►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Meeting 4 20 21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
The
first
announcement
is
as
usual,
if
you
would
like
exposure
notifications
on
your
phone
in
case,
you
have
been
exposed
to
someone
else
who
has
kobit
19,
you
can
sign
up
or
learn
more
at
www.addyourphone
dot
com,
and
if
you
would
like
more
information
on
getting
your
covid
vaccine
and
sign
up
for
notifications
when
you're
eligible,
I
think
everyone
is
now
you
can
get
updates
on
boco.org,
slash,
covid
vaccine
notify
sign
up
and
finally,
boards
and
commissions
there
are
a
few
openings
still
on
our
boards
and
commissions
and
we're
looking
for
volunteers
to
join
us
in
city
service
on
these
boards.
B
C
B
D
A
E
A
Excellent,
thank
you
alicia,
and
we
have
one
change
to
the
agenda
tonight
that
would
be
to
add
item
3g
resolution
1288,
urging
passage
of
state
and
federal
legislation
to
prevent
gun
violence.
So
if
I
could
have
someone
make
a
motion
to
him
in
the
agenda,
so
moved
very
good,
we
have
a
motion,
a
second
any
objections
to
amending
the
agenda.
A
A
A
We
can
see
you,
but
not
just
your
face.
Okay,
great,
let.
F
Me
there
we
are
there's
our
screen
and
we're
on
the
wrong
side:
lovely.
Okay!
So
thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
tonight
for
open
comment
to
keep
these
meetings
safe
from
those
who
might
disrupt
who
are
not
members
of
our
community.
We
have
instituted
a
few
rules
as
we
moved
into
virtual
space
more
than
a
year
ago,
so
I'll
just
go
over
them
very
quickly.
This
meeting
has
been
called
to
order
to
conduct
business
of
the
city
of
boulder.
Anything
that
disrupts
or
delays
or
interferes
with
the
meeting
is
prohibited.
F
The
time
for
speaking,
will
be
limited,
and
you
may
only
speak
when
recognized
by
mayor
weaver.
Each
person
must
be
showing
their
full
name
in
order
to
be
unmuted
if
you
are
not
showing
your
full
name.
Currently,
please
go
ahead
and
send
me
your
name
in
the
q,
a
box
and
I'm
happy
to
change
it.
For
you.
F
F
F
It
should
not
be
about
the
content
of
the
meeting
and
only
the
host
and
individuals
designated
by
the
host
will
be
permitted
to
share
their
screen
during
the
meeting
sam.
We
I've
been
informed
that
we're
having
a
few
troubles
with
channel
eight
we're
currently
not
on
air,
so
I
just
wanted
to
check
in
on
that
before
we
proceed
further.
G
B
A
And
while
we're
waiting
on
that,
I
think
it's
probably
worth
noting
that
all
of
us
and
the
city
council
all
speak
for
myself
very
happy
to
see
that
there
was
a
guilty
verdict
in
the
derek
chovron
trial
today,
regarding
the
murder
of
george
floyd
seems
to
me,
like
justice
has
been
done
in
this
case
and
if
any
other
council
members
would
like
to
speak.
To
that,
will
we
wait?
I
would
invite
those
comments.
A
H
I
J
Yeah,
I
was
happy
as
well
to
see
the
verdict
and
I
think,
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
the
country
is
happy
to
see
it
as
well,
but
even
when
I
was
watching
it,
I
think
to
me
again.
I
guess
what
was
sad
right.
It's
a
it
was
a
bittersweet
situation
is
that
black
people
have
to
march.
J
They
have
to
organize
to
get
justice,
they
have
to
fight
years,
they
have
to
be
on
the
street
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
a
time
in
america
where
we
don't
have
to
do
that
where
justice
is
something
that
is
normalized,
it's
not.
We
don't
have
to
do
all
that
work,
and
I
hope
that
I
guess
moving
forward.
We
have
our
own
role
to
play
as
well,
not
just
be
passive.
What
what's
the
word
be
passive
to
what's
happening
in
our
society?
J
We
have
to
advocate
lobby
and
even
as
a
council
as
well,
we
have
to
put
you
know
we
have
to
put:
what's
we
have
to
put
actions
behind
our
words,
I'm
also
learning
about
the
george
floyd
and
policing
act.
