan, and therefore the two city bodies have the largest role in reviewing the changes. You can see that both bodies have a review role for all of the policies, except those that solely refer to the county. And for reference, there are only two of those in the plan. Those are policies seven and eight. And they refer to the county's jurisdiction over unincorporated areas within the planning boundary. You also have a role in reviewing all of the future land use map changes and all of the planning areas map changes. And if you do that, you will be rewarded with an enchilada as well. The comprehensive plan, however, is not a detailed land use plan for the unincorporated county. So rather, it serves to document our shared values and the partnership that we have to responsibly manage growth and direct urban development into the city in a manner that preserves the rural open space and agricultural character of the surrounding area. The Board of County Commissioners reviews only policies that reference the county. They review future land use map changes in Area 3, and have an option to call up land use map changes in area two that are larger than five acres. Since we have reimagined the future land use strategy and this applies to an area larger than five acres, they will be reviewing all of the land use changes in area two. And then finally, they also review planning areas map changes that involve area three, except changes from area three to area two that are less than five acres. The county planning commission's role is limited to also reviewing only those policies that reference the county. They only review future land use map changes in area three. They do not review area two changes. And then they also have the same review over planning areas map changes that involve area three, except those that are from area three to area two that are less than five acres. And just for everybody's awareness and information, there are only two changes to the planning areas map that are proposed as part of this update, and both of them are smaller than five acres. So the county's review will actually only be focused on the policies and the future land use map. The county will be hosting their joint public hearing on June 11th, so a week from today. And as I mentioned, the four bodies will then deliberate and vote at separate meetings. You can see that planning board is scheduled on June 16th. County planning commission is scheduled for June 17th, the following day. And then finally, we have a comp plan double header lined up on June 25th with the board of county commissioners during the day and then city council meeting in the evening. I also just want to make a plug for June 17th that the Comprehensive Plan Experiments in Public Art will have their opening art exhibit reception at the main library on the evening of June 17th. So a few final notes on near term milestones here through the end of the year and into early 2027. So after adoption the team will be working hard to create and launch a brand new Boulder Valley comprehensive plan website that will really serve as the primary interface for future users of the plan. We are aiming to have this ready by September and the PDF version that is included in your packet will serve in the interim and then of course will continue to be available after the website launches. That website will have a lot of opportunities to be able to sort the information in a number of different ways. And so we hope that that's a much more accessible way for people to find the information that they're interested in. Additionally, early implementation will be guided through the upcoming budget and CIP and work planning efforts by individual departments through the end of this year. The citywide strategic plan is already beginning to inch forward internally and will really begin to take shape later in the year. and into the early months of 2027. So it informs your next council retreat and priority setting exercise next year. And then finally, implementation will continue to occur through many other tools over the coming years, including more detailed planning around specific topics or geographies, updates to the zoning code and development regulations, and ongoing work by all of the amazing staff across the organization. So I... I'm blessed with the privilege this evening to finish our staff presentation and I will close by saying that I have been honored to work side by side with the most incredible group of people over the last two years of this process. Now this includes not only the team members directly involved with the day to day work but also all of our subject matter experts from the city and county that joined in at multiple stages. City and county leadership that reviewed materials quickly and gave critical guidance along the way. the advisory boards and partner agencies that weighed in on important topics, and all of you elected and appointed officials that really set high expectations for engagement and gave us the charge to be bold. I personally am humbled by your dedication to this process, to your passions, and to this community. But most of all, as has been mentioned by others earlier in the presentation, this plan absolutely does not exist without the community members that showed up shared their voice and helped us craft the vision for a bolder future. With gratitude, I say thank you. Mayor Brockett, I will turn the floor back over to you for questions.

Thanks so much for that, KJ and for Kathleen, for Sarah. Phenomenal presentations, but only a small portion of the incredible work that you've been doing over the last almost two years. We'll talk more about that later, I'm sure. But now we will come to Council and Planning Board for questions. And I'll just ask folks to confine your questions to ones that you really feel need to get answered in order to determine what you're going to do during your deliberations. And I'll say we can start with maybe up to two each. And then if after everybody's had a chance, there are a couple more questions at the end, we can do those as well. So for now, who would like to ask a question?

I'll start. Thank you, Mayor. Christopher or any of the team, can you show what changes have been made to the land use map since we last saw it? The memo indicated that there had been some changes, but I wasn't able to tell what exactly those were.

Yeah, I don't believe we don't have a map prepared that would show exactly those differences between the draft plan and what is there today. I can say that there were some additional adjustments to add a few additional areas of neighborhood two. Then I recall we took a closer look at some existing conditions that were on the ground and it made sense to change those areas to neighborhood two. I think that was broadly actually most of the changes that were that were considered. There were some also some clarifications and some updates to the open space. layer or the open space designation as well to make sure that that correctly captured not only city and county owned properties or properties that have a conservation easement on them, but also properties up near gun barrel that are preserved for open space purposes by the gun barrel improvement district. So we captured a lot of those comments and actually that was the result of some direct community feedback that made us aware of those properties.

Great, thank you. Would it by chance be possible to get a delta map by the time of our next meetings?

Yes, I think we can prepare that for the 16th.

And I'll just note that Planning Board Vice Chair Claudia Hanson-Thiem has joined us, so welcome Claudia. I had Tina and then Tara.

Sure, is this mic working?

Thank you. Good thing we all get along so that's great. So I had a question just thinking about sort of this budget issue we're finding with our infrastructure and our facilities and I was looking at the language across the different financial pieces including policy 20 around maintaining public assets, policy 65 around the city resources management, and then the opening value around responsibly governed. And I'm wondering because we are all transient here and we will only serve a certain amount of time, but the cost specifically for facilities and infrastructure is eternal. And I'm wondering if we thought about elevating more the need to plan for those types of costs, which when you're entering city council or entering the city as a staff person, you may not realize the bill you're racking up by deferring that maintenance and trying to elevate that in a more permanent way. And one of the things I noticed with the affordable housing is it uses language that says the city will direct resources. to the creation of affordable housing. I think it's the only policy that is that specific. And I'm just wondering if we had thought about creating language like that so that remains a top line item for every city council over the next decade.

And here I thought it was going to be all to staff. Before I send it to the team, I want to appreciate the comment about the cost of deferred maintenance. We certainly are having a lot of conversations about that. Because we have been on a journey to really be mindful of this as we move forward, all our projects will be inclusive of projected operations and maintenance, O&M, in the future. We hope that we do not see ourselves in that situation, but we are leaning forward into being more transparent about what cost of any new facility will be. and to include the total cost of ownership in what we do moving forward. I'll leave it to the team to continue to respond.

Thank you, Neria. Yes, there are some existing policies in the current plan, and those were revised and updated to, as you actually mentioned, Policy 20 is specific to maintaining our existing assets and making sure that we call that out very specifically. So that is one area in which we have been very explicit and very direct about that is an important value of the city. The other policy that you mentioned, number 64, is a newer policy and speaks more broadly to creating more reliable and flexible funding streams to be able to serve and maintain our city services, our infrastructure and maintenance. So those are a couple of examples where the comprehensive plan now elevates those goals really directly through those policies so that future councils, other advisory boards can use those policies in the future to make sure that we're making good decisions.

Okay, and I'll save comments, I guess, for our council deliberation. And then my other question was, when we think about increasing light density in neighborhood one, there wasn't an explicit differentiation for areas near the WUI. But we also talked about how we would be responsive in terms of emergency disaster preparedness and evacuation. Do we feel a need at this point in time to talk about the trade-offs of increasing populations near the WUI that will need evacuation services in the case of an urban conflagration or something, or a flood?

