City Council - Regular Meeting

17th, 2026 regular meeting of the Boulder City Council. I'm going to go ahead and call us to order. Alicia, can we have a roll call, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We'll start tonight's roll call, as usual, with Councilmember Adams.

Present.

Benjamin.

Present.

Mayor Brockett.

Present.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Present.

Marquis. Here. Shewhart.

Here.

Speer. Present. And Mayor Pro Tem Juan.

Present.

Mayor, we have our quorum.

Thanks so much. Can you go over the, we're going to go to open comment now. So Alicia, can you go over the public participation guidelines, please?

Yes, sir, thank you. Again, thank you, everyone, for your participation at tonight's council meeting. We ask that you abide by the rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code. This does include 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. Only audio testimony is permitted during open comment. 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. All 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. Again, thank you for joining us and thank you for listening.

Thanks so much, Alicia. All right, we've got 20 people signed up to speak. All of them are in person. Everyone will have two minutes. of time, and I will be strict about that in the interest of fairness. Our first three speakers are Anne Lindsey, Leith Stevens, and Ana Rey.

Do I need to do it? Okay.

You're good.

My name is Anne Lindsey. I'm a resident of Fraser, speaking tonight to support the vacation to Parker Place. I'm a second generation Fraser resident. My parents moved there in 2007, and I've experienced the campus first as a visitor and then as a resident since 2020. I earned both a master's of architecture in 2004 and a master's of urban design in 2015 from the University of Colorado Denver. I want to be clear about what this is not. It will not be a pedestrian-only street. It will not be gated, restricted, or closed to vehicles. The vacation creates a safer, shared street, one that will still serve pedestrians, bikers, cars, buses, and the trucks that deliver to Fraser's loading dock. I also want to speak directly to the emergency access concern I've heard raised pocket place will remain a genuine through route for neighborhood traffic, not just for Fraser's own vehicles. That matters to me personally, our residents need ambulances and the fire trucks that accompany them more often than any of us would like. This plan keeps that access open. The project also improves walkability. The crossing at Ponca and Pawnee will be narrower, and the new right angle turn will slow cars down. As a private street, Fraser will maintain pocket place year round, including snow removal, something that Boulder doesn't currently provide. The street matters to Fraser residents, and we'd be the first to object if anyone proposed closing it. I've looked at this closely, both as a resident and as someone trained to weigh these trade-offs. This plan improves safety without giving up vehicle access. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Leith Stevens, Ana Ray, and Margo Smith.

Good evening. I'm Leith Stevens. I'm a Boulder resident with a second grader at BVSD and a kindergartner coming next year. Two weeks ago, my daughter Annabelle stood here and asked you to not let her school close, and staff said that they would follow up. So far, though, I count no letter, no resolution, and nothing on tonight's agenda from council. I'm asking for one thing, to use your position to advocate for Boulder families to BVSD. We know it's BVSD's decision, but it massively affects Boulder, and that makes it a council matter. You've known since January when BVSD wrote to the city manager noting that council managers expressed interest in being kept informed. On Tuesday, the superintendent told his board that he came to council and told you that the district would no longer allow small schools and that there was no mention of the comprehensive plan from council. They also didn't know what a 15-minute neighborhood was. On August 21, you approved that plan, room for up to 40% more housing and 15-minute neighborhoods. I think that's great. But four days later, BVSD proposed proposed closing three Boulder elementary schools on projections made before your plan existed, or at least they didn't know about it. Nobody's comparing notes, and nobody's working together. What's a 15-minute neighborhood without a neighborhood school? Lafayette City Council said the same thing. They said, this is just BVSD's decision. But then within 15 minutes, they voted to act, to write to the BVSD board noting their objections. And Lafayette only has one slice of one school. Boulder has three of the four schools slated to close. Five of you are on November's ballot, and your challenges have taken positions, or they're starting to. Almost 5,000 citizens have signed on saying this plan is not good enough. While some of you have told me your position privately, these people deserve to know when they vote in seven weeks what your position is on closing schools. We want to help create a better plan to cooperate with you and BVSD. Will you ask BVSD to wait a year and reconcile their numbers with your plan? Matters from Council is on the agenda. A letter to BVSD is just one of you saying that you should do it. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, folks, please no noise in the audience. If you agree with what you're hearing, please, you can do jazz hands, but please no clapping. Thanks so much. Now we've got Anna Rae, Margo Smith, and Fran Sheets.

Good evening. My name is Anna Ray. I was born and raised in Boulder and my husband is sixth generation here. My sisters and I, we all are living here and raising our families with 11 of us currently connected to the BVSD schools. Our immediate family is connected to five Boulder small businesses and our extended family more than 20. We love this community. I came tonight because BVSD is considering closing neighborhood schools, but I do not think that that is the problem. I think it is a symptom. Closing schools may manage today's enrollment problem. It does nothing to address why there are fewer children to fill them. That's downstream management, and I am asking for us to look upstream. BVSD itself identifies declining birth rates, high cost of living, and low housing inventory among the forces driving declining enrollment. And Boulder itself acknowledges a shrinking economic middle and limited attainable family housing. So I think we need to ask a bigger question than whether we're creating enough affordable units. Can a family actually build a life here? Can they find a home that works as their children grow? Can they earn enough, operate a small business, adapt an existing home, and remain part of the community across generations? Boulder has become extraordinarily good and successful at protecting the values of this place. But have we been equally successful at protecting the abilities of families to belong to, stay, and thrive in this place? And what if our policies are individually well-intentioned, but collectively producing a community in which fewer families can remain? My own family puts a face on this question. Despite generations here, local businesses and two supporting working parents, our ability to stay in Boulder has depended on intergenerational family support. Whatever BVSD decides Tuesday, the conditions producing the declining enrollment will still be here on Wednesday.

Thank you. Next, we have Margo Smith, Fran Sheets, and Eve Dreher.

Hi. I'm here to speak today about the possibility that you all are considering of calling up the bandshell seating. The current design that the Parks Department has is way, has a lot of problems. To be putting in 10-foot-wide swaths of lawn in this redesign of the seating is highly irresponsible when we're looking at climate change. In addition, those lawns, I believe the park's redesign has a lot of, they've used the term activate the area, and I believe their redesign is designed to draw in so many people that they think the unhoused will get uncomfortable and not be there. These lawns are going to have the opposite effect. They invite Lingering and camping how many families are going to want to come and sit on this seating when? They have to be cleaned up every morning to make sure they're safe to sit on I'm concerned about the budget This redesign is not a time to do this and the way the seats are now they work and they are part of a preservation landmark that was instituted. It's the band shell and the seating are an integral whole and they make a lot of sense in particular for what I just mentioned. They are a place that has more seating than would be if this redesign occurs. I believe we need places that can have music and visibility There's a lot of problems with this redesign. I really believe that we can come up with a better plan where the historic seats can be designed in a way they still get preserved. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Fran Sheets, Eve Dreher, and Rob Smoke.

Hi, I'm Fran Sheets. I live in Boulder for many generations, too. firm supporter of our pools and rec centers, but tonight I'm here to speak. I respectfully ask that the council not call up the Landmarks Board decision rejecting the Parks Department's proposal to demolish the bandshell seats. To briefly summarize some of the many reasons that the bandshell seats should return, they should return to the drawing board and the seats should be preserved. The Parks Department proposal permits the demolition of significant contributing portion of a city-owned landmark. The band shell and its seats are integral to the landmark, as noted in letters from the National Park Service and the state. This redesign sets a troubling precedent that could undermine the city's own historic preservation ordinance and put other landmarks at risk. Another reason to not call it up is that there are many possible design compromises that could improve the park without removing these seats. The current proposal appears economically and environmentally unsound. Boulder has long been a leader in historic preservation, retaining its culture and history while respecting its ordinance. This proposal does not continue this important tradition. In replacing 600 wooden bench seats with 200 cold hard concrete benches without backs along the new turf lawn areas, requiring ongoing maintenance and irrigation makes little practical sense. The Parks Department proposal should return to the drawing board to develop a design that preserves the seats and uses tax dollars more wisely and meets the needs of both the Parks Department and the people who enjoy the band shell. We respectfully ask you to vote to not call up this matter. Instead, request that the Parks Department develop a better design that respects and preserves this important city landmark and its voters.

Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Eve Dreher, Rob Smoke, and Claire Gleason.

Hi, I'm Eve Dreher. I live in Fraser Meadows neighborhood on Mohawk Drive. I'm in favor of the Fraser Meadows expansion and their plans for a vacation at Ponca Place. Like so many of my neighbors, I have a dog, and a dog that insists walking the neighborhood at least two times every day, so I know the neighborhood well. There are three reasons I'm in favor of this project. First, I want to make Ponca Place a safer street. Right now, the city does not maintain it, it's not lit, and it's rarely plowed. I would love to see the street be transformed into something that is much safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. I really like the fact that it will stay a through street. Second, I think the church's asphalt surface parking lot is an eyesore. It does not belong in a lovely residential area. I would much rather see another well-designed Frazier building and a grassy courtyard there instead. Lastly, I would like Mountain View Church to stay in the neighborhood. Like Frazier, they've been here since 1960. It would be a shame if they were forced to sell their property to a developer and move somewhere else. I don't even want to think about what might go up in our neighborhood if a developer comes in. That's why I'm in favor of this project. Fraser is a Boulder landmark and will give more seniors a place to call home. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Rob smoke, Claire Gleason and Jonah Faulkner.