Maybe
that's
something
as
a
council.
We
need
to
look
into
supporting
and
also
as
I
was
thinking
what
we
can
do
and
how
we
can
elevate,
because
what
I
heard
today
as
well
from
I
believe
the
ag
of
minneapolis
was
that's
an
act
of
accountability,
we're
not
there
yet
when
it
comes
to
justice.
J
So
we
have
a
lot
to
do
and
I
was
thinking
even
just
looking
at
our
own
police
department.
I
have
to
say
I
don't
know
what
is
the
makeup
of
our
own
police
department,
but
I've
seen
pictures
in
the
pictures
that
I've
seen
it
doesn't
look
as
diverse,
and
I
think
we
can
also
do
those
little
things
that
will
take
us
to
that
point
of
accountability.
J
So
again,
I
think
that
accountability
and
justice
that
we're
looking
for
it
is
not
just
in
one
thing:
it's
so
many
things
that
we
have
to
do
in
this
country
to
get
us
closer
to
that
justice
to
to
get
across
the
justice
line.
So
I'm
again
I'm
happy
to
see
the
verdict,
but
we
still
have
a
lot
to
go
and
a
long
way
to
go.
F
We
are
still
tinkering
a
bit
to
see
if
we
can
get
the
sound
up
and
running.
We
have
picture,
but
we
don't
have
sound.
So
I'm
looking
right
now
to
try
and
get
that
connection
going
back
back
and
forth
again.
So
maybe
just
a
couple
more
minutes.
K
A
A
A
When
we
have
our
channel
eight
technical
difficulties
resolved
we'll
be
moving
on
to
open
comment,
just
a
heads
up
for
everyone.
It
will
be
two
minutes
per
speaker
tonight
because
we
have
full
open
comment.
Our
first
three
speakers,
once
we're
ready,
will
be
beth,
reese,
maya,
raphael
and
matt
benjamin.
F
F
So
we
are
still
not
working
sam,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
I'm
I'm
multitasking
trying
to
find
that
slide.
Adam
sorry
about
that.
So
excuse
me.
So
let
me
I
think,
as
we
go,
we
can
start
to
put
those
materials
together.
A
Okay,
that's
great,
and
I
believe,
if
you
go
on
to
bouldercolorado.gov
onto
the
city
council
page
of
the
website,
that's
linked
on
the
homepage
you'll
be
able
to
find
options
for
viewing
the
meeting
that
won't
help
if
people
are
trying
to
do
it
on
channel
eight.
But
if
we
get
a
slide
up,
that'll
be
helpful.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
move
into
open
comment.
As
I
said,
we'll
start
with
beth
reese,
maya,
raphael
and
matt
benjamin
beth.
You
are
up
whenever
you're
ready.
F
A
M
My
name
is
beth
reese
and
I
live
in
the
tantra
park
area
and
I'm
opposed
to
development
at
cu.
South
cu's
development
of
the
south
property
requires
boulder
residents
to
pay
25
million
dollars
to
destroy
a
critical
habitat
by
developing
a
sprawling
campus
with
no
definitive
site
plan
in
a
flood
plain
while
boulder
is
facing
375
million
dollars
in
unmet
unfor
infrastructure
needs
in
return
for
an
unproven
flood
mitigation
attempt.
M
This
development
will
require
the
taxpayers
to
pay
for
trucking
in
thousands
of
tons
of
fill
dirt,
causing
disruptions
for
months
on
end
in
our
neighborhood.
This
already
congested
part
of
town
will
have
an
estimated
7
000
additional
vehicles
per
day.
The
proposed
3
000
seat
sports
facility
would
impose
overwhelming
traffic
and
public
nuisance
risks.
M
Light
pollution
from
the
congested
area
will
destroy
the
dark
sky
conditions
and
noise
pollution
will
significantly
diminish
the
quality
of
life
in
my
neighborhood
and
in
all
of
south
boulder
25
million
dollars
would
go
a
long
way
to
help
with
the
current
unmet
infrastructure
needs
the
city
of
boulder
is
facing.
I
don't
want
to
pay
for
cu
to
destroy
this
critical
habitat,
my
neighborhood
and
our
beautiful
city.
Please
take
a
step
back
and
consider
how
residents
of
the
future
will
judge
the
decisions
made
today
and
in
the
future.