Yeah, it is a great question. So as you referenced, the neighborhood one land use designation envisions a variety of housing types beyond just a single family detached house. On an individual site by site basis, that would be evaluated. So the existing zoning, the zoning that applies to those areas is not changing. So today, many of those areas do not allow for the types of housing that is envisioned by the comprehensive plan. So that means that either rezonings or future changes to the zoning code will be required. And as part of each of those, those are public processes that also involve an evaluation and a review of the context, particularly the geography, so that decisions can be made as to whether, you know, the appropriateness of those different housing types and the numbers of people that are living in those areas. So specifically related to the WUI, If there was a more broad zoning code change that was evaluating the allowance of different housing types across say the RL1 zone district, that would need to go into some nuance and some specificity around when RL1 is in the WUE versus when RL1 is adjacent to a transit corridor as an example. So I think those are the types of implementation steps that the comprehensive plan establishes the vision but those future steps would get into the details of how we then apply those effectively and appropriately across the city.

So then if I'm speaking with the community about this issue it comes up a lot. So I could say that if you're near an open space area in a wildfire area that the expectation isn't that we're going to that you can without a conversation, increase population density there until we can evaluate what sort of services we can provide for them for evacuation.

I would say yes, that's true. Thank you.

Tina, can you check your mic? I hear it's been fixed.

Thank you.

Tara.

I have a question. As you know, we've been getting a lot of emails the past week or so of community members that are still concerned with some of the items in the Boulder Valley, the new Boulder Valley comp plan. So when I think of a public hearing, to me, you still keep an open mind to change because you'll hear perspective, we'll hear perspectives at this public hearing that we might not have considered. Can you, so just the idea that it is so hard to change it at this point doesn't exactly relax me. I don't think it's fair, but let's say that you do. Tell us exactly what we need to do if we hear something at a public hearing that makes a lot of sense. Exactly what do we do? Do we get four other people that agree as a council? What are the next steps?

Yeah, good question. So procedurally, that would occur at your follow-up meeting, your deliberation meeting, where you can have those more in-depth conversations and actually make motions and votes for any amendments to the plan. Individuals can't necessarily recommend changes or amendments to the plan. It needs to be from the body itself. So there would need to be a majority consensus on each body that an amendment should be made. Essentially what would happen is that because of the sequence of events, Planning Board will be seeing this first on the 16th. If they have any amendments, we would make sure that Planning Commission at the county and the Board of County Commissioners and ultimately City Council at your meetings are aware of their recommended changes. You would incorporate that into your discussion and decide whether or not you agree. If there is a difference between what has been proposed and then also what all the bodies are agreeing to, then that just means that staff would have to go back and hold additional meetings and additional hearings to reconcile those differences. I will say we have already at least held a couple of dates just in case that is the will of council and planning board or the county bodies to make changes. So we are prepared for that eventuality.

Can I ask a follow-up to that, KJ? And I assume if we did want to make any changes like that, that they would need to be very specific. Not like, hey, can you take another look at Chapter 2, but something more like, hey, can you add the following sentence at the end of Policy 64?

Yes, that would be preferable. Very good. And request that they be a substantive change to the plan rather than please change this one word, you know, that kind of thing.

Got it. And I don't have a specific change for 64. I was just thinking about the Beatles. Any other? Mark? And then Ryan?

Oh, follow up on this one. I think I have a follow up question or two. So let's say, hypothetically, by the end of this evening, there's a few members of the joint bodies that would like to propose a pretty modest change. So I'm thinking like a best case scenario that it's very simple, but it is a change. First question is when do they and how do they raise that. Is that at the next meeting at the meeting or something else.

Well you would not be able to take action on any changes until that meeting. So and I might even lean into my good friend Teresa here to help Because at the end of this meeting, you will be taking a vote on a motion to continue the hearing. So the hearing is technically still open during that time. So I don't believe that staff could propose changes or make edits in that interim. I think we would need to wait for that deliberation meeting where you actually take a vote and approve any amendments that are being proposed. Is that correct?

So I'm paying KJ to do my job tonight because he got it exactly right. You would propose amendments at your continued hearing after deliberations. That would then necessitate reconciling, if those amendments were adopted, that would require reconciling that across all four bodies and then another reading.

So let's say there's a member who has a proposal. Do they just bring it to the next meeting then? Or do they need to, ahead of time, write a hotline, which only council members, I believe, have access to?

No, hotline is public council member. And so others have access to it. I would recommend writing a hotline with your proposed amendments in that you have a no surprises rule. creating a public hotline would allow your colleagues the opportunity to consider those amendments in anticipation of you making the motion.

And if it came from planning board, does planning board members have access to sending a hotline?

Planning board members do not have access to hotline. I'm sure there's another mechanism by which planning board communicates.

Perhaps Brad would you like to weigh in on how planning board might do just one tree is done.

I don't know if you covered everything. OK. Yeah. And just maybe to put a finer point on it you know the sequencing was somewhat random of the different hearings or deliberations because we had to fit in what we could. But if planning board makes a comment and it gets accepted by planning commission and subsequently by county commissioners and subsequently by city council there's not a need for iterating but if city council adds something at the end then we're going to be going back to all four bodies a second time and brad could you speak to how planning board members might elevate any proposed amendments ahead of their meeting yeah so uh there is the planning board uh email and they would be able to direct that to staff as as a common language um we have an exactly work this out but I could imagine us duplicating that as a hotline then so that it was uniformly available. And of course we have a responsibility to share those out to the other two bodies of the county too.

Great. Does that answer your questions Ryan? That's my first and the other question is just timing. So imagining a scenario where it's a very simple one but it is a change. Maybe a couple members have a couple of thoughts and that's agreeable straightforwardly by the bodies. How far out does that push our time frame like in an optimistic scenario but a scenario that does include a change?

I suppose it depends on the sequencing that as Brad mentioned if planning board suggested a change and the four bodies in sequence accepted that that's it. It would end it would end at city council on June 25th. but if council were to introduce something or if say the County commissioners introduced something, then we would need to bring that to council and back to planning board. So that means then we'd be scheduling meetings out into the month of July and most likely August as well. And depending on the number of amendments and the number of back and forth that is required, it could extend even into September.

Okay. I think that's good enough for now. Thanks a lot. Great. Mark.

Erin, could I colloquy on that just in terms of planning board's procedure? Sure. Thank you. So planning board does not have the same no surprises rule as council and we do not typically send each other language to consider before a meeting. Are we changing that expectation for this particular process or should we follow our normal process where we bring our proposed changes to our next meeting on the 16th?

I don't believe there's a right or wrong answer to that necessarily, but I do think that, oh, Hela's coming up.

But we do have city attorney Hela Panawick.

There is a right and wrong answer, and I don't know what it is. There might be a right answer, and Hela's got it.

Hela Panawick with the city attorney's office. Yeah, the planning board doesn't have a hotline that's public, so we have to be careful that we don't create a public meeting through chain emails. So my recommendation would be to bring it to the meeting.

Thank you Hella and thank you KJ and thank you Aaron. Great.

Mark. Again thank you KJ and for all your hard work and I have a question but I have a follow on clarification and that is let's say there is a change to a specific map area in area one and it has nothing to do with the county but that change came about by council or planning board after the county planning commission has approved the plan. That area one change to the map in the city has to be approved by the county planning commission?

No. No, I think you know where you're headed, but yes, any, and I wanted to introduce that clarification that if Any land use map changes that are within the city or even in area two that are less than five acres, those would just need to be reviewed and approved by the two city bodies, by Planning Board and Council. Also, if there happens to be language, there are some policies that only refer to the city. So if there was change to a policy that was a city-only policy, that would also only be reviewed and approved by these two bodies and would not need to go back to the commissioners.