My name is Rob smoke. I live in Boulder since, um, I had a friend who used to use the expression, uh, since Abe shot the goat. And, uh, It's probably I moved here in September of 86 and I spent a little time in nearby locales and I guess one thing I really want to express tonight is that when people have come and disrupted the meeting or seem disruptive either because they applaud inappropriately or we've had actual sessions where council took a suspended its activity for a brief while. In those cases, people are feeling that being quiet, complacent, compliant with rules is more harmful than speaking out, disrupting something. And the reason is because in Palestine, every humanitarian organization on the planet, every relevant humanitarian organization has said that genocide is occurring. And people here who are speaking out against that feel deeply that it needs to stop. And we're just marking, I think, the one-year anniversary in August of not having televised imagery from people speaking, as I am right now, before council. And that's just an example of something that's wrong. I'm almost certain the reason that it's being done is because somebody was holding up pictures of starving Palestinian children. And those pictures haven't gone away and they've only gotten worse. And so I'm just speaking out today to say free Palestine and let's have divestment in Boulder. Thanks.

Thanks. No, it's good. No noise in the audience, please. If you agree with something, you can Shake your hands or do jazz hands. Okay, now we go to Claire Gleason, Jonah Faulkner, and Lorraine Berger. Is Claire here? Looks like not, so let's go to Jonah Faulkner. No? How about Lorraine Berger? All right, and after that, we'll have Heather Thorne and Gaia Panetta.

Yeah, good evening. I don't really have a prepared speech. Oh, I am Lorraine Berger, a longtime Boulder resident. And I wanted to speak about the open space, the CU South open space. There are many of us who walk that space regularly. We use it for dog walking, for socializing. And yes, although Boulder is surrounded by a lot of open space, many of us don't have the opportunity or aren't always able physically to step, to get out of town to the areas outside of the CU South campus. So I'm a little nervous, so I'm forgetting what I want to say, that I am hoping that the the area that the minimum amount is closed and that it be closed for the shortest time possible so that those of us who pretty much take daily walks in that area once or twice a day, that we are able to continue to avail ourselves of that space because we cannot always get further out of town to get into more natural areas. So that's it.

Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll go to Heather Thorne, Gaia Panetta, and Steven Engle.

Good evening. Heather Thorne, I'm a Boulder resident, mom of a BVSD third grader, and the executive director of a national nonprofit that's headquartered here in Boulder. I'm here because closing schools has significant implications for the city of Boulder. Before an irreversible decision is made, we should understand the consequences for kids, families, neighborhoods, and the city itself. And I urge you to ask several important questions before the vote. First, BVSD says that small schools and students are suffering due to lack of consistent access to specialists. And while equity is a concern, and there may need to be better allocation of resources across schools, these services are an input, not an outcome. What evidence shows that increasing specialist access will improve student outcomes? On the contrary, we know that children lose when they can no longer walk to a neighborhood school where they hold deep relationships, a sense of belonging, safety, and strong community cohesion when friendships are torn apart. Next, has BVSD asked parents if closures proceed and better choices are not offered, how many will choose for students to attend the designated school? And if families leave BVSD, public schools, it'll undermine the economic benefits, further destabilizing the district. Finally, Boulder's recent adoption of a great 20-year comprehensive plan calls for more walkable neighborhoods. But the success of this plan depends on having not only affordable housing, but infrastructure, including high-quality schools to draw those families. So voting now to save 1% to permanently alter neighborhoods across Boulder County seems hasty and irresponsible, especially given that it's not a complete plan. So I'm asking you to exercise the city's intergovernmental relationship with BBSD, as Lafayette just did, to request clear public answers to these questions. And if they're not available today, the vote should be paused. We ask the city council to work with BBSD on a collaborative plan so that we can do this once and get it right.

Thank you. Now we'll go to Gaia Panetta, Stephen Engel, and Donna Wilder. Is Gaia coming? Do we have Gaia here? Maybe not. So Stephen, go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Steven Engel. I'm asking you tonight to think very carefully about what happens on October 5th regarding the pending full closure of CU South. I understand why the flood mitigation project is necessary. I understand that active construction areas need to be closed for safety. I'm not asking you to stop the project, and I'm not asking you to put anyone in danger. But I am asking you this. Does the entire CU South property really need to be closed for the public for three to five years? Because 119 acres of this property are going to become permanently protected city open space. That is something Boulder has fought for, negotiated for, and promised to preserve. And yet the city's current plan is to put up a fence and tell the public you can't come in, not for three years, not for five years. I don't believe we should accept that as the only option without asking whether there is a better one. I'm asking this council to direct staff to identify the actual construction footprint and determine whether any portion of that future open space can safely remain accessible. Fence off the construction, restrict access where necessary, create a temporary trail, close areas when construction requires it. But if there is land that is not being actively disturbed and can safely remain open, why should the public lose access to all of it? Three to five years is not a temporary inconvenience. For many people, this is a significant part of their lives. So tonight, I'm asking you for something very specific. Don't simply accept a full closure as the only answer. Direct your staff, the contractor, and open space officials to determine whether partial public access can safely be maintained during construction and do that before October 5th. Protect the people, protect the construction site, protect the habitat. But if we can safely protect all three while keeping some of this future open space available to the public, then let's find a way to do it. Thank you.

Thank you. Now let's go to Donna Wilder, Chelsea Blake, and JC Longbottom.

Good evening. I'm Donna Wilder. I am currently living at Fraser, and I'm also the president of the resident council at Fraser. Vacating Ponca Place provides a chance to create a safer and more welcoming environment for the people who use this space every day, and it still continues to welcome the public to travel through this site. Whether it's attending church, visiting friends, walking to work, or simply enjoying the outdoors, the redesign of Ponca Place would make the area easier and safer to navigate. Improved visibility, safe crossings, and enhanced landscaping will contribute to the usability and beautification of the area. The redesign narrows the travel time, improves the crossings, and helps calm traffic speeds, all of which support the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The proposal also allows for the creation of a shared space between Fraser, Mountain View United Methodist Church, and the surrounding neighbors. If approved, it will create a safer and more pleasant and pleasing pedestrian and bicycle environment for all. I appreciate the public access will continue to be preserved. This proposal respects the community while improving the experience for everyone who uses the space. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will support this proposal.

Thank you. Now we'll have Chelsea Blake, JC Longbottom, and Kat Yaku.

Thank you, Council. I'm here representing hundreds of my neighbors regarding the CU South flood mitigation plan that's been pushed through. As many have said already, so many of my neighbors enjoy it on a daily basis. Our dogs as well. And it seems like quite an overreach to close down all through. I've understood it as 300 acres. Someone said 180. but close on all of that to when it's perhaps two acres that require the land for the flood mitigation strategy. And now I'm not against a flood mitigation strategy at all. It's absolutely essential for that zone. However, the plan that has been pushed through is really upsetting for many of us. Has it been reviewed by independent experts? Has there been a peer review done? No, there hasn't. And the council can say, OK, fine. we had the state engineer review it, right? Well, the state engineer was only concerned about whether it would collapse. They didn't pay attention whether it was cost-effective at all, or even if it would provide flood protection. So that's ridiculous. And then CDOT was only concerned about its impact on the highway. That is also insane. So there's not actually been peer-reviewed strategies. I mean, we're asking that. you look at whether there are better, safer, less expensive solutions. Now, the initial flood mitigation strategy that was put forward back in 2015 cost $23 million. It's now up to over $100 million, including the $14 million that's already been spent on the engineering. And it's against the city's own guiding strategies, guiding

Solutions to your time is up, but thank you for your testimony Now we'll go to JC Longbottom Kat Yaku and Susan black icky If you can get the mic up, yeah a little taller here.

All right. Hey council. This is the first time I've addressed you I'm talking on the school issue as the parent of a Flatirons first grader I think you have heard in this room and throughout your conversations, how serious this closure is and how mobilized our community is. We need your help desperately. We need your leadership. Our community is doing everything right, rallying around schools that we care deeply about. And we are facing a school board who is unwilling to even pause for a moment to work with us to understand how we can have better solutions, have more time, and study the impact of these closures on kids. But for you, the question is, what is the choice that we make as a community that ultimately decides between decline and prosperity? Ideas around housing, those are real. Those are ideas. Ideas around development are theoretical. The school my kid goes to today is real. When you close schools, you accelerate decline. There's lots of research about that. A closed school leads to leaving neighborhoods, it leads to bad career opportunities for those future students, and it hollows out the heart and soul of a community. It hollows it out. A real closed school is far more damaging than the idea of housing that doesn't exist. Your plan can be undone, undone, by this choice, a rushed choice, a rushed choice where we have no path for advocacy. We don't need you to solve it. We understand you can't. We need leadership. Take a stand. Take a stand and say, let's slow this down. And secondly, ask the city attorney to understand your leverage on the land. Help us.