L
Good
evening
my
name
is
maya
raphael.
I
would
like
to
ask
that
city
council
keep
the
streets
around
pearl
street
blocked
off
from
vehicles
for
outdoor
dining
space
permanently.
If
that's
not
possible.
I
would
like
to
ask
city
council
to
at
least
keep
the
parking
spaces
blocked
off
for
outdoor
dining,
while
allowing
vehicle
access.
I
believe
that
the
negative
effect
of
closing
off
roads
and
reducing
parking
is
outweighed
by
the
economic
and
cultural
community-wide
benefits
of
enjoying
a
larger
portion
of
pearl
street's
businesses,
especially
when
the
weather
is
nice.
L
I
understand
that
the
city's
ability
to
keep
the
streets
closed
off
for
outdoor
dining
may
partially
hinge
on
the
temporary
executive
order.
2093.
However,
hopefully,
that
order
will
be
extended
beyond
the
pandemic,
blocking
off
more
roads
downtown
to
vehicle
traffic
would
alleviate
some
of
the
congestion
on
the
sidewalks
that
are
already
being
used
for
outdoor
dining.
L
The
atmosphere
of
pearl
street
was
great
before
the
pandemic,
but
being
able
to
walk
around
and
see
so
many
community
members
and
tourists
sitting
outside
brings
a
whole
new
sense
of
vibrancy
to
the
downtown
area.
I
hope
you'll
consider
making
this
positive
change
by
keeping
the
streets
or
parking
spaces
permanently
blocked
off
for
outdoor
dining
purposes.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
F
I
am
not
seeing
matt
benjamin
on
the
list.
Sam,
we
do
have
one
caller
who
has
called
in
by
phone.
I
am
going
to
text
that
caller
with
my
phone
number
to
see
if
we
can't
get
that
person's
name.
So
if
that's
you
please
be
on
the
lookout
for
a
text
message
from
brenda
at
the
city,
so
we
should
move
to
eric
to
see.
Please.
N
N
N
There
are
seasonal
closures
to
reduce
human
impacts,
but
the
res
over
the
years
has
seen
increasing
human
activities
this
year
during
covid,
there
are
already
30,
plus
special
events
scheduled
and
that's
equal
to
back
in
2012,
when
the
boulder
reservoir
master
plan
stated
that
they
would
not
increase
events
over
the
last
three
year
period
between
2009
and
2012.,
we're
already
there
again
during
the
time
of
covid
this
activity
forces
out
wildlife.
We
no
longer
have
sandpipers
visit
here.
N
Last
week
we
had
noise
complaints
at
seven
o'clock
from
an
event
may
7th
there's
a
scheduled
drive-in
fundraiser,
it's
listed
as
eight
to
ten
on
the
city
calendar,
but
it's
actually
an
eight
o'clock
and
the
ten
o'clock
show
that
goes
till
midnight.
The
drive-in
comedy
where
typically
honking
horns
is
a
form
of
applause.
N
N
A
A
O
O
I
was
disturbed
to
read
council
member
gates
op-ed
over
the
weekend,
which
contained
demonstrably
false
statements
from
sb
62..
I
urge
all
council
members
to
check
in
with
sheriff
pele,
d.a
dougherty
and
the
colorado
aclu
and
the
other
organizations
who
represent
actual
crime
and
racial
profiling
survivors.
O
P
Shout
out
shout
out
to
the
last
person
before
me:
I'm
gonna
be
repeating
a
lot
of
what
she
said.
I
know
I'm
a
couple
of
weeks
late,
that's
the
big
meeting
around
sp
62,
but
I
wanted
to
add
my
piece
to
the
pile
anyhow
and
especially
make
sure
that
city
council
members,
don't
forget
the
dozens
of
testimonies
that
that
were
given
weeks
ago
in
favor
of
sb
2162..
P
I
wanted
to
directly
address
mr
yates's
recent
op-ed,
which
was
frankly
paco
lies
2162,
won't
street
smart
dangerous
and
it's
not
going
to
stop
arrests
of
violent
crimes.
What
it
will
do
to
prevent
the
full
power
of
the
castle
state
from
coming
down
on
working-class
people
like
myself,
by
flinging
them
in
what
essentially
debtor's
prison
for
the
crime
of
not
being
able
to
pay
bail.