Okay and so to clarify further wording in regard to a zone or a hub again all within the city a change a change gets made that does not need to go back to the county.

That one is perhaps a bit more. We would have to look at it because it would depend upon the land use designation that's being changed because there are some land use designations that are applied both inside the city but also in area two which is under county jurisdiction. So it would it would depend on where the change is made.

Okay great. Thank you. On to my question and I just have two quick ones. In the current plan And first of all, thank you for all of the responses to community members in regard to residential uses in industrial zones. So I've read them all. I've read your responses. And my question is, in the current plan, is residential uses prohibited in any area or zone?

Is residential use, yes, residential use is not described in, give me just a moment to get to those current land use designations. Residential is not described in the general industrial or the community industrial land use classes. It is also not described in The community business or transitional business or service commercial or general business categories as well. So there are several land use designations in the current plan that do not reference residential.

And by not referencing, does that prohibit that?

No, not necessarily. Because if the zoning of those properties allows residential and development is done with Outside of a site review process that requires consistency with the comp plan and the comp plan land use map then yes Residential could be allowed in those areas.

Okay, and then in the in the current draft is Residential use prohibited in all or part of what we are now calling the industrial designation

No, residential is not prohibited because the zoning still governs what uses are allowed within those locations.

Okay, but it's not noted in what you expect under uses.

Correct. It is not noted as far as what the future of the industrial land use designation does not include residential in that context.

Okay. I'll have questions on the 16th. Sure. Thank you.

So one follow up on that, in an industrial zone, if you were to, and we ran into this a couple months ago, so if someone were to convert an industrial piece of land into a residential, Does this plan still allow then the contiguous piece where there are then more opportunities because of contiguity? Or is that still that land use part that this plan doesn't contemplate?

No, the contiguity that allows for residential use in certain industrial districts is in the zone district, is in the zoning code. So that still remains. That does not change through the comprehensive plan update.

Okay, so that would be a change we would do zoning not through the comp plan if we had concerned about the continuity piece.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Can I colloquy on that? Go ahead, Rob. Under the current industrial I, where it looks like it removed residential, can they still go through a site review? Do you still have the pull down the U like we have in our current title line?

So the way that that works is the residential in properties that have contiguity or have plan direction to allow residential in an IG or an IM zone, those properties can include or they can be redeveloped with residential uses through a use review. The use review process does not require the same level of consistency with the comprehensive plan as a site review. site review is a much more discretionary and larger process and is only reserved for those projects that are five acres or greater or 100,000 square feet or greater. So there is clearly a pathway to allow residential in those properties that have that zoning that are smaller than the site review threshold. Because again, those go through a fairly straightforward review process that does not include the same specificity around consistency with the future land use map or the comp plan, if that makes sense.

Okay, so you can still potentially have the 0.5 FAR and the one residential in the plan. Okay. Yes, you can. Thank you.

May I also call the quay? So, I'm sorry, now I'm confused. So, in response to Tina's question about the contiguity, you said that that's in the zoning code, right? Correct. But if that were a property that were required to go through site review, site review requires consistency with the land use map. And so, in that case, it would not be permitted.

In the situation where a site review was required, I think it would be difficult for staff to find that a property is consistent with the future land use map. However, there could be a change to the land use map proposed as part of a rezoning application. So there are other mechanisms to review and address that depending on the context of any specific site.

Thank you. And if I can just add to that, that really is just consistent with decades of history, people come in to rezone, they often are changing the land use map. So that element moves fairly consistently with the past. The bigger umbrella categories of designations would limit how often that needs to happen in the future, but it doesn't mean it would never happen. Good enough on that question.

Mark? I want a colloquy on the colloquy on the original question.

We're like four levels in here. In an industrial zone where somebody wants to do residential, obviously the residential is going to be more attractive as a development opportunity than maintaining the industrial. Is there any protection for the existing industrial businesses when a developer wishes to develop that parcel?

Well, that is partly what we are intending to do and hoping to do through this change to the comprehensive plan that really attempts to reinforce the value and importance of our industrial lands. And one of the ways that we are trying to approach this that I mentioned in some of the email communication is that the future land use strategy broadens the ability for a variety of different housing types in more areas of the city. So the need to lean on industrial land to be the source for future housing is envisioned to be less so than it is today. So our hope is that by providing other opportunities for housing to occur in locations that already have better access to goods and services, transit, the amenities that people need related to a 15-minute neighborhood, really leaning into that idea, our hope is that industrial land can be preserved over time for those innovation, those entrepreneurial activities.

Well, I would suggest that the individual property owner cares less about... development that is beneficial to the city as a whole than in maximizing the potential of an individual property. And so if you have an industrial property now and you have some entitlement to doing residential on that property, is there anything that will protect the existing industrial tenants from displacement?

Only within the comprehensive plan, it is only able to influence a larger project that comes in under the site review process. But a process that is through use review is more of an administrative process. And so that is more, it's not entirely by right, but it's closer to by right. And so there would be fewer protections for those existing businesses.

In that case, the industrial users would simply be evicted.

Under the current zoning that exists today that can happen now. Yes.

All right. Thank you.

I've got Nicole and then Matt.

Thank you. Just a couple of questions and I'm hoping that they can stick more in the yes no range. Not trying to open up a big conversation here. Of all the groups we engaged over the last couple of years was there any group that got everything that they wanted incorporated into this plan. Truly just yes or no is what I'm looking for.

No. I can't imagine any one group got everything they were hoping for.

Is there any group that didn't get anything they wanted incorporated in the plan? No, I think. So after two years of planning, engagement, conversations, did we miss anything so urgent that it feels like it would need to be addressed right now versus... either before the next update or fixed via another route within the next couple of years before the next update?

I think that a number of issues have been iterated over the last year, and so I do think we're in a good place responding to the primary interest within the community that we've heard about over and over.

Yeah.

I'm not sure which of the points, but one of them, related to this response. So the majority of indigenous people and tribal people that I've spoken to, and I'll only speak around the indigenous piece because the tribe is sovereign to sovereign, have mentioned land back. So unfortunately, it may not be in your paperwork, but in meetings that I was empowered of, in individual conversations that I've had, and events that I've gone to, that has been a consistent response request based on the evidence that has been provided by the Truth Education and Restoration Commission, where they have evidence that there was actually no right for any European settlers to build on the land that we call the City of Boulder. I just have concerns with that comment since it doesn't align with what I've said. So again, I'm not sure about why it wasn't captured more prevalently in the report. I mentioned this before. But I don't want us to walk away thinking that our indigenous to Turtle Island are satisfied with anything less than the debt that we owe them at a minimum. Thank you.

All right. I've got Matt up next.

Thank you. For one some good questions so far so appreciate the thoughtfulness that everyone's bringing to this. One of the questions I had centered around policy 84 a little bit. We had this update a number of months ago about our affordable housing goals and one of the things that I guess is a little concerning for me it really is a question is we keep sort of enshrining this pie in the sky goal of 15 percent affordable which we know we can't meet without doubling our actual ability of providing those a number of units. So why do we keep enshrining this pie in the sky goal that we know we can't meet. I'm just worried about setting up improper community expectations around that especially with something that's such a core document.

That might be best answered by Jay from HHS.

It's time for phone a friend from the housing department.

Good evening Jay Sugnet with Housing and Human Services. So yeah I actually responded to this question last time so you might get the exact same answer.

Jake can you get a little more into the mic please.

Yes.

Raise it up a little bit.