Thank you. All right, let's go to Kat Yacoub, Susan Blakicki, and Alicia Curtin.

Hi, everyone, and thank you, Council, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Katya Koo, and I'm a master's candidate at CU Denver in political science, and I'm a CU Boulder graduate. Um, I'm conducting research for my master's thesis on public participation in Boulder city council meetings. Um, and it's well known that civic and community participation in the United States has been declining. So my research looks at how in-person virtual and hybrid meetings formats affect accessibility, uh, while also considering the important role of repeat participants. So as a part of this study, I'm looking for anyone who might be willing to participate in an interview and share their experiences and perspectives on these city council meetings. and I'm inviting current and former city council members, city staff, and of course the public, even if you've only attended one meeting. So the interview would be short, depending on your schedule, and it could be in person, virtual, whatever your preference is. I also want to emphasize that it's not intended to evaluate or critique anyone's performance, and it's completely independent, not sponsored by anybody or the city. If you're interested, please reach out to me. I have a lot of little pamphlets and things to give you guys information on, and I'd really appreciate any insight. If you're watching from home, you can contact me at my email, which is katja.com. at ucdenver.edu. And thank you all for considering giving me an interview so we can better understand how to improve engagement in local government. Thank you guys so much.

Thank you. All right, our last three speakers are Susan Blakicki, Alicia Curtin, and Tyler Haney.

My name is Susan Blakicki. I have grown up in Boulder.

Speak into the mic, please.

Oh, sorry. I grew up in Boulder and I have been walking at CU South for over 30 years. When we got our first dog, we've always appreciated being allowed to use that open space. I'm sure you're aware of how many people enjoy this space every day. The Boulder community is outdoor oriented, which is one reason we live here. Much money has been spent on creating new bike paths and lanes. Millions of dollars have been spent so that we can enjoy extraordinary open space land and those spaces are under a tremendous amount of stress due to overuse the number of close in locations available for walking running or dog walking. Is is very small to begin with and now we're losing one of the very best over at CU South we're spending considerable amounts of money to create bike lanes and paths in our community, but there's a lack of resources being put into creating. and preserving open space areas for walkers, runners, and pet owners. It appears that the 119 acre area that is being preserved as open space is a considerable distance from the construction location. Although there may not be suitable parking in this area at this time, certainly the engineers on this project can easily create a parking lot and access for the people who recreate in this location. Within the annexation agreement, it states there is a provision of continued public access for recreational uses. I am hopeful that the council will take that into consideration and honor that provision. Our tax dollars have gone to creating numerous open space opportunities in Boulder. Let's not lose this opportunity to preserve a well-loved space. Everything is in place. The paths are there. The only thing missing is a parking lot, and we know the city can make this happen. Please don't ignore this portion of our community. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Now we have Alicia Curtin and Tyler Haney.

Good evening, council. I am Alicia Curtin. Tonight I am here as the lead fire adapted Colorado wildfire ambassador for the University Hill neighborhood. I live on Grant Place. Two years ago, the lovely four bedroom family home next to me was sold to an investor who chopped it up into nine bedrooms, and now I have nine sorority sisters with seven cars living next door. When I bought this home for what I could afford in Boulder for a family of six five years ago, never in a million years would I have imagined that I would be sandwiched between two rental properties. I have four children, and I am so disheartened that my family's presence in the Hill neighborhood is not being considered by the planning board when they make decisions like the proposed nine-bedroom next door two years ago, and now the proposed 13-bedroom duplex advertised as student housing at $1,800 per bedroom at 1084 Grant Place without considering the unintended consequences of density, especially on a one-way street like Grant Place. This density is dangerous considering the location of the proposed development, four blocks from the wild urban interface, which to date is unmitigated land. Why is the city not actively educating residents with regard to the fact that Boulder has a very high risk of wildfire, higher than 97% of counties in the United States? I believe a community education is essential to the creation of Boulder as a fire adapted community. The recent addition To the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policy 89, Fire Adapted Communities, reads, the city considers an integrated approach to wildfire risk, including emergency management planning and egress capacity when evaluating development that affects residential density within mapped wildfire ignition zones.

Your time is up, but thank you for your testimony. Our last speaker is Tyler Haney.

Is Tyler here?

Looks like Tyler's not here, so that brings open comment to an end. Thanks, everybody, for coming out and speaking with us this evening. We really appreciate you taking the time. I'm going to turn to our city manager and our city attorney, I guess assistant city manager, to see if you have any responses. Yeah, good evening. Deputy, pardon me.

No problem there. Good evening, council. Happy to answer or respond to a couple things that were brought up tonight. The first is related to BVSD and just appreciate everyone who came to talk about BVSD's closure plans. And as folks have said, obviously, as council knows, the ultimate decision does rest with the Boulder Valley School District. We have been coordinating with BVSD through this process. Happy to answer any questions if you may have any related to that. Then the other one that I wanted to address was related to the CU South site closure with the beginning of construction on that site. And first, just want to name and acknowledge the significant impact that a foreclosure of that site has. And it does have a significant community impact. Unfortunately, as we evaluated the site, a full closure is necessary. We did look at and staff studied pretty detailed is there a way to phase closure of the site or phase construction in a way. Unfortunately, that isn't feasible. The construction that's going to occur there actually is on the very south end of the site where the environmental mitigation will occur and then the north end of the site where the flood mitigation will occur. The construction staging is in the middle of the site with kind of egress in and out of that north end of the site. So when you add all of that together, there's really not a lot of safe space left for any kind of recreation. So we wanted to describe that in a little bit more detail. Our open space and parks and recreation teams have done a fair amount of work to identify other alternative recreation sites for folks, and that's in the FAQs on the city's CU South website as well. Maybe the last thing I'll mention is just there was a reference to the 119 acres that the city is now the owner of. And that land is all part of the environmental remediation work that we'll be doing. So that will be part of the active wetlands restoration work. So construction that we will be doing on that site. So that's part of why that area wouldn't be available as well. So with that, I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Yeah, thank you. Just you mentioned that you've been in coordination with BVSD or talking. Could you just speak just sort of at a high level what you've talked about and especially if you can address sort of future land use of school sites and what that looks like. I was here for the closures in 2003 and the readaptation of the Mapleton School and of course the Washington Elementary School, but just curious what that looks like.

Yeah, it's a great question. And we've had conversations with the school district that were early on focused on just what's the process that they're going to go through knowing that they needed to address the declining enrollment situation that was happening. And they shared some of that here at a council meeting as well. and had some conversations around depending on what schools are affected are there interim uses to those schools right away once a school closure actually occurs and then there's a longer conversation around what's what's the longer term land use some of those we've we've talked about is going to have to be a continuing conversation with the school district and The conversations that we had were prior to any decisions about what schools were going to be considered for closure. So now that they're making those final decisions, then we can start to get a little more tactical about what the future holds for each of those individual locations.

Chris, I'll just ask a follow-up question. What you described about why partial access isn't possible to see you south, do we have that on a city website anywhere?

I'll check to see if we have that in the FAQs, and if not, we can get that more detailed information out there so that folks kind of understand what was the process we went through to consider that.

Yeah, that would be great if it could be on a website and also sent to us so that we can share it with constituents who are questioning why the full closure is necessary. Can do. Thanks. We'll wait for comments until at the end, but Tysha, a question?

Thank you, Mayor. I asked last week about the grant place and what the possibilities were since the impact is not aligned with our intent and was told that staff was going to look to see what our options were and get back. So I was just curious the status of that request.

I will look into it and get back to you.

Thank you.

Not seeing any other hands raised. I'll give another one.

Yeah, I was taking just on the BVSD front. A couple of things that hasn't come up. I was concerned around the evacuation with the new traffic patterns that are going to happen. So just the impact if we have to do evacuations, what does that mean and what does that look like? And then I'm also just curious to Tina's questions around what happened to the repurposing. of those buildings. What is the city's responsibilities and opportunities? I know that we're first in line in those conversations, but given the facilities conversations we've been having, I'm just kind of curious where that would stand and would love to hear more about that.

Thank you.

Did you have a response?

Just appreciate those and happy to continue those conversations.

All right. Another BVSD question. We've heard multiple perspectives that have offered the idea that the actions the BVSD takes can have an impact on the city and our land use plans and further prospects for families and demographics. I'm wondering, at the staff level, have we taken the recommendation or proposed decision? I'm not sure what it's called. the plan direction and given any kind of an assessment to that effect and considered whether there's a, I don't know, um, a thought to responding, something like that.