P
It
concerns
me.
It
really
does
that
after
several
dozen
of
my
fellow
citizens
defied
in
favor
of
sb
21-62
and
talks
at
length
about
what
bill
does
and
does
not
do
what
the
benefits
will
be.
That
mr
yates
still
wrote
that
article.
Thank
you.
F
I
am
also
not
seeing
william,
so
perhaps
we
go
to
to
come
in
and
emily
if
you
are
ready
with
that
presentation,
I
know
you're
busy
in
the
background.
Q
Okay,
great,
so
I
don't
need
a
slides
quite
yet,
but
I'll
call
for
him
thanks
thanks,
council
members
and
city
staff
for
listening
to
the
citizens
of
boulder,
I
would
like
to
express
my
concern
with
the
city
of
boulder
going
into
an
unfair
and
costly
agreement
with
cu
for
the
sake
of
one
dam.
First,
let
me
state
that
I
have
no
problem
with
the
city
constructing
the
dam
on
the
very
outer
edge
of
cu's
property.
It
is
much
needed.
Q
What
I
do
have
a
problem
with
is
that,
in
order
to
do
this,
the
taxpayers
of
boulder
have
to
pay
millions
to
make
cu
happy,
and
only
a
small
portion
of
taxpayer
payers
like
about
2300
people,
will
reap
the
benefit
of
this
one
dam.
What
plan
does
the
city
have
to
mitigate
flooding
in
other
neighborhoods?
Q
Bear
creek
and
skunk
creek
cause
millions
of
dollars
of
damage
to
the
martin
acres
neighborhood,
as
is
evidence
in
these
slides.
First
slide,
please,
as
you
can
see
in
the
first
slide,
bear
creek
was
roaring
down
along
the
bike
path
and
soon
over
topped
its
channel
next
slide.
Please
and
the
next
slide
bear
creek
began
overflowing
into
martin
acres
near
martin
park
and
into
neighborhoods
into
neighbors,
basements
and
crawl
space.
The
flow
was
very
violent
and
luckily
no
one
was
swept
away,
but
they
could
have
been
next
slide.
Q
Please,
and
this
next
slide
shows
next
slide,
please
okay,
yeah.
So
this
is
the
part
where
they
where
people
could
been
slept,
swept
away
and
next
slide.
Please
and
this
side
next
slide.
Hello
next
slide.
Please
sorry,
there's
a
bit
of
a
delay.
Okay,
sorry
and
this
slide
shows
lake
martin,
as
we
call
it
where
drainage
could
not
keep
up
with
bear
creek
and
ground
water
rising.
Q
I
personally
live
in
the
northern
part
of
martin
acres
and
the
skunk
creek
drainage
flooded
our
crawl
space
and
many
others.
There
has
to
be
a
better
use
of
our
tax
dollars
than
to
fund
cu's,
fourth
campus
being
built
on
a
flood
plain,
and
if
boulder's
going
to
pay
66
million
dollars
for
a
dam
to
benefit
260,
downstream
structures
and
2300
people,
it
should
be
ready
to
pay
that
for
every
other
vulnerable
neighborhood.
Q
If
the
answer
is
yes,
where
is
all
that
money
coming
from?
If
no,
why
the
special
treatment
for
frazier
meadows,
schools,
police,
firefighters,
roads,
etc
are
a
good
use
of
tax
dollars
because
they
benefit
the
wider
community,
it
seems
your
negotiations
are
flawed.
Cu
gets
everything
they
want.
Frazier
meadows
gets
what
it
wants,
but
the
rest
of
boulder
citizens
are
left
with
higher
water
bills,
increased
traffic,
etc,
etc.
Thanks
for
considering
all
this,
you
guys,
I
really
appreciate
it.
I
know
you're
doing
a
lot
of
work,
so
I
really
appreciate
you
listening
to
us
all.
Q
A
H
Against
him,
just
that
I
I
heard
I
got
a
text
from
matt
benjamin
that
he
never
received
the
zoom
link
and
so
that
I
I
know
somebody
else
didn't
show
up.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
have
contact
info
for
people
who
aren't
present
yet,
but
if
we
can
send
out
zoom
information
that
would
be
great
to
those
people.
S
Okay,
hopefully
you
can
hear
me
thanks
to
city
council
for
letting
us
speak,
I'm
here
today
to
talk
about
crime
in
boulder.