Thank you. I'm used to sitting there so it's a little different. So a little bit of the history when it comes to the affordable housing goal. We were at about 6 percent when we reviewed whether or not to update it. Council felt that we were getting very close to achieving the 10 percent and that we should achieve we should strive for something bigger. So we spent some time and went through a public process to determine what appropriate goal should be. And there was a lot of discussion about whether or not it should be something fully realistic or something more aspirational. Because the 10% goal was not based on realism or aspiration. It was just kind of a finger in the wind, as one council member said at the time. So from my perspective, The 15 percent may not be achievable by 2035 but I think it's important to have high goals to try to achieve. Hope that helps.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF I appreciate that. So maybe we just don't say we're going to ensure that 15 percent gets it. So maybe we just be more aspirational versus committed. Appreciate that. Thanks Jay. The other question I sort of have centered around is you've heard me bring this up before is is implementation. And I'm kind of curious. How do we bring the direction of the aspiration that this plan has and we point in a direction of how we get there versus it just being shades of trees with words on it? How we get there is so important. How does this document point in a direction? And so that's what I'm kind of curious about. How do we get that to have a directionality with regards to implementation? Sure.

Well, I think that the citywide strategic plan is really going to be the first opportunity for us to really establish what that direction looks like over the next four years. So that, as you know, is beginning within the organization. It will be brought to you for feedback and comment and engagement into that process. The strategic plan will essentially establish what some of those initial priorities will be as an organization based on the comprehensive plan, based on other conversations that we've had. So that begins to establish the roadmap. And then the individual council priority sessions that will be established at the beginning of next year on a two-year cycle, our individual one-year work planning, all of those will be in service to and reflective of that strategic plan. So we won't have an answer today or tonight as to what is the first thing out of the gate But if you ask me that question in March of next year, I think I could probably definitively tell you what that direction is going to look like.

And do you mind, KJ, you might reference there's a five-page section on implementation in the plan that might be worth mentioning.

There is a five-page section at the end of the plan that I'm sure Matt has read probably multiple times and probably doesn't get into the level of detail that he's realized all sort of going in different arenas.

If I just may add to, on August 13th, you will be getting the first touch point of what our next strategic plan will be this one will definitely be something that has much more engagement by you and I'm happy to say we'll have a lot more engagement with our boards and commissions as well as we move forward as community representatives so stay tuned for that but that is upcoming.

I appreciate that I was just going to just follow up the way you described that hierarchy of temporal decision-making comp plan 10 to 20 strategic plan that that's it, that's the thing. So just giving that guidance of where those touch points are, I think is a big piece that could go in there to give people a sense if they read this five years from now, oh, here's the hierarchy of decision making in Twitch to how that could be implemented. So I appreciate that.

Very good. Any other questions? Max, go ahead.

Yeah, this might be a bit of a backslide towards a process question. But since the planning board is going to have the first meeting which sounds like is more or less random if at the end of this out of respect for the immense amount of work that staff council and planning board have ahead of us if we want to set them up for like an alley-oop you know it's basketball playoffs if we want to like pass them the change that they want what would be the correct method of us getting that change ahead so it doesn't come back.

I can speak to that. We had a little bit of clarification on things. So we do want to recognize that planning board would have an opportunity to submit through the planning board email comment suggestion that type of thing and we would make sure the other three bodies got that what you all and you all are familiar with this. What you wouldn't want to be doing is responding to those which would then create a serial meeting at that point and for that matter council as well so submitting those to staff essentially and then did I get that wrong I'm getting some nods here send it to staff only and then we would disperse it yes yes okay thank you so not to the point and we'll send this in an email I think we can do that after the fact but but we'll have that point and Little bit different and what you're asking planning board number Lord is we do want to give planning board an option to to say here here are recommendations we have but if not accepted by the other bodies we still accept the document so we'll articulate that for you as well.

Thank you Tisha.

Thank you. I wanted to just lift up on the implementation section. In addition to the how do the plans relate to each other, I'm also curious in learning a little bit more about just expectations for the different planning bodies and how frequently they come together just recognizing the escalating you know climate issues you know there's there's an adaptability component to the plan from what I'm seeing although I think there could be more which I'll save for later but I am curious due to the unprecedented uncertainty I'm not seeing like an embedded place where the bodies are kind of coming together it's kind of like when we do the mid-year financial adjustment You know like just a place instead of having to wait the full five years is there something that you know would get us a little bit more aligned with some of the decisions that need to be made across the respective groups. Thank you. That's part one.

Yeah. That's a that's a great question. There isn't anything specifically embedded within the plan that would require that or identify when those touch points should happen but it would makes sense, if I might. As part of that four-year strategic plan and council's priority setting every two years, it seems like that might be a logical time period or timeframe to have a joint meeting or a joint study session of some kind to check in on the comprehensive plan, discuss implementation, that kind of thing, so that that could inform your discussion as part of that priority setting.

Awesome. And perhaps that if we move ever get to two-year budgeting, right, that would be another beautiful place. And, you know, I'm going to ask you something that you're prepared to answer, which is I didn't see anything about the conversations that we had at the very beginning around where is it that we address the issues on how we plan for new areas. And I know that area three is already underneath the other plans, but one never knows what's going to happen. And there were some deficits that we had identified in that process. And I was told that the Boulder Valley comp plan is where we could address that. One specific example is our current planning process for new areas includes grocery stores, but it doesn't include agriculture, how the store is going to get the food. So that's just one example, but there are others and so I know that's something that I've brought up several times and was told this was so now that we're at the end. I'm just curious where is where does that go I didn't see the plan. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for the question. So the the specific procedures surrounding the area 3 planning reserve are within the IGA they are not from a governmental agreement between Council and the Board of County Commissioners, which is There is an expectation that the bodies revisit the IGA and consider extending the term of that agreement. Currently it runs through 2042, so it goes out about 25 years. But as part of that review process, amendments and changes can be made to that IGA. So staff was not prepared to bring forward the IGA at this moment, but it anticipates that over the next couple of months, we are planning to have that conversation to, at the very least, address the duration of that IGA, but also there are necessary corrections that we will need to make because we have updated the terminology in the plan. So there's going to need to, like a similar planning reserve process. The other thing I'll just quickly mention too about the planning reserve specifically is that As we move into potentially planning for something to happen out there, there will be an entirely similar process as we just went through in terms of looking at those areas, understanding phasing, understanding what land uses are appropriate out there. So there will be much, much more discussion and public process around the planning reserve going forward.

Thanks, Taisha. All right. Any other hands? Going once, going twice. Oh, Laura.

Thank you. So I had a question about sub communities and area planning. And that was a major focus area for the 2015 update resulting in a chapter in the 2020 BVCP. And in this draft, it's taken out. There's nothing about sub communities and area planning. And I think that staff responded to some questions about that by saying that the chapter was considered operational and will be used as a resource for the comprehensive planning division as the team considers future area and sub-community planning efforts, and also that the sub-community and area planning chapter can be extracted and made available online as a guiding tool. Can you talk more about what's gonna happen to that material, how these bodies are expected to use the sub-community and area planning guidance, and how that gets updated if it's not in this plan?