Yeah. Yeah. Ryan, I appreciate the, that question. And it's, um, there's kind of multiple layers to that is what's running through my head right now from the very broadest sense of, you know, what, what are all the things that make up part of what, what makes a great community and, and schools are a big factor in, in what are the, you know, the ingredients of a great community. And so thinking about it from that big picture and folks tonight referenced the comprehensive plan and the, the goals and policies and the comprehensive plan. And so looking at, The proposed plan and the specific schools that are proposed for closure. Then down to kind of the more on the ground, as we were just talking about, of then what would happen next? What would the building be used for? What would the property be reused for? Would it be redeveloped? If so, what? So I think it's kind of multiple layers there. And I think that can be a continuing conversation for us to be able to have as well.

Rob, did you have a question?

I guess I have another continuing conversation question, and it's regarding what Alicia Curtin brought up. I'm seeing these homes in this area bought up by developers, and they're not turning into single family homes. They're putting as many bedrooms as they possibly can. It's already being marketed to an investor. for CU students, the one on 10th Street. And just looking at it holistically from the Boulder Valley comp plan to House Bill 101, the transportation-oriented communities down to our ordinance 8666, how are we moving forward from the top down with the Boulder Valley comp plan integrating all these things with the need for looking at the WUI and the density that's going in there? It's not about University Hill. It's not about a neighborhood. It's literally about life safety.

Yeah, I think, Rob, what you described a little bit of. There's first on kind of the what can occur in that neighborhood and the development proposals that are there. There's all those layers you just described. And I think we can work in our follow-up to council on describing some of those and how they interact with each other. And then I think it brings in that bigger policy question as well of now with the wildfire risk that our community faces and the WUI, how do we want to consider land uses in our city in general that balances all of those various policy objectives.

All right, I think that's our questions. Roberta, did you have anything to follow up with?

Roberto Ramirez, your deputy city attorney has nothing for you. Thank you.

Okay, thanks so much. All right, so if folks want to give very brief responses, now would be your opportunity. Tina? Tara?

How many times? Just kidding. Okay, Flatirons. Point of order. Can we get the one minute on the clock?

I know that, Mayor, you have it. I got it on my phone. I know it as a speaker. I just love to have it up there. Thank you.

Well, I better speak fast then. Flatirons Elementary School parents and fans, this is the letter I'm about to send to the BBSD board. Hello, BBSD board. Our neighborhoods matter to us so much that our new comprehensive plan centers around them. Neighborhood schools are a vital part of that fabric. They hold neighborhoods together. Parents are asking BBSD for a pause. Please listen to the parents who love their neighborhood schools and pause this decision. Thank you for listening and considering this. Tara Weiner, Mayor Pro Tem, Boulder City Council, and the subject is plea for a pause. And it is sent.

Okay. Folks, quiet please. Appreciate your enthusiasm. Any other brief remarks? Yeah, Matt.

Comment I want to make is around what is, I guess, affectionately been called stealth dorms. You know, when we passed Ordinance 8666 for family-friendly vibrant neighborhoods, the title of that speaks for the intent that these were focused for families and the vibrancy of those neighborhoods. The outcomes we're seeing are not what I think was intended by that ordinance. And so I think I'd like to see us really look at what are our options, because like any good policy, you have to sort of be accountable to the outcomes, good or bad. And if they're bad, then we've got to be willing to lead to find a way to solve that. So for those that are seeing those impacts, know that there's an opportunity for us to look at that. And I'm hopeful that maybe at this council, certainly the next one, we can tackle that accordingly. I know that timer didn't start, so I'm going to say one more thing. With regards to the BVSD stuff, I'm a parent in an impacted school as well. And I understand those challenges. But there's a lot of things that a delay won't solve the declining enrollment. There's certain inevitability there. And so we have to sort of question, is a delay to make us feel good? Or is it going to functionally lead to different outcomes? So I just want to make sure that we're doing those things for the right reasons if, in fact, that comes to pass.

Thanks, Matt.

Taysha. Thank you. I would love if that would work for me because I'm not good at that. Thank you. So one, I have asked last week, I asked this week and it was great to hear council member Matt ask again about what can be done about a code that is not moving in the direction that we need to, particularly with the wildfire issues. And then for BVSD, I have had to close schools before in previous capacities and I do have know firsthand the disruptions that that has. I agree that a pause, that a decline is happening and they needed to do something, but I also agree that a pause gives us more time to consider other alternatives. So similar to Mayor Pro Tem Weiner, I also will be sending a letter individually in our capacity and I urge our city council, our city staff to obtain those questions. The fact that there's lingering questions at this time about basic issues is also a concern. I know and I support our school board. I know they work very hard. There's more work to be done on this issue. Thank you. Thanks, Taisha. Okay.

Not seeing any other hands raised. Thanks again to everybody who came out. We appreciate all of your passion for making our community a better place. And with that, we're wrapping up open comment. And I'm going to take us to a recess. We'll come back at 630 for the business portion of our meeting. Thanks, everybody. Back to order. And we are going to go to our declarations. Item number three. The first one is a declaration congratulating the South Boulder Little League 11U All-Stars on their recent victory. And by the way, you can clap for the declaration. So go for it. Go for it. Congratulating them on their recent victory as state champions in their age bracket to be read by Mayor Pro Tem Tara Weiner.

All right, first, everybody up. Everybody come on up. That's not everybody, but just the people that are. First, I'm going to read this declaration. I'm so excited to read it. Yes, declaration honoring South Boulder Little League 11U All-Stars, 2026 Colorado State Champions. September 17, 2026. South Boulder Little League has served the youth of Boulder for more than 55 years, providing a fun, safe, and supportive environment where young athletes learn the values of teamwork, sportsmanship, discipline, and perseverance. This year, the South Boulder Little League 11U All-Star Team won the District 2 Tournament with skill and determination. The team then advanced to the Colorado State Tournament and posted a 2-1 record. culminating in a hard-fought 5-2 victory over the Academy All-Star team of Colorado Springs in the championship game. In that state championship game, player Leo Rosenthal made an extraordinary play at home plate, evading the catcher's tag to score a critical run and help secure the state title. This remarkable achievement is a direct reflection of the dedication, leadership, and mentorship of head coach Dean Karamanidis. No? Karamanidis? Karamanidis. I was so close. And assistant coaches Brett Amidro and Jeremy Sebold, together with the unwavering support of the players' families and the South Boulder Little League, community. The players, I'm going to try to get this right, Max Amidro. Wave when I mention your names. Good. Mason Benjamin. Sam Burns. Yeah, good. Alex Karamanidis. Davis Corson. Wyatt Denoya. Jack Hanson. Luke Kelly. Eddie Neiman. Leo Rosenthal. Knox Seabold, and Rio Shalinski. Represented the city of Boulder with pride, character, and championship caliber performance on the field. The Boulder City Council extends a heartfelt congratulations to the South Boulder Little League 11U All-Star Team, our 2026 Colorado State Championships. Championships. Yeah, I did my best. Does anybody want to say anything coaches? No. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I just a quick note. I would like to thank all these kids for working so hard. A lot of these kids start their indoor training in January. Our little league tournament didn't wrap up until the end of July. And that was a long time and putting in a lot of work and a lot of effort. And it was awesome to see, uh, pay dividends into a state championship. And I'm also grateful. I want to make sure I give special credit to Jeremy and Coach Brett. Could not have done it without their help, that's for sure.

Thanks so much. All right, we're done.

All right, another big congratulations. Way to go, team. All right. We're going to go to our item 3B, which is a declaration for welcoming week to be read by Councilmember Taisha Adams.

I'm just waiting to see if there's any recipients for this. Oh, wonderful.

I think John Lopez from Intercambio is here and is going to come on down.

Thank you.

John, I hope you won't be offended if there's a little bit less clapping for this one, but we're also excited. That was awesome. All right.

Last fall, city staff and Last fall, city staff and community partners collaborated to tell the story of the ways Boulder values immigrant inclusion during a rigorous audit process to become a certified welcoming city and earning a three-star certification. This September, we join Welcoming America and cities across the country to celebrate Welcoming Week, September 10th through the 19th, 2026. During Welcoming Week, organizations and communities bring together neighbors of all backgrounds to build strong connections and affirm the importance of welcoming and inclusive places in achieving collective prosperity. City of Boulder social media platforms featured the work of community partners this week, including Intercombrio, a local organization that supports adult English language learners to build skills, confidence, and meaningful connections by pairing them with volunteer instructors. the Emergency Family Assistance Association, whose economic development program offers practical tools, education, and resources to support financial well-being, and Luna Cultura, a bilingual, bicultural, woman-owned business committed to building strong, inclusive communities through the transformative power of art, science, and culture. While this week provides an opportunity to pause, reflect, and plan for the next phase of welcoming work in Boulder, our community prioritizes the spirit of welcoming year round. Welcoming is a core part of who we are and always aspire to be. And Boulder will continue to choose connection, courage, and love over division, fear, and hate. Now, therefore, we, the City of Boulder Council, proclaim the week of September 10th through the 19th of 2026 to be Welcoming Week. I call upon the people of Boulder to join together to build strong communities across our city. Signed by our mayor, Mayor Aaron Brockett. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Hi, I'm John Lopez. I'm the CEO of Intercambio. As was stated, our mission is essentially to break down barriers that get in the way of connected, inclusive communities. We do it through language, but then we also do it through other gatherings. We invite members of the community to come to our classrooms and sit with students so they can practice their English. That's just one of the many things we do. This work is very personal to me. I'm an immigrant myself. And I watch most of my family come to the United States as adults and struggle with the cultural differences. I want to give you a couple of statistics just for context. In any eight or nine week period that we have classes here in the city of Boulder, we serve about 150 students from 30 different countries speaking about 20 different languages. And they're sitting in class together all learning this language. What started here 26 years ago has become a way of learning language across the country. We produce our own materials here, and there are about 750 organizations across the nation that use our materials. Thank you. It's really gratifying when a student comes to you and says, Mr. Lopez, a Syrian refugee, young woman who escaped things that we could only imagine, and she says, I'm going to write my vows in English, and my husband will be so proud. We hear those things, those types of things every day. When a 10-year-old says, I don't have to go with my mother because she can interpret on her own now. We recently had a Brazilian ophthalmologist enroll in classes with us to strengthen her English before getting back into her industry. We couldn't do all this without the support of the city and everyone else in the community. So we thank you for this.