S
My
car
was
vandalized
recently
with
about
two
thousand
dollars
worth
of
damage
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
my
car
is
just
a
piece
of
property,
but
what
I
uncovered
when
attempting
to
report
the
crime
is
what
I
really
found
unsettling
I've
lived
in
boulder
on
and
off
for
15
years,
and
I've
been
away
in
la
for
the
last
four
years
working
for
a
company
in
hollywood,
when
I
moved
back
to
boulder
what
I
wasn't
prepared
for
was
drug
use
out
in
the
open
alcohol
consumption
and
criminal
activity.
S
I'd
experience
that
sort
of
stuff
as
the
norm,
in
los
angeles,
but
never
in
boulder
in
15
years
of
living
in
boulder
on
and
off.
I'd,
never
seen
anything
like
that.
But
now
bike
chop
shops
operate
with
impunity
on
the
boulder
paths,
the
multi-use
paths,
especially
in
the
goose
creek
area.
S
S
S
This
is
shocking
to
me,
because
this
is
not
the
boulder
that
I
left
four
years
ago,
boulder
as
it
is
now
resembles
la
more
than
it
does
boulder.
So,
after
speaking
with
boulder
police,
what
they
told
me,
no
arrests,
no
consequences.
S
Property
managers
are
frustrated
because,
no
matter
how
much
video
evidence
photographic
evidence,
they
compile
the
police
can't
act
because
the
prosecutors
won't
act
and
what
ends
up
happening
is
boulder
residents
get
frustrated
with
crime,
because
people
who
are
removed
from
the
properties
are
simply
ticketed
and
they
can
return
within
minutes
to
continue
so
bikes
get
stripped
of
parts
and
criminals
just
continue
doing
crime.
A
lack
of
consequences
does
not
help
criminals,
it's
not
compassionate,
and
it
won't
help.
F
T
Awesome,
can
you
guys
hear
me
yep,
wonderful,
thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you,
members
of
council
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you
tonight.
My
name
is
matt
benjamin
and
I
live
in
south
boulder.
T
I
wanted
to
start
by
thanking
council
and
especially
staff
for
staying
the
course
and
continuing
to
chip
away
at
the
multitude
of
challenges.
Flood
mitigation
at
cu
has
brought
forth.
As
of
today.
We
can
say
that
every
one
of
the
eight
guiding
principles
stated
in
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
has
either
been
met
or
is
currently
being
addressed.
This
has
been
a
long
and
arduous
process
and
at
times
it
seemed
like
flood
mitigation
was
never
going
to
happen
or
that
the
positions
of
the
city
and
cu
were
irreconcilable,
and
yet
here
we
are.
T
We
have
come
too
far
to
walk
away.
Now,
since
the
2013
flood
we
have
had
three
presidents
and
nasa
designed
built
launched,
landed
the
perseverance
rover
on
mars,
not
to
mention
just
yesterday,
flying
a
helicopter
on
the
red
planet,
a
testament
to
the
limitless
ability
to
accomplish
immense
feats
when
a
group
of
people
is
unified
around
a
common
goal.
It
is
also
a
helpful
reminder
that,
in
the
same
time
frame
we
have
not
dug
an
ounce
of
dirt
toward
building
flood
mitigation.
T
T
If
there
is
one
bright
spot
in
the
midst
of
all
the
chaos,
pain
and
grief,
it's
that
our
community
has
shown
tremendous
unity
and
resiliency.
We
have
in
many
ways
rediscovered
our
value
of
togetherness.
Let
us
continue
that
spirit
of
togetherness
in
all
that
we
do
as
friends,
neighbors
and
as
a
community.
T
A
challenge
before
us
is
to
not
go
back
to
the
ways
we
used
to
do
things
where
polarization
and
divisiveness
has
all
but
crippled
our
civic
process.
Now
is
the
time
to
show
that
we
can
live
up
to
the
values
that
we
give
platitudes
toward
and,
as
a
community
choose
a
new
path
forward
this
time
together.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
U
Good
evening,
everyone
I've
lived
in
boulder
for
almost
20
years,
and
I
asked
to
speak
at
this
forum
because
I
want
this
place
to
remain
the
safe
community.
We
all
love
sp
62
as
written
is
absolute
insanity.