Yeah, I'll start, and Kathleen, you are, leader of sub-community planning, so I will let you chime in as well. But the body should continue to use sub-community plans just as you have currently. They are considered to be supplements or essentially components of the comprehensive plan umbrella. So, similar to there are some additional, you know, citywide sort of department plans that are also considered to essentially have the same weight and authority as the comprehensive plan. That does not change related to area and sub-community planning. Really, the goal was to, as part of this process, to really simplify, make this much more clear and at the appropriate level, was to pull that information out that is really specific about how we determine where the next sub-community plan will live or be performed, that kind of thing. Those are all very internal operational decisions that are not appropriate to be in a high-level visionary policy document like the comprehensive plan. So that will not disappear, will not evaporate. It will be documented on an updated sub-community plan website. We have internal discussions, too, to have about what does the next iteration of sub-community planning look like, given the new land use framework, given this new approach to policies and et cetera, and also given the new citywide strategic plan and sort of the hierarchy of how our individual department and program plans fit into that we have some work to do to really understand what does the next iteration of a sub community plan even look like and that is something that we would evaluate and vet with these two bodies because ultimately then we will go and do another sub community plan and our hope is that we can do several of them and do them more quickly than we have in the past so that we can actually have a sub community plan that covers the entire city because currently we only have two.

Okay, so that's helpful. Having that guidance about how you do a sub-community plan and how you prioritize that in the comprehensive plan or in city code gives these bodies some ability to have a say in what that looks like. If this gets pulled out and made operational guidance, how do these bodies, how does it come back to us if you want to change the way that process works or what the criteria are or those kinds of things?

Would just point out if that is in the comprehensive plan or codified some way it makes an assumption about the use of resources over time because some community planning process or any process means time resources and I think you know what KG is speaking to is the ideas there needs to be discrete decisions by council by city manager over time about Hey here's a prioritization. Hey we are going to do two at a time. Hey we're going to do three at a time. They're going to be in this order based on this criteria. And that may not be the same logic five years from now as it is today. But there is a commitment that operationally that's still very important. If that makes sense.

I will digest that. Thank you very much. May I ask one more question. Quick one one, yes, another thing that is not in this plan is groundwater there's mention of irrigation water there's mentioned surface water and protecting source water, but nothing about protecting groundwater can you talk more about why that's not covered or where it is covered if it's not in this plan.

You know, I would have to do a little bit of a deeper dive into the policies to make sure that it is not definitively captured in some of the other policies. I mean, I do think that obviously protection of groundwater is critically important and similar to our other water resources. And I see Joe Taddeucci stepping up to the microphone.

We have another friend from the utilities department.

And I think it's on. Okay. Okay. Thanks for that question Joe Taddeucci from utilities. This this question comes up sometimes and I think the big picture answer is that the state regulates groundwater. The city does. And so we we tend to point that topic back to the state when there's a when there's a need to deal with it in the city so. I'm not sure that's a complete answer, but that's probably why it doesn't get a lot of attention there.

Joe, the state does regulate it, the city does not?

The city does not. Okay, I didn't hear that not there before. Did I say it the wrong way? Thanks.

Laura, good enough?

Thank you, Joe.

Okay, great.

Can I call a clue on that? What percentage of our water supply is groundwater?

None.

All right. Really, last call for questions. I'd love to get to that public hearing. Seeing none, all right, let's go ahead and get the public hearing started. So Elisha, can you go over the public participation guidelines, please?

Yes, sir, of course. Wait, Emily's pulling them up now. Thank you for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code, including participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. No attendees shall disrupt disturb or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any Council meeting in a manner that obstructs the business of the meeting. This also includes failing to obey any lawful order of the presiding officer to leave the meeting room or refrain from addressing the Council. Our remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. And lastly, obscenity, other epithets based on race, gender, or religion, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Thank you again for listening, and thank you for joining us.

Thank you, Alicia. We have 17 people signed up to speak, so each speaker will get two minutes unless they are pooling time, and I will be strict about those time limits in the interest of fairness. And if everyone could please keep their remarks to the subject of this major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, please. All right, our first three speakers are Lynn Siegel and Ben Mulk in person, and then Jonathan Singer virtually.

Three minutes for public hearings. To start with, I saw that I was first to speak today. I was first because I couldn't sign up until Monday at CAC when I heard no one was signed up. I'd signed up just before that and finally Emily said, oh yeah, one person signed up. I knew who that person was myself. So we've got a little bit of a problem with engagement, don't we?

Let's see. To the subject.

Yeah, the BVCP is a very aspirational plan. I agree with Matt in this regards. I remember my Seattle Community College teacher telling me about, she gave me A's. I always got lousy grades, but she gave me A's. about specificity. I love specificity and details. I'm just oriented that way, my Jewish curiosity or something. So one, water is a huge thing. And my water bill, I was talking to Joe about this. I got it four hours ago. It went from 83 to 180 in one fell swoop.

The comprehensive plan, please.

Excuse me?

The comprehensive plan, please.

Yes, the comprehensive plan, Erin, and you are taking my time right now. Stop. Understand? Stop. How dare you? You love to shut me up, don't you? Do not do that. Not okay. I'm talking about water and this plan and this growth and this housing. and these 80 properties that we're selling off because we can't afford a rec center. OK. That's all part of this.

Time is up. Thank you. Now we have Ben Mulk in person and then Jonathan Singer and Danica Powell virtually.

Hi there. I'm Ben Mulk. I work at Crescent Real Estate. We have owned real estate and employed people in the city of Boulder for the last 15 years or so. I was also a member of the East Boulder Working Group. First off I want to thank the staff for the considerable work that's gone into this project. I was very excited to participate and enjoyed my experience on the East Boulder Working Group but admittedly a little disappointed to see the changes proposed to land use. We spent a lot of time discussing areas of change and how we could help incentivize ownership to create change in those areas. But I never felt that areas that were not identified for change should be changed to make it harder to create housing. I felt the existing land use and zoning was appropriate. Our property Tierra is a clear example of why this flexibility matters. Our property consists of two hundred and six thousand square feet of office as over 10 acres making it a candidate for use review and site review. When we got involved in the project in 2023 it was 13 percent occupied. Today it sits at just 6 percent. It is located off of Walnut and just east of the Google offices. It is not a home to active service industrial nor manufacturing space. It is adjacent to the Boulder Creek and regional bike path with strong pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. It is proximate to employment centers and supports natural job housing relationships. It is directly adjacent to the Boulder County older community health making it particularly well suited for housing options. Continued vacancy is already creating real challenges including homelessness vandalism repeated break-ins and other crimes. This is exactly the type of site where thoughtful redevelopment could both address community needs and prevent further deterioration of an already underutilized property without displacing any existing users. The proposed updates to land use will make it harder for us to help the community add more housing and increase the likelihood of additional urban blight.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Jonathan Singer and Danica Powell online and then Evan Ravitz in person.

Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Brockett, members and council. My name is Jonathan Singer. I'm the Senior Director of Policy Programs at the Boulder Chamber. And before discussing the one concern that you've probably heard about a few times over the last week, I truly want to acknowledge several aspects of the comprehensive plan we strongly support. There was a tremendous amount of work and Brad put it perfectly that the process, while not seamless, was entirely comprehensive, inclusive, and innovative. And we appreciate that continued recognition of Boulder's innovation economy as a core community asset and the focus on creating a policy framework that better aligns with future Title IX modernization efforts. We also at the same time respectfully ask that council restore the longstanding language in the comprehensive plan where residential uses and other complimentary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations within industrial land use designation. The city's desire to protect industrial and production oriented land uses is completely important. And this innovation economy that we have It needs those assets. At the same time, this proposed language that we're seeing in your packets today creates a disconnect between the comp plan and existing zoning regulations. A, residential uses may be considered in industrial general IG or IM industrial manufacturing districts through our established use review and site review processes. Those processes already include significant safeguards, compatibility standards, contiguity requirements, and discretionary approval criteria designed to protect our surrounding industrial uses. So this proposed change doesn't modify zoning, but it does remove a longstanding policy statement. And we appreciate this longstanding history and hope it continues through these modifications to the comp plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your attention.