Thanks so much for joining us, John. And we stepped it up. We did some pretty good applause there. All right. We have one more declaration, which is item 3C, Declaration for the UN International Day of Peace, to be read by Council Member Matt Benjamin. And do we have, is Jen Spettel from Boulder Rotary here? Doesn't look like it. All right.

All right. Recognize the United Nations International Day of Peace, September 17th, 2026. In 2001, the UN General Assembly officially proclaimed an International Day of Peace to encourage strengthening the ideas of peace and alleviating tensions and causes of conflict around the world. To quote the resolution, this day is a moment for reflection and action, considering the unique opportunity it offers for a secession of violence and conflict through the world and the related importance of achieving broadest possible awareness and observance of the International Day of Peace among the global community. The Boulder community joins this global effort with organizations like the Boulder Rotary Club, who have invested in permanent peace markers on the landscape, such as the Infinite Walk of Peace just outside of this building. We uplift the ongoing action of the Rotary's Boulder Builds Peace Initiative and celebrate the International Day of Peace on September 21st. This year's theme is Peace is Possible, featuring local events such as Peace Fair. Therefore, we, the City Council of Boulder, recognize September 21st, 2026 as the United Nations International Day of Peace, encouraging everyone in the community to participate in action that reinforces nonviolent solutions to humanity's most profound international challenges.

All right. Thanks, Matt. Elisha, can we go to our consent agenda now, please?

We can, sir. Thank you. Our consent agenda is item four on tonight's agenda, and it consists of items 4A through 4G.

Very good. Does anybody have any questions or comments on the consent agenda? Okay.

I got Ryan and then Nicole. Comment. I have, unfortunately, a couple of no's. So item D, that's the FAA grants one. I understand this would be the final decision that we would make. to obligate the city to operate the airport in perpetuity, which would be a covenant of the grant. I continue to believe that that type of decision calls for an analysis of liabilities and how they compound out into the future that we don't yet have. So I had proposed an alternate way to give us more time. That was not the will of council. So I will be voting no on that. And then also no on F, which is weighing in on the reorganizing the county commissioner seats. I don't think council has a role in that. And I'll be no on that too. Thanks. Got it. Nicole?

Thank you. I just wanted to share a couple of no's tonight too because it's rare for me to do that for consent agenda. So thank you for the time, Mayor. I appreciate being able to explain myself. Similar to Councilmember Shewhart on item D, I'll be voting no. I've shared before that given the size of the parcel involved, uncertainty at the federal level, and my desire to maximize flexibility for future generations, I don't believe accepting FAA grants is the right choice at this time. For item E, because the land use is so limited there due to the floodplain, I'm comfortable supporting that item. On item F, I will also be voting no. While council can certainly take positions on county measures, I do not feel it is good governance for us to weigh in on the county's internal structure particularly because this proposal did not originate from the commissioners and so many former commissioners are against it. I am also concerned about impacts to our community members. The county is facing significant staffing reductions and adding commissioners at an estimated minimum cost of over half a million dollars per year may reduce resources for essential services that many of our own residents, workers, and students rely on. I also want to acknowledge how this measure reached the ballot. Former Commissioner Elise Jones shared last night at the Democratic Women of Boulder County event that nearly 70% of the over $100,000 raised to get this measure on the ballot came from two multimillionaires, and over half of the money raised in support of the measure has come from outside of Boulder County. A number of former commissioners have even started a website to educate residents due to their significant concerns, noon5commissioners.com. I believe residents deserve to understand that context as they evaluate our decision to take a position on this measure. Some supporters hope this measure will increase representation. I hear their hope. It is something I have worked for as well. At the same time, Boulder County's only Latina commissioner, who has worked tirelessly to increase demographic representation among Boulder County's elected officials, has noted that increasing the number of seats will not address the deeper issues in the campaign finance regulations as well as in caucus and party processes that limit broader participation. And if we're talking about geographical representation based on the population distribution within Boulder County, it is likely that any new seats would be filled by candidates from Boulder or Longmont. not underrepresented areas of the county, like the mountain communities or rural areas on the plains. I also would like to remain consistent. If we say it's not council's role to weigh in on the school district school closure decisions, particularly those with budget implications, I don't believe we should step outside our lane to weigh in on the county's governance structure, especially when those decisions also affect their budget. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, Nicole. Any other comments or perhaps a motion? Matt?

I'm going to be voting no on the resolution of 1391 in support of the County Citizens Initiative. As I said previously, I personally support this measure. I think this county needs to have greater representation, but for the reasons of I don't think it's appropriate for the City of Boulder's government to be putting their thumb on the scale for how another government entity should be structured. That is the reason, but it's not for a lack of support for the measure.

Understood. Anybody else? I will, seeing no other hands raised, I will go ahead and move that we approve the consent agenda.

Second.

And this is a roll call, so if we could do that, please, Alicia.

Yes, sir, thank you. We'll start the roll call for the consent agenda items 4A through 4G with Councilmember Kaplan.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. Shewhart. Yes.

Yes, except no on D and no on F. Thank you, sir.

Speer? Yes, but also no on D and no on F. Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Weiner? Yes. Councilmember Adams?

Yes.

Benjamin?

A yes, but a no on F. And Mayor Brockett? Yes.

The consent agenda items are hereby approved unanimously noting the noted A's for items 4D and 4F.

Thanks so much. And if the folks who were here earlier speaking about Ponca Place are still here, item G was approving the vacation of Ponca Place. So that has just been accomplished. Oh, you are still here. Okay. Thanks for coming. And that's all approved. All right. Can we go to our call check-ins, please, Alicia?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Our call-up check-ins are item number five on tonight's agenda. 5A is the consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application for changes within the landmark boundaries of the Glen Huntington Bandshell at 1236 Canyon Boulevard.

Questions, comments, or desire to call this one up?

Do you want to go ahead?

Yeah, I would like to call this up. I understand how people feel about it who spoke tonight. I feel it's the right thing for us to just look at it one more time and just be sure either way.

Makes sense. Would you like to make a motion, someone?

I'd like to make a motion to call up item 5A.

Any further comments before we go to a vote?

I'll just make a quick one on the motion. Is there a second?

Second. Yeah. Sorry. Thanks.

I'm sorry. When the property owner would like us to call it up, in this case, the property owner is us and the Parks Department, we try to be consistent. So if you are private or you're public, we try to be consistent that if you do want this called up, we tend to honor that. So we're being consistent here. At least that's my intent.

Great. Tina, did you want to speak to it?

All right.

Seeing no other hands raised, I'll go ahead and call for a vote. Please raise your hand if you're in favor of calling this up. So that's 8-0. Okay, that one's getting called up. Can we go to the next one, please?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Item 5B is the consideration of a non-conforming use review at 969 10th Street for an expansion of an existing duplex.

Question, comments, or desire to call this one up? I got Tara out of the gate again.

It's my night, yes. I would like to call up. non-conforming use review application LUR20250091.

Do you want me to say why? Sure. Okay.

In the packet, it said Mark McIntyre, seconded by Kurt Nordback, moved to deny the application for failure to meet 9-2-15 and the BRC Code 1981. They didn't have a majority, but I want to look at it again and see if it satisfies all applicable criteria of BRC 9-2-15.

Thanks. Matt, you had your hand up. Yeah, I was going to second that.

Because you made the motion to call it up, correct? She hasn't made a motion. Oh, she hasn't. I thought she did to start. Never mind. Okay, go ahead, and then I'll make a comment on the second.

I would like to make a motion to call up non-conforming use review application LUR 2025-0091.

Second. I'll just echo what Tara said. This is... It just requires more scrutiny, and I think certainly based on the comments that was happening at planning board, I think we need to give a serious look. We like to see things unanimous. This had quite a bit of conversation back and forth, and we get to sort of be the arbiters of that conversation going forward. So it's a good one to call up and give some more scrutiny.