We
must
block
its
passage
further.
We
must
stop
the
rise
in
crime
by
actually
enforcing
laws
and
reopening
the
jails.
U
Late.
Last
year
I
was
the
victim
of
property
theft.
On
the
one
day,
I
left
my
guard
down.
Let
my
guard
down
and
didn't
lock
my
gate.
Someone
walked
into
my
driveway,
opened
the
gate
to
my
backyard,
entered
my
garage
through
the
side
door
and
stole
approximately
fifteen
hundred
dollars
worth
of
my
property.
As
my
son
slept
a
few
feet
away,
police
couldn't
do
anything
because
the
jails
are
closed.
U
U
V
V
When
I
lived
in
guatemala
in
the
80s
200
000
were
being
slaughtered
by
their
army
with
assault
weapons
from
the
u.s
government.
440
villagers
were
admittedly
machine-gunned
on
the
plazas.
The
corpses
stuffed
in
the
town
wells
even
on
relatively
peaceful
lake
atitlan,
where
I
lived
and
worked,
three
friends
were
killed
by
the
army,
one
winter.
V
V
I
thought
if
that
was
a
legal
vote,
not
just
polls,
then
my
friends
and
millions
around
the
world
would
still
be
alive.
Of
course,
the
people
are
opposed
to
war.
Only
the
military-industrial
congressional
academic
media
complex
wants
it.
So
I've
worked
32
years
for
more
direct
democracy,
spearheading
boulders,
failed,
1993
voting
by
phone
ballot
initiative
and
boulder's
2018
online
petitioning
referendum,
which
passed
71
to
29
percent
direct
democracy
is
ending
the
drug
war.
We
made
cannabis
legal
direct
democracy
did
close,
the
gun
show
loophole
in
colorado
way
back
in
2000.
V
W
Yes,
thank
you
city
council.
My
name
is
tanya
duary
and
I
live
in
martin
acres.
I
have
been
a
south
boulder
resident
for
since
1999
and
I'm
strongly
opposed
to
any
development
at
cu
south.
I
don't
think
flood
mitigation
should
be
coupled
with
this
annexation.
Agreement
taking
as
much
land
is
needed
for
the
protection
of
our
residents
should
be
our
city's
priority.
W
W
Not
only
does
this
land
sit
high
and
dry,
but
it
does
not
border
any
residential
raid
neighborhoods
and
would
be
a
much
better
fit
from
a
traffic
standpoint.
With
the
already
jammed
up
36
table
mesa
and
broadway
options.
It's
likely
that
a
majority
of
the
additional
7
000
trips
per
day
will
seek
a
short
cut
through
our
neighborhoods.
W
I
am
asking
that
it
be
written
into
the
annexation
agreement
that,
when
and
if
cu
desired
desires,
to
build
its
next
boulder
campus,
the
city
and
county,
fully
analyze,
whether
a
land
exchange
for
city-owned
land
at
the
planning
reserve
might
be
a
win-win
alternative
for
all
parties.
We
understand
the
land
isn't
currently
ready
to
be
annexed.
That
should
not
be
an
issue
considering
c
won't
be
ready
to
build
for
four
to
five
years
anyway,
since
the
planning
department
has
begun.
The
urban
services
study
that's
already
the
first
step
in
this
process.
W
X
X
The
annexation
agreement
that
is
written
for
cu
south
needs
to
be
done
with
a
land
exchange
in
which
cu
gets
land
at
the
north,
boulder
area,
3
planning
reserve
and
the
city
gets
the
land
at
cu.
South
area
3
land
is
not
in
a
flood
plain.
Unlike
cu,
south
a
cu
campus
at
area
3
will
save
boulder
millions
of
dollars
in
campus
area,
fill
dirt
and
other
site
improvements
totally
unrelated
to
flood
protection
for
fraser
meadows.
X
Those
millions
of
boulder
tax
dollars
are
needed
for
improving
city-wide
infrastructure
that
will
benefit
city
residents
as
well
as
provide
affordable
housing,
older
traffic
mitigation,
climate
action
and
long
overdue
maintenance
on
open
space
lands.
The
other
issue
is
that
traffic
on
table
mesa
is
already
beyond
its
capacity.
Oh,
there
should
be
some
pictures
that
I
sent
in.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
those.