Well, time. Thanks, Jonathan. Next, we have virtually Danica Powell.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, City Council, Planning Board, and staff. First, I want to thank staff and the community for the tremendous work that has gone into this BBCB update. I care deeply about this plan. As a former Planning Board member, the current chair of the Boulder Chamber, and a deeply engaged community member, I have followed this process closely, including serving as a panelist with the Community Assembly discussions on middle-income housing, And 15 minute neighborhoods overall, I believe this update is thoughtful innovative and a bold path forward for our Community. I am speaking tonight because much because much of my professional work focuses on housing, I advocate for housing work on affordable housing projects. and spend a great deal of time thinking about how we create opportunities for the missing middle my comments are informed by a deep understanding of both boulders policy framework and our land use code. Title IX. I want to raise one piece of feedback regarding the proposed changes to the industrial land use designation. While the Innovation and Production Hub designation appropriately supports mixed-use development and residential uses, the proposed removal of residential as a potential use within industrial represents a significant policy shift and creates a disconnect with the underlying zoning code. The zoning code has very important guardrails in place to allow the discretionary review process to protect industrial capacity. The zoning code creates two separate development allowances, one for industrial uses and one for residential. Residential development cannot consume industrial development rights. Even if a project builds the maximum residential, the full industrial allocation remains intact. In other words, housing does not replace industrial capacity. The code was intentionally structured this way to preserve these uses. The BVCP is one of the most influential documents used in all discretionary reviews, use review, site review, et cetera. This policy could change could impact hundreds of acres of land, including sites with vacant offices.

Thank you for your testimony. Now we're going to go to Evan Ravitz in person. Marquis Lecomte, I believe, is virtual, and Crystal Gray in person.

The survey and online questionnaire that the comprehensive plan is based on was obviously a push-pull. The very first question was, which of these types of housing do you want more of? You could choose any number. But it left out at least three important choices that would have been quite popular. One, tiny homes for people who want to live modestly but have more privacy and some outdoor space. Two, single family homes. Three, none of the above for those who think we've grown enough. I don't recall if there was an option for occupant-owned condominiums. By leaving out all these obvious options, you've played your hand. You've already made the decisions, and we who pay your salaries get to name snow plows and choose a flag. I didn't take the rest of the poll. It was too disheartening. Before the city and county go ahead, I urge you to go through the questionnaires and revise them So they're honest and inclusive. I think this is the job of planning board. We pay city council to represent us, not rule us. Most of us want our in-commuters to live here to reduce traffic. But since most of the new housing will be market rate, wealthier people will live in them. These new people will need more service workers. So there will be more traffic.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Markey LeCompte and then Crystal Gray and Karen Holweg in person.

Hi, there. I'm Crystal Gray. I live at 17 and 9th Street.

Sorry, I think Markey's ahead of you.

Excuse me? I'm sorry.

I had to unmute my. Would you please reset the clock?

It is reset.

Okay, thank you. I'm Margaret LeCompte. I've lived at 290 Pawnee for the last 33 years. I'm speaking in complete opposition to the sudden and really poorly publicized changes in the Boulevard Lake comp plans categories for residential use. since last March. The 2020 plan's eight categories of residents are clear and consistent, and their variation encourages a wide range of neighborhood types. I urge their restoration. Compressing all eight into two neighborhoods, neighborhood one and neighborhood two, destroys the operational distinctions between residential types and between non-residential businesses, building sizes, and uses. It makes a mockery of any pretense that Boulder is a family-friendly, green, healthful place to live, work, and recreate. It's an outright giveaway to developers and businesses, and worst, it's been sprung on Boulder County so very few people know about it. That's a particularly high-handed alteration of the fabric of our communities wished upon us. And that may be why there's not very many people speaking in opposition tonight, because they didn't know about it. Like my neighbors on Sioux Street last December who were in the dark when we found out that only in a letter from the planning department that back in September, someone unknown to us had submitted a change request for our three blocks from low to medium density. We were outraged. How dare somebody do this without knowledge or our consent from the homeowners? We spoke out at all the three meetings that were held and the city council, and I thank you, voted seven to two not to proceed with that change specifically because the neighborhoods did not know about the change and had not consented. So why is the same autocratic overreach now being inflicted

on the whole county please do not approve this update thank you for your testimony now we'll go to uh crystal gray and then karen holweg and then donna george in person hi round two so i'm crystal gray i live at 17th and spruce in the whittier neighborhood i'm here for two reasons one a request and two an invitation the request is to remove the expansion of the downtown regional hub into the high density neighborhoods surrounding the downtown. That's Whittier, Gosgrove, Mapleton, and West Pearl. The reason that I'm concerned about this is these neighborhoods have a variety of housing. They have middle income. They have high income they have co-ops co-ops next to tech stars. They're really wonderful 15 minute neighborhoods. You've got the whole downtown right there. The second is as you all touch down rezoning has will follow doesn't have to but will follow these designation changes. So when you think about the downtown think about Pine Street across from Mark and Mindy. Having that designation, think about what Walnut and Canyon look like. And that's some of the zoning that's allowed right now in the downtown. Just a couple comments. Thank you for bringing up affordable housing, Tina, Matt, and the rest of you. But you hold the keys to that resource for affordable housing and how to get that number up higher, which I think this community needs. And that is every time you do a change to a plan like this or a zoning change leverage it say 50 percent of entitled months it'll increase because of these land use changes must be affordable.

I have a lot more to say.

I'll write to you and read Susan Osborne's comments that she sent in that you all have in the record. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Karen Holweg and then Donna George and then Mark George, both of whom are pooling.

Thank you. I'm speaking tonight as a member of Plan Boulder board. Tonight I want to speak about the need for middle income housing. At the top of the yellow sheet that you've been given, You can see that about 11,600 more residents should be here by 2045. And there's capacity, according to the staff, of about 8,000 additional housing units. So it looks like we'll be OK. The question is, what kind of housing do we want? Since 2024, when Plan Boulder started our engagement with this comp plan revision, We have been tracking Boulder's proposed housing developments. On the back of the yellow sheet, you can see a total of 15,141 new units that have been proposed. And at the bottom, an additional 5,269 units could be built within existing neighborhoods under the provisions of Ordinance 8666. That's a total of approximately 20,410 units that are already in the pipeline or conceptualized. The planning staff during the first comp plan office hour session said that this looks about right. We talked about the overwhelming number of new apartments on the list, the fact that over half of all homes now are apartments and condos, and about our view that homes for middle income workers are sorely needed. Since then, council members have repeatedly called for more middle income housing, And the statistically valid survey showed that over 75% of respondents wanted increased duplexes and small houses in cottage courts. The need to prioritize creation of middle income housing is missing in this comp plan. Prioritize is used 24 times, I did a word search, but never for middle income housing. At the bottom of the yellow sheet is our suggested revision for number 82.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. All right. We're going to go now to Donna George, who's pooling with Sarah George and Dinah McKay. If the two of you can just raise your hands to show your pooling. Awesome. Donna, you get five minutes.