Very good. Any other comments before I go to a vote? I'll just make a quick comment myself, which is to say I'm fine with calling it up, and then we can take a look at whether it meets the criteria or not. So I'll vote in favor. So all in favor, please raise your hands. So that's a seven, all not in favor, and one. So that's called up on a vote of seven one. All right, can we go to our first public hearing please?

Sir, I will need a motion to suspend. Mayor, I'll need a motion to suspend the council rules of procedures.

I will go ahead and move that we suspend the council rules of procedures for a six to allow for three public hearings. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. Thanks for the prompt, Alicia. Now let's go to item 6A.

Of course, so teamwork to make the dream work. We'll go with our public hearings, which are item number six on tonight's agenda. 6A is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8765, designating the property at 1004 Lincoln Place, City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Byrd-Stova House as an individual landmark under Chapter 9-11, Historic Preservation, BRC 1981, and setting forth related details.

All right, I'll go ahead and kick us off here. And Alicia and Emily, if you don't mind switching the screens for us, I'm going to pass it straight over to Marcy Gerwing, who's going to present this item and the next one.

All right, thank you and good evening, Council. My name is Marcy Gerwing, Principal Planner in Planning and Development Services. Today we come to you with, I believe, the fifth and sixth landmark designations of the year, or the fourth and the fifth, and we have two more before the end of the year in December coming for you, so. I'll begin by going through the quasi-judicial process. First, council members will note any ex parte contacts, which you can do so now about this property at 1004 Lincoln Place. Any conversations, site visits, et cetera. Seeing none, staff will give a presentation followed by the owner's presentation. The public hearing is then open for community member comments. And after the last public comment, the applicant has the opportunity to respond to anything that was said. Council members may ask questions between any of these steps. After council questions, the public comment portion of the hearing is closed and council discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least five members to pass, and motions must state findings, conclusion, and a recommendation. Finally, a record of the hearing is kept by staff. The criteria for your decision this evening is found in 9-11-6 of the Boulder Revised Code, and that is on whether the designation meets the purposes and standards in Section 9-11-1A and Section 9-11-2 of the Boulder Revised Code in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Looking at those two code sections, the first defines the purpose of the Historic Preservation Code, which is to preserve, protect, enhance historically significant buildings and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, or people and to develop and maintain appropriate settings to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage. The second provides the types of designation Council may pass including individual landmarks on a single site containing special character and special architectural or aesthetic interest or value. And the third part of your criteria asks whether the designation is in balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which sets a vision for future development and preservation in the City of Boulder and Boulder County. Historic preservation is interconnected with an array of community values from arts and culture, economic development, environmental sustainability, and a sense of belonging. The efforts of the Historic Preservation Program most directly supports the following BVC policies which speak to the value of designating historic places to connect the past with the future, support sustainability, equity, and resilience. Historic preservation elevates diverse stories that foster a shared sense of belonging, shapes how places change over time, and honors the full diversity of the Boulder Valley to help the community understand where it has been, where it is, and where it is going. Policy 31 is the most relevant to this application as it states that the city designates historic places. Other policies speak to the value of supporting historic places so they continue to contribute to the economic vitality of the community and foster meaningful connections to Boulder. The options in front of you this evening are to either approve the designation, modify and approve the designation, or deny the designation. If designated, this property will become Boulder's 223rd individual landmark. Future exterior changes will be reviewed through a landmark alteration certificate, and owners will receive a bronze plaque and be eligible for historic preservation tax credits. This property was nominated by the owner, Valerie Stoiva, whose parents purchased the property 55 years ago. The application was submitted in April, and on July 1st, the Landmarks Board unanimously voted to recommend landmark designation for the property. The first reading of the ordinance was on August 20th, and that brings us to the public hearing this evening. The property is located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Place and Euclid Avenue in the University Hill neighborhood. It is within the potential University Hill historic district, which was identified in 1992 to be eligible as a National Register historic district. In that survey, the house at 1004 Lincoln Place was identified as contributing to that district. In that survey, the house was found to be individually eligible for listing on the National Register as an exceptionally good example of the craftsman style in Boulder. The house has Tudor revival influences seen in the stucco and half-timbering, which cover the entire second story. The building also features a bay window, an oriole window, and several multi-pane windows. Craftsman-style homes were popular in Colorado in the early part of the 20th century, and although many bungalow craftsman-style homes can be found in Boulder's University Hill neighborhood, this building is one of the largest and best examples. The property has had a number of stewards over the last 118 years. The longest and current owners is the Stoiva family. They purchased the house in 1971, and Jane Stoiva directed the Wardenburg student health center at the university, working first as a psychotherapist and later as the director of clinical social work. Johan quickly became one of the foremost researchers of biofeedback, doing groundbreaking research in what was called alternative medicine. He studied sleep and stress-related disease and oversaw the science of biofeedback becoming recognized in healthcare. The 1990 survey considered the house eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places based on the high artistic value and significant as an exceptionally good example of craftsman style architecture in Boulder. Though we were unable to confirm the architect, this is one of Boulder's best examples of craftsman and Tudor revival style. And as far as environmental significance goes, the rail connection between Fort Worth and Colorado was a key factor in the development of the Texas Colorado Chautauqua and also in the University Hill neighborhood. About one fourth of all lots in the University Hill neighborhood were developed between the arrival of the Chautauqua in about 1910. While the primary facade faces west towards Lincoln Place, the design includes prominent features on the south elevation that create a secondary facade facing Euclid Avenue. The orientation and prominence of the house creates a familiar visual landmark within the neighborhood and tells the story of the area's early development. Staff in the Landmarks Board recommend that the house be named the Baird-Stoyva House to recognize the property's first owners, Julia and James Baird, and prominent long-term residents, Johan and Jane Stoyva, and the Stoyva family's stewardship of the property for the last 55 years. Staff in the Landmarks Board recommend the boundary be established to follow the property lines on the lot, which is consistent with current and past practices and the National Register guidelines for establishing landmark boundaries. With that, staff in the Landmarks Board recommend that the City Council adopt Ordinance 8765 and designate the property as an individual landmark to be known as the Beardstoyva House. That concludes our staff presentation, and I welcome any questions you may have. I'd also like to see if Valerie is here this evening and welcome Valerie here tonight. Thank you.

Thanks, Valerie, for joining us. Thanks for the presentation. Any questions for city staff? Seeing none, Valerie, did you want to address the council about the application at all? We welcome you to come up and read that.

Thank you so much. All right. And when I was pondering this matter, I was reading in the New York Times.

And if you can speak right into the mic, please.

I was reading in the New York Times. That's pretty loud.

Frank Rich's column on historical preservation. Preservation demonstrates a belief in the worth and beauty of the old and the possibility of repairing, even resurrecting, stones and spirits alike. I seek landmark status for my family home, a tenor for Lincoln Place. The artful structure has a peaceful and melancholy air. Landmark status would indicate the worth not only of the house, but of the neighborhood, Uni Hill, always changing and in flux. It would also have the highly practical benefit of enabling maintenance and upkeep through the handy-dandy tracks credits. To me, the house has always been a place of learning, filled with books and papers, and during my parents' lifetimes, parties and gatherings of academics, I was fascinated. to learn of the first owner's association with railroads and the Chautauqua movement. And I was surprised that there was never a horse and always a car in the accessory building, otherwise known as the garage. But I had always imagined, you know, a hayloft, but never. Tenor for Lincoln seems to have a very rich history in and of itself, and its context is a historic and important Boulder neighborhood. So thank you so much for your consideration of our lovely home on the lovely hill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So council will come back for deliberations if anyone wants to open with comments or perhaps a motion.

Yeah, Rob, go ahead. I'll make the motion. I'd like to make a motion to adopt Ordinance 8765, designating the property at 1004 Lincoln Place, City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Beard Stoyva House as an individual landmark under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Ordinance and setting forth related details.

Excuse me, Mayor? Yes. We do have one person signed up for the public hearing. Oh, we have a public hearing.

I'm so sorry. Hold that thought, Rob. Hold that motion. We have one person who signed up to speak in the public hearing. So I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. And Lynn Siegel, you'll have three minutes to speak.

Yes on this. And Valerie, I'm really glad I got to see your face. I didn't get to see the face of any of the other people testifying tonight. And I don't know when that happened. But that is sick that the council is doing that. And I really miss your mom. And I really liked her. And I think, I don't know for sure. I'll meet you sometime, Valerie, when I step in across the street to visit Isabel. But I think that your mom would agree with me when I say free Palestine.

Right. That's on topic, please.

Yep, that's on the topic. History in the making, Erin. I'm done.

Okay. Thank you. All right. I'll close the public hearing. And, Rob, do you want to try again? One more time.

I'd like to make a motion to adopt Ordinance 8765, designating the property at 1004 Lincoln Place, City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Beard Stoyva House as an individual landmark under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Ordinance and setting forth related details.

Second. Motion to second. Would you like to speak to it?

Sure. I mean, it is a beautiful representation of the early century. And Valerie, you said it has a peaceful and melancholy air. I think that has a lot to do with the owners, too. So thank you for bringing this forth.

Very good. Any other comments? Seeing none, we have a roll call, please, Alicia.

Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of Ordinance 8765 with Councilmember Marquis. Yes. Shuhart.

Yes.

Speer. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Weiner.

Yes.

Councilmember Adams.

Yes.

Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

And Councilmember Kaplan.

Yes.

Ordinance 8765 is hereby adopted unanimously.

Very good. Well, Valerie, congratulations. And thanks so much for bringing your property forward for designation.

Thank you very much.

All right. Let's go to our next public hearing, please. Come grab those glasses.

Yes, sir. Thank you. I'm trying to look at my pronunciations that Marcy gave me. Our next public hearing is item 6B. It is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8766, designating the property at 844 through 850 12th Street, City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Hillman Bedman Stefanik property as an individual landmark under chapter 9-11 historic preservation BRC 1981 and setting forth related details.

It's me again. Marcy Gerwing, principal planner in planning and development services. And because the owners of this one were here for the quasi-judicial in the last hearing, I'll just summarize it this time. So we'll start with a staff presentation, but first I'll pause for council members to note any ex parte contacts you may have about this proposed landmark designation.

So I have visited this property on a couple of occasions for meetings or events, but that does not prevent me from being What's the word? Unbiased on the matter.

Wonderful. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll continue with the staff presentation followed by the applicant's presentation. The public hearing is then open for community member comments. And then after the last public comment, the owners have a chance to respond to anything that was said. The public hearing is then closed and council deliberates. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least five members to pass, and motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation, and a record of hearing is kept by staff. The criteria for review is the same as in the last hearing, which is found in 9-11-6 of the Boulder Revised Code, and that's whether the designation meets the purposes and standards in 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 in balance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Again, the first defines the purpose of the Historic Preservation Code, and the second one states the types of designation councils may pass, including these individual landmark designations. The third part speaks to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the balance with the goals and policies in that. And the options in front of you tonight are to approve, modify and approve, or deny the designation. If designated, this will become Boulder's 224th individual landmark, and future exterior changes will be reviewed through a design review through a landmark alteration certificate. The owners will receive a bronze plaque and be eligible for state historic preservation tax credits. This property is owner, excuse me, this property is nominated by the owners, Joseph and Caroline Stepanek, who purchased the property in the 1970s. The application was submitted in April, and in July 1, the Landmarks Board unanimously voted to recommend the landmark designation of the property. First reading of the ordinance was on August 20, and that brings us to tonight's public hearing. This property is located on the east side of 12th Street between Aurora Avenue and Cascade Avenue. It includes two structures. The primary house address is 850 12th, which faces west onto 12th Street, and an accessory house addressed as 844 12th Street, which faces west and is set back towards the alley. This property is also located within the identified potential University Hill Historic District. The front house was designed by architect David Hull Holmes, of which the owners have a personal connection to. It is in the southwest Mediterranean style and was built in 1920. The accessory house was constructed a couple years later in 1928 and is a frame construction with divided light windows and shingle siding. David Hull Holmes was a teacher at the Territorial University in Tucson, Arizona, now the University of Arizona, and he designed many buildings in Tucson, and the Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation credits him with creating Tucson's iconic southwestern Mediterranean style, which features thick stucco walls, deep overhangs, efficient ventilation and natural cooling, and Mediterranean styles and motifs without excess ornamentation. David Hull Holmes is the current owner's grand uncle. The first owner, Elizabeth Heilman, was a key volunteer for Boulder's Red Cross during the First World War. She bought lots 11 and 12 in May of 1919 and commissioned fellow Red Cross volunteer and architect David Hull Holmes to design and build the house. She purchased the adjacent lot in 1923 and built the smaller house a couple years later. She lived there until her death in 1942. Subsequently, Grace and Florence Bedell purchased the property. They were sisters, both retired professionals who had spent the 1920s and 1930s teaching nutrition chemistry of sanitation, emotional health and family life, textile care, and many other scientific subjects essential for families struggling through the Great Depression. The front house, as I mentioned, is constructed in the Southwest Mediterranean style. And the National Register nomination for another one of Hull's projects notes that the Hull Designed the house at 850 12th Street in 1920 and it's in keeping with this white stucco clad homes He designed during the latter part of his career notable for their clean bold lines deep roof overhangs and stripped-down simplicity We don't know the architect of the rear house yet the symmetry of the windows in basic detailing show care and skill and design I Similar to the previous hearing, this property also has environmental significance for being in the identified potential University Hill historic district. And this area saw a large building boom in the 1920s. While both of these houses are modest in design, they are both important visual landmarks within the neighborhood, along with the alleyway, and tell the story of the area's 1920s development, in particular in the way they relate to one another. With that, staff in the Landmarks Board recommend that the house be named the Hailman Bedell Stepanic Property to recognize the achievement of the original and subsequent long-term residence, as well as the stewardship of the current owners. And we recommend the boundary be established to follow the property lines, which is consistent with the current and past practices for establishing boundaries. Staff in the Landmarks Board recommend that City Council adopt Ordinance 8766, and designate the property as an individual landmark to be known as the Hailman Bedell Stepanek property. This concludes our staff presentation, and I welcome any questions that you have, as well as Joseph and Caroline Stepanek, who are here this evening.

Thanks so much, Marcin. Any questions for city staff? Seeing none, I'll ask if Joe or Caroline, if either of you would like to speak to the council on this matter tonight?

Thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you for a lovely presentation. I'm very proud.

And Joe, if you can get into the microphone a little more.

David Hull Holmes, who was very instrumental in introducing Mediterranean styles to otherwise eastern seaboard standards across Boulder. The arch, the architecture, we're very pleased to have moved in in 67, and we're delighted that It's under consideration. We think it's a very quiet neighborhood halfway between CU and Chautauqua. And the quiet street is a charm. And we're very pleased to have it landmarked. I could go on and add one other side note. The next door neighbor, much to my surprise as a young child, was Ed Condon. in 86, 860 12th Street, the house immediately to the north. This is a sort of tangential comment, but it was Ed Condon who convinced Truman and Eisenhower to bring the Bureau of Standards to Boulder. And as a child, I knew Ed Condon. It was a great honor to be living next door to such a famed individual. So it's a lovely piece of history in Boulder right there on 12th Street. And we're very proud that you're considering landmarking the property. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Thanks so much. All right, I will now open the public hearing, if you remembered it this time. And we'll turn to our one person who signed up to speak. So Lynn Siegel, you have three minutes.

Support this? Yes, of course. I was hearing the word, the name Holmes, and I thought, I was trying to remember the other Stepanic house where Judge Holmes was recognized on Mapleton Hill where I live. And I'm glad he brought the Mediterranean thing to Boulder. In the 60s, Joe said he had moved into that house. We got a house that's much less inspired. architecture on Hamilton Court in 1949. I mean, excuse me, in 1959, before the 60s. So I like this better. This was just, Martin Acres was just crammed full of this horrible architecture that I don't like. But this is a really neat thing. that the guy to the north brought the labs into town. And there's just always new things to learn about what's going on with every square inch of Boulder. And I am really glad it's being landmarked. And now it'll be the second landmark after Judge Holmes' place and all that he did with the youth in Boulder. Thanks, and free Palestine. Done.

Stay on topic, but thank you. And that brings the open comment or the public hearing to a close, so I'll come back to council and see about comments or perhaps a motion.

Nicole? It looked like one of the owners had one more comment potentially to add, and so I guess my question is can we hear that? If so, I've loved your stories. Thank you.

Please do come on up.

I had the good sense to marry into the Holmes family at a time when Judge Holmes realized that he had the authority to incarcerate children when, in fact, they didn't need detention. They needed attention. And I'm pleased to say that that bolder commitment on behalf of Judge Holmes is alive and well. And I'm very proud of everybody in Boulder who's made that possible. Thank you very much.

Lovely. Would you like to make a motion?

Sure, happy to. And so I move to adopt Ordinance 8766, designating the property at 844 to 850 12th Street Place, City of Boulder, Colorado, to be known as the Heilman Bedell Stepanek Property. as an individual landmark under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Ordinance and setting forth related details.

Second. Would you like to speak to it?

Sure. I just wanted to thank the owners for coming and sharing some additional history with us tonight. I really appreciate having that. And thank you so much for bringing this forward. It's beautiful homes, beautiful property. And yeah, thank you. Thanks for bringing this to our community.

Great. Seeing no other hands raised, let's go ahead and do our roll call vote, please, Alicia.

All right. Thank you, sir. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of Ordinance 8766 with Councilmember Schuhart.

Yes.

Speer.

Yes.

Mayor Pearl Tim Weiner.

Yes.

Councilmember Adams.

Yes.

Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

Councilmember Kaplan. Yes.

Yes.

And Marquis. Yes. Ordinance 8766, hereby adopted unanimously.

Well, huge congratulations, Joe and Carolyn. And thank you so much for bringing this forward. And as I mentioned, I've been in your gorgeous home and so glad that you're protecting it for the future. And with that, let's go to our final public hearing, please.