Donna George, Gunbarrel Subcommunity. At the August 28 City Council study session on the Boulder Valley comp plan update, Mayor Brackett, Mayor Aaron Brackett asked, what are you imagining for publication? Because essentially every parcel owner in the city is going to have an updated land use designation. A lot of people may not be paying careful attention. City planner Christopher Johnson replied, yes, So there is a requirement in the code today that we provide mail notification to property owners if there is a land use change proposed for their property. So we will be working with our teams to determine essentially a mailing citywide to identify and notify everybody that there is a potential change to the designation that applies to their property. Mayor Aaron Brockett replied, that's great. Well, I hope the phone lines will be fully staffed after that comes out because he knew that citizens would be alarmed by this in questioning it. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Development Plan, IGA, with amendment receivers under notification, states, any property owner whose property would be affected by a proposed change in land use designation will receive timely written notice that such change or changes will be considered. And no hearing to approve or deny any such proposal will be held unless planning staff notified the affected property owner in writing at least 30 days prior to the date set for the hearing on the proposed change. Also under B, procedures for changes, proposed changes from the public, staff, and approval bodies will be reviewed by the city planning department, which will prepare a recommendation and consultation with this county's land use department on which proposals should go forward and which proposals should receive no further consideration. The bodies will consider all requests for changes together with the staff recommendations at initial public hearings and will compile a list of proposed changes to be considered during the update based upon four specific criteria. The planning staff did not use the criteria of compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighborhood context and instead replaced it with consistency with proposed plan direction. Is the request consistent with the latest comprehensive plan policy and new draft future land use map. The new draft of future land use map had not been published or vetted by the public and they were using it against policy and procedure to screen the change in land use requests. I have submitted a letter I received in November 2015 concerning a change request on a property adjacent to my property. Similar letters were received last fall by residents of Sioux Drive during this update for change requests that someone had submitted on their properties. This is when all those letters that Aaron and Christopher talked about in August should have been sent out to all property owners in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and listed as to what the staff and governing bodies were intending to change their land use designations to. However, as of this city public hearing on the major changes that staff and council are proposing on the citizens' properties, No letter whatsoever has gone out to all those residents. As Aaron stated, a lot of people may not be paying careful attention. Most citizens do not have a clue these major changes are being proposed on their properties. When do you all plan on sending out those letters? In the 11th hour after your predetermined plan is set in stone? After writing this talk, I was looking over the packet again for tonight's meeting, And notice this on page 147. Public notice required under Colorado state law was provided for the public hearing on the recommended plan, including a notice to neighboring jurisdictions and a mail notice of affected property owners through utility billing. I, as most residents, do not receive my water bill through the mail. I get an email telling me when my bill is due, and I go online to pay the bill. I then looked at my water bill over the last few months, and only on the March bill did I notice a note, which could easily be missed, about the draft Boulder Valley comp plan being available for community review. This was for a general review of the entire plan, not for a specific notice for a change in land use designation for my property. Individual letters should have been mailed out directly from the Planning and Development Services as shown in the copy of the envelope and letter I received in 2015. Under 10.02 of the Boulder Valley comp plan it states, emphasis will be placed on notification engagement of the public in decisions involving large development proposals or major land use decisions that have significant impacts and or benefits to the community. A healthy democracy relies on properly informed engaged citizens and proper adherence to rules and procedures. These are terribly lacking here in this update and this needs to be corrected. No consideration or voting on this plan can take place unless the proper procedures outlined in the legally signed IGAs are followed. As the director of planning said, process matters. Where are those notification letters for each property that have a land use change proposed in this update? Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Mark George, who is pooling with Miho Shida and William Hamill. Can Miho and William raise their hands to show they're out there pooling their time?

There I think they're online there for whatever right on.

Yeah, I'm I'm watching or I'm watching the proceedings.

Great and William as well. They should you know if we have somebody online there.

Well, your Mike is open if you'd like to speak.

William if you're just able to acknowledge that you're pulling time please. Well if they're all mine I trust you so OK go for it. You got your five. You got your five minutes. Go for it.

OK. Mark George Gunbarrel sub community. There are approximately one hundred twenty one thousand people living in the Boulder Valley today and fifty eight thousand housing units. Many of these housing units are located in low density neighborhoods. The proposed land use destinations would allow much more growth, density, and various uses in these neighborhoods. People have chosen to live in these neighborhoods for the more rural and non-urban aspect of them, and many of them do not want changes to higher density and commercial uses. And yet, that is exactly what the new designations in Neighborhood 1 and Neighborhood 2 would do. How were the residents in these neighborhoods notified of these changes? A survey, somewhat biased, was sent out to only 5,000 residents within the Boulder Valley and only 688 of them were returned. Additionally, of those 688 respondents, 25% of them were CU students, which have a disproportionate number, are here temporarily. What specific outreach was done to long-term residents of Boulder for their input on the proposed changes? The engagement outreach appears to only be to certain groups that the planning staff had somehow determined were underrepresented in the engagement process. Actually, the whole Boulder Valley is underrepresented in the engagement process. The survey should have been sent to all citizens, especially for such drastic and major changes being proposed in this update. Since planning staff has to mail notifications to all residents within proposed land use changes on their properties, wouldn't it be wise to send out a survey to all those residents in the beginning of the process to see if they wanted those proposed changes? In the survey that was sent out, only 5% of the residents knew quite a bit about the Boulder Valley comp plan and 93% knew nothing or just a little bit about it. So the vast majority of Boulder Valley residents are not engaged and uninformed about the plan and how it would affect their property and their community. Now if they received a letter in the mail notifying them of a land use change on their property and what exactly that land use change would mean for future development on their property and adjacent properties, I'm sure they would very quickly get engaged and start asking pointed questions. Back to the survey the question was also asked about where you would like to see more housing built about 30% of the residents listed gun barrel in East Boulder, but how many of the survey respondents actually live in gun barrel in East Boulder, the question that should have been asked is do you want to see more housing units built in your community neighborhood or so community and if so where it is citizens of each so community that should be the designers and contributors to the planning of their community, it should not be dictated by others. During the Boulder Valley County plan meeting at Casey middle school in September, the new proposed future land use map was first shown to the public. Many people at that meeting were not happy with the changes being proposed and started stating their objections and wanting a discussion on it. However, they were silenced and told that there was not time for that and that they were there to go through the exercise on the new land use map that the planners had set up. There was no opportunity for dissent or different perspectives or the decision to not make those changes. And this continued through the process to where we are now. Where is the critical questioning and the dissenting voices and the actual true consideration of concerns without casual dismissal of their input? When concerns were raised in the comment sections on these changes, much of the reply is, we hear your comments about change. The plan puts forward policies that balance multiple needs and desires of existing and potential community members. That reply comes across as a dismissal of these legitimate concerns and of a plan that was mainly predetermined from the beginning with only minor adjustments from the community. And who actually are those potential community members and how do you know their desires? The desires of the majority of the current residents residing in the Boulder Valley has not even been determined. The vast majority of citizens are completely unaware of the major changes being proposed on their properties due to the severely lacking notification, education, and engagement to all the citizens as these land use changes affect all their properties, not just a select few. Thank you.

Thank you. Our final three speakers are Lisa Spaulding online, and then Tom Burkle and Pedro Silva in person.

Lisa Spaulding, University Hill resident. Based on the city's public outreach for the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the 15-minute neighborhood seems to have emerged as the people's favorite policy. Who wouldn't want to walk a short distance to get groceries and services and to meet friends at a cozy cafe for coffee or dinner? But the 15-minute neighborhood is an urban planning concept that does not always mesh easily with our present free market approach to property ownership, the current commercial rental market, and the goal of creating a fair and equitable city. The creation of 15-minute neighborhoods would, of course, be easiest and most successful if they are incorporated into formal community plans for new developments in areas with a Neighborhood 2 designation or in community or regional hubs, where variables like population density and the price of housing are controlled. The residents must be able to afford the goods and services available or the businesses will fail. The successful introduction of commercial uses into established residential areas depends on realistic expectations. A Neighborhood 1 area will be far more limited in the services and amenities that can support the more densely populated Neighborhood 2 and the adjacent hubs. Randomly permitting a commercial use in the neighborhood one area without an indication that the services it provides are needed or that operating hours are suitably limited would only result in failure. The city should be aware that gentrification has been a byproduct of successful 15-minute neighborhoods. Old established 15-minute neighborhoods like University Hill have gone from thriving commercial centers serving the needs of all neighborhoods to nine-month business districts that serve only students and struggle to stay viable when the students are gone. The city should carefully consider how to restore neighborhood commercial centers like The Hill.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Now we'll go to Tom Burkle and then Pedro Silva.