Yes, sir, our final public hearing on tonight's agenda is item 6C. It is the second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt ordinance 8770, amending chapter 14, medical marijuana, and chapter 16, recreational marijuana, BRC 1981, repealing energy offset requirements and setting forth related details.

Thanks, Alicia. And before I pass things over to Carolyn while she's getting it set up here, this is an item with an ordinance that we don't get to bring to council very often, which is to eliminate regulations of the city. So we're a little excited, actually, to be able to have conversations about things that maybe we don't need anymore. So with that, I will hand it right over to Carolyn, and she can take it away.

Can I just do a small interruption real quick? Couldn't we do these things when there's more people in the audience to actually appreciate that effort? Just throwing it out there. It's a little quiet.

That's why we record these. You can share it around. Good evening, Council. Carolyn Elam, Senior Manager with your Climate Initiatives Department. As mentioned, I'm here to present Ordinance 8770 to you this evening, which would repeal our energy offset requirements for marijuana cultivation. This is our second reading in public hearing, so again, Council's options this evening are to pass the motion as presented. You can also define some modifications, which we are happy to incorporate and bring back on third reading if that's necessary. You can, of course, deny the motion and maintain the requirements as they are, or you can refer the item back to us for further study, and we would bring it back at another date. Just in background on these requirements, they stem back more than a decade to the first offering of marijuana cultivation licenses and any form of marijuana licenses in the city of Boulder. When marijuana licensing became allowed through changes in state law, it was considered a discretionary license, meaning that jurisdictions could choose or not choose to offer licenses for any kind of marijuana sale or grow operations in the city. So Boulder, of course, proceeded with the licensing, but we had some discretion as to how we implemented that license and any requirements that were unique to our community. Our council at that time recognized that this is an industry, particularly cultivation, that's very energy intensive, indoor agriculture can be quite energy consuming, and our council was concerned about the impact this new emerging industry might have on the community's ability to reach our climate goals. So they imposed these offset requirements, which require that 100% of electricity use by license holders in their operations be either provided by renewable energy or offset by renewable energy. The original ordinance provided three options. That could be on-site solar, subscription to a community solar garden, or participation in Excel's wind source program. In 2017, council modified that third requirement, changing it to what is our local energy impact offset fund. That change was motivated by the fact that all of our license holders were complying through wind source. And we really felt as a community that we could have more impact and create more offset proactively by bringing those dollars in-house and being able to implement projects, which we were able to do. We did bring an ordinance change, Ordinance 8307, to Council in February 2019. The original ordinance applied to all license types, so that was retail, product manufacturing as well as cultivation. And after some engagement with our business community as well as staff analysis around energy use, we really found that the cultivation was the predominant form of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. So that ordinance also created some operational efficiency reducing requirements. So it just narrowed it down to a subset of our license holders. I will say that council at the time certainly foreshadowed a reality that came to be. At our peak, our marijuana cultivators represented 3% of community-wide emissions. That was across roughly 44 licensed business on averages. This is kind of from the peak, which was kind of pre-COVID era. Since that time, we started seeing a decline, which I'll talk about in a second. But again, it was a pretty substantial impact. Also with the requirements, we did have success in trying to reduce this impact. Many of our businesses, because of the requirements, sought to reduce their energy use. So participated in ours and Excel's energy efficiency programs. So a lot of them undertook lighting upgrades in particular. A couple of our businesses were able to install solar or participate in solar gardens, but most of our businesses were in lease spaces where they didn't have control over the space. They had shorter-term leases. So those other two options, whether that was on-site solar or solar garden participation, just really wasn't an option for them. But today our cultivation industry is quite different here in Boulder. So from our peak, as I mentioned, we had roughly 44 businesses. We're down to nine. We've certainly seen a significant contraction, particularly in the recent years. You know, and this is, there's no single one cause. I mean, I think our businesses were long operating on pretty narrow margins. And again, it's expensive to operate indoor agriculture, especially at the small scale. We've seen the emergence of much larger non-urban grows really bring supply into the market. Some of our businesses have lost their leases due to property changeover and other things. So this has really caused a contraction in the industry, but also made it really challenging for us to enforce the ordinance. By way of example, just in the last two years alone, we had eight businesses dissolve. And the city had to write off roughly $75,000 in impact fees because we were unable to collect once the license was no longer effective. The license is our enforcement mechanism for these businesses. So when they're no longer a business, we have no means of collecting those dollars. So we were spending quite a bit of time. Roberto and I have become buddies on this topic in particular. And so it just really was no longer making sense for the city to put that effort in given the – magnitude of work was taking versus what we were able to successfully accomplish. We did take these recommendations to the Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board as well as the Environmental Advisory Board. Both were consistent in their feedback. They supported the proposal, understanding that we could create operational efficiencies and allow staff to direct our resources towards more impactful work. And we also heard from them encouraging kind of a forward-looking context, learning from what we did learn from our enforcement and approach with these businesses to look towards whole building solutions. And so I'm certainly coming back to you in the future to talk about our building performance standards approach. But they certainly recommended more of an industry-neutral approach rather than singling out this single industry. So just to summarize, staff's opinion is that our cultivation no longer represents a substantial energy use in Boulder and so no longer warrants a differential treatment. City enforcement has required a lot of resources on the city side and we think that we can better utilize those resources towards other activities. And I also say our remaining businesses are struggling. About five of our nine, as I mentioned, are on payment plans, meaning we take monthly payments. They just don't have the financial capacity to participate. I think this gives them an opportunity to continue their operations. We're releasing this regulatory requirement, so hopefully we can change. We certainly aren't seeing a reversal occurring, but staff would continue to monitor that. We can certainly bring solutions back to you in the future if we do see a resurgence of the industry, but we're not anticipating that at this time. So that concludes my presentation. I'll take questions and then I also have the motion when we're ready after the public hearing.

Thanks so much, Carolyn. Any questions for city staff? Tina.

Yeah, when you showed the pie chart that showed the office and commercial, use in that pie chart, are there any outstanding users that any types that are using a lot of energy or?

Oh, yes, certainly within our broad commercial and industrial sector, we, you know, we have some aerospace medical device producers, some high tech that are in that, you know, kind of more energy intensive use. We certainly, I think, as we've discussed, have had what was one of the state's largest data centers here in Boulder. That's certainly a large share of that. And so, yes, I mean, I think there's different characteristics of that. And then what our businesses are currently looking like is the more, our marijuana businesses are looking more like it's just normal retail operations or kind of smaller operations, so yes.

Okay, thanks. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. We have one person signed up to speak, so Lynn Siegel, you get three minutes.

I don't think I approve of this. because just because marijuana is creating less, you know, demand for energy, they should have just as much demand for renewable resources. And I don't support marijuana cultivation anyway, but mostly I certainly wouldn't see why We would want to give them any leniency with regards to energy efficiency. And Carolyn and I have a pretty strong disagreement about these matters. I had a $55,000 energy retrofit to my house that I can't even use because it doesn't meet my requirements. And I'm very disappointed in the way the city of Boulder deals with energy efficiency and with renewables. And I worked for 10 years for municipalities in the electric supply, only to have it undermined by Sam Weaver and Bobby Yates and Alice Jackson. And I'm really stunned.

Speak to this ordinance, please.

Can have so much disregard for renewables when it comes to marijuana cultivators. So. If that's what I'm doing, it's kind of a negative against a negative. So if that's what it's doing is removing the requirement for renewables or for, you know, higher energy efficiency, then I say no. And free Palestine, done. And do not say anything, Erin.

right i'm going to bring the public hearing to a close and turn back to council for any comments matt i just got one it's more just a quick reflection um it's why i don't think anybody in their wildest dreams i went to see you boulder in the early 2000s i don't think anybody in their wildest dreams would have envisioned that the marijuana industry in this town would be like falling off a map Um, so, you know, go figure that 20 years later, that's a reality that we face. But, um, most of my friends in college would have said you were wrong and would have bet house money against that option. But, um, here we are.

Yeah, I should probably clarify. Our retail is still going strong. Um, so it's just our cultivators.

Okay. Anything else? Perhaps a motion.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to adopt Ordinance 8770, Repealing Energy Offset Requirements by Amending Charter 14, Medical Marijuana in Chapter 16, Recreational Marijuana, BRC 1981, and setting forth related details.

Second. Any other comments to your motion? Not seeing any, then I will go ahead and ask for a roll call, please, Alicia.

Yes, sir, thank you. We'll start the roll call for the adoption of Ordinance 8770, With Councilmember Speer. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Weiner. Yes. Councilmember Adams.

Yes.

Benjamin.

Yes.

Mayor Brockett.

Yes.

Councilmember Kaplan.

Yes.

Marquis. Yes. And Shewhart.

Yes.

Ordinance 8770 is hereby adopted unanimously.

Very good. And so Carolyn and team, I just want to thank you for seeing an area where the cost benefit was no longer there for the city to maintain this regulation and expense, and then bringing it forward to us for revocation. So keep it coming as you see the need. Thanks so much. All right. Well, that brings us to the end of our agenda for tonight. So I will go ahead and close this out at 7 33 PM.

Good night, everybody.