2026. It's the document you would create if you don't want the structure and guidance of an actual comprehensive plan. Without the guidance, council can proceed to upzone single-family neighborhoods. Councilman Benjamin's recent marketing campaign indicates that that is exactly what will happen when BVCP 2026 is adopted. Reporting on BVCP 2026 suggests that single-family neighborhoods can expand the number of units by 35% under the anticipated upzoning, but Colorado has just experienced one of the driest winters on record, guided in no small part by climate change. This is the new normal. More housing, more water use. Boulder also faces a significant and ever increasing risk of wildfire. More housing density, closer structures. Closer structures, greater risk of an urban conflagration. More housing density, more people. More people, longer evacuation times. Life in the densified neighborhoods will also be negatively affected. affected. More people, more cars, more cars, more traffic, more cars, more parking conflict. Of course, the changes are occurring to solve a problem. Affordable housing, or is it attainable housing, or maybe abundant housing? The story keeps changing. And the proposed solution to the problem, 15-minute neighborhoods, or is it gentle infill, or maybe family-friendly, vibrant neighborhoods? If Boulder Junction is any indicator, the chances of success are not great. So where does that leave us. The plan is upside down on water life safety and quality of life. Previous comprehensive plans attempted to balance these competing forces. This plan is designed for one thing to maximize the number of people living in Boulder.

Thank you. Our final speaker is Pedro Silva.

Going after the tallest person here. All right. So I'm just going to talk about the process because I had the opportunity to be a part of pretty much every event that led up to this. So futurist and systems theorist Buckminster Fuller said, you can't change things by fighting the existing reality. You must create a new model that makes the old model obsolete. So I feel like this process was an attempt to create a new model. The process began with a trust deficit. Um, both in this local community and the same trust deficit that we've seen throughout our entire nation and government in general is just a trust deficit. And so we can look at it from the perspective of. letting the trust deficit guide us or asking the question, what can we do to decrease this trust deficit? And what I witnessed in the process was that the team that led this was trying to close that trust deficit. They were mindful of the trust deficit. They did outreach. They did the community assembly. They did a lot of different things to try to invite people in there. And I want to advocate for the process, Because when we hear the negative comments that are going to naturally come when you're operating from a trust deficit, there'll be the temptation to not try this again when the time comes around. And I want to invite people to continue efforts like this. One of the things that they brought into this was arts. And I definitely believe that arts is necessary in everything that we do. And this began with the artistic process. Artists turn chaos into culture. We have a lot of chaos right now. And we need more people whose minds can get out of the strictures and limitations of how we see things and see more possibilities. Um, I just want to end with this, um, this is everyone's plan. It's not the plan of the city. People were there, they had opportunity to speak and those who didn't show up, didn't have the opportunity. And this is the result.

Thank you.

All right. Uh, that ends the public hearing. I want to thank everyone who came out and took the time to speak to us tonight. Thanks so much. So, um, before we wrap up, I just give people the opportunity to ask clarifying questions of city staff that might've arisen from the testimony. And if you don't mind, I'll go ahead and start. Uh, Ms. George brought up the, uh, the question of notification and, uh, quoted a back and forth, uh, that we had at a meeting some months ago. So, uh, wanted to follow up on that and, uh, see how that notification to property owners worked?

Yes. So is this working? Okay, great. So yes, we did use utility billing as the vehicle to provide that notification to property owners. The logistics of sending 55,000 letters to individual property owners was overwhelming, to say the least, and would have been a strain on city resources to be able to actually do that. If you are interested I can read the language that was included in the April utility billing for associated with it. OK it reads the update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan will be headed to City Council and planning board for a joint public hearing on June 4th 2026 to begin the adoption process. The plan sets a 20 year vision for the community and guides long term decisions about growth zoning sustainability and services in Boulder and the surrounding area. After over a year and a half of community engagement to help shape and direct the plan, the update proposes changes to policies and the future land use map. To improve clarity and usability of the plan, the plan recommends newly defined future land use designations, meaning it includes changes to the designation applied to your property. The comprehensive plan does not change your zoning or affect the use of your property. The version of the plan that will be recommended to Planning Board and City Council in June will be available for viewing in May. To learn more about the proposed plan and how to express support, make a comment or participate in public hearings, visit aboulderfuture.org.

Thanks for that, KJ. And if I could just turn to the city attorneys, do we feel like that complied with our legal notice requirements?

Absolutely.

Thanks for that follow-up. I appreciate it. Any other follow-up clarifying questions? before we wrap. Mark?

A couple of people have complained that the questionnaire was a push-pull. Did we have anybody vet these questions or did we just kind of roll them out as we saw fit?

Yes, absolutely. We worked with Polko, who is a national survey consultant, and they ultimately had final review and authority over those questions. So they were the group that ultimately finalized those and prepared the statistically valid survey.

Okay, thank you. Actually, I forgot to make a comment about that back and forth. I believe the commentator said that I thought people would be alarmed by the notice. Just to be clear, I thought people might well have questions about the notice rather than be alarmed.

Tara. One of the, I think it was Mr. George talked about, is this working? You're good. 25% of community outreach was to college students. Was that true? That in all of our outreach, it was 25% college students?

I don't believe that is true. We did look for and try to make sure that we heard from renters and college students, university students through the survey, but we did not specifically focus 25% of our engagement on university students, no.

How much of the percentage of community outreach was to homeowners? Or do you not do not really.

Yeah it's a really difficult question to ask. I mean all of our community outreach events were open to anyone and everyone within the city and we advertise them through a variety of different means from press releases and social media posts or in the newspaper the project Web site. So those were available again and open to everybody.

Great thanks.

Anything else. I'm doing a lot of twisting and turning here. I see no other hands raised. So since we will be doing our deliberations separately, I believe that brings us to the end of the evening. So I will turn to our planning board chair for a motion to continue.

Thank you, Mayor Brockett. And I found the place in the script this time. So you don't have to come over. So I would like to ask for a motion for a planning board to continue this agenda item to June 16th of this year for planning board deliberation and action on the recommended major update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan.

No additional public comment will be taken on June 16th, 2026 regarding

this item, although, of course, we will read our email. So please feel free, everyone, to send us email. May I have a motion?

I move that planning board continue this agenda item to June 16, 2026 for planning board deliberation and action on the recommended major update to the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan.

I'll second that.

Thank you, Claudia, for the motion and ML for the second. And so all in favor, please raise your hand from planning board motion passes seven to zero.

If you could adjourn the board, please.

The planning board meeting is adjourned. Although perhaps we'll stay in our seats until the council concludes.

Great. All right. So if I could please have a motion from city council to continue this agenda item to June 25th, 2026 for council deliberation and action. on the recommended major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Note, no additional public comment will be taken on June 25th, 2026 regarding this item, but we will be reading our emails in the meantime.

So moved. Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hands. That passes unanimously. And so I will now adjourn this meeting. But before I bang it, Thanks again to city staff for the extraordinary work. We'll laud more praise on, I'm sure, at our adoption hearing, but so appreciate everything that you've been doing. And planning board, thanks so much for joining us and for this joint effort that we've been undertaking. And I look forward to the successful conclusion of the effort. And with that, we're adjourned.