A
X
X
Sent
a
I
sent
a
powerpoint
in
anyway.
The
the
traffic
study
that
was
done
for
cu
was
a
bad
joke
it.
It
chose
the
least
traffic
days
of
the
year
that
it
could
possibly
find
with
schools
closed
or
only
remote
learning,
to
make
a
completely
false
impression
of
the
amounts
of
traffic
in
south
boulder.
Please
don't
build
a
new
campus
in
south
boulder.
Y
Thank
you.
Thanks
for
the
opportunity,
I'd
like
to
thank
council
members
and
staff
for
the
ongoing
public
engagement
process
related
to
the
cu
south
annexation.
The
city
has
provided
an
impressive
number
of
opportunities
for
public
feedback,
and
you've
heard
a
lot
about
the
things
that
really
matter,
such
as
flood
mitigation,
transportation
and
housing.
To
name
a
few.
We
commend
staff
and
the
negotiating
team
for
making
the
hard
choices
required
to
make
this
the
best
deal
possible
for
both
parties.
Y
From
what
I
understand,
cu
has
agreed
to
the
concept
of
the
city's
right
to
de-annex
the
property.
Should
the
city
be
unable
to
complete
the
flood
mitigation
project
and
related
to
possible
sale
of
cu
property
after
annexation.
The
city
and
cu
are
working
on
terms
to
establish
the
city's
first
right
of
refusal.
Y
There
are
a
number
of
significant
issues,
many
of
which
were
identified
through
the
public
engagement
process
and
on
which
the
city
and
cu
appear
to
be
aligned.
I'll
mention
just
a
few.
First.
The
designation
of
a
limited
impact
zone
with
buffers
on
the
west
side
of
the
site
designed
to
minimize
effects
of
development
to
adjacent
residential
neighborhoods.
Y
Second,
compliance
with
building
height
limits
aligning
with
the
city
charter
with
buildings,
sloping
gently
from
open
space
lands
to
the
adjacent,
neighborhood
and
third,
the
establishment
of
a
traffic
trip
cap
that
would
monitor
traffic
for
compliance
and
implement
mitigative
measures.
Should
that
cap
be
exceeded,
you
have
every
right
to
be
proud
of
how
productive
and
helpful
the
public
engagement
process
has
been.
Our
comments
have
helped
guide
staff
and
the
negotiating
team
to
seek
inclusion
of
issues
that
are
clearly
important
to
the
public.
A
Thank
you
kathy.
Next,
we
have
riley
mencuso,
michael
tuffley
and
brenda
sohn
riley.
Z
Hey
what
up
city
council,
so
I'm
just
calling
in
to
remind
y'all
that
all
these
from
safer
boulder
are
lying,
just
like
bob
yates,
who
printed
a
bunch
of
egregiously
false
information
about
sb
62
in
the
daily
camera.
Recently,
we've
been
over
this,
this
bill
affects
pre-trial
detention.
Z
So
the
only
difference
with
sb62
is
that,
where
previously,
if
a
rich
person
broke
into
your
car,
they
could
be
out
of
jail
by
paying
bail.
Now,
whether
somebody
is
rich
or
poor,
they'll
be
treated
the
same
and
be
out
of
jail
while
awaiting
their
trial
prior
to
any
conviction.
Z
The
alarmism
connecting
homelessness
with
crime
with
drug
use
with
a
lack
of
safety
in
our
community
is
all
hysteria.
It
is
not
evidence-based.
All
evidence
suggests
that
harm
reduction,
approaches
to
homelessness
and
drug
use
are
the
solution,
not
more
criminalization.
Z
Z
It
took
me
an
hour
to
drive
home
that
night,
because
I
could
hardly
see
in
front
of
my
car
and
this
man
was
told
to
move
his
tent
in
that
weather.
He
said
I'll
take
the
charge
because
the
alternative
was
dying
was
suffering
exposure
and
frostbite.
Z
So
that's
why
criminalization
doesn't
work,
because
if
you
locked
that
man
up
for
a
misdemeanor,
you
can
either
choose
to
lock
him
up
for
the
rest
of
his
life
for
not
having
a
house
or
you
have
to
admit
that
at
some
point
you
know
you're
going
to
have
to
let
him
back
out
and
criminalizing.
Him
has
only
made
his
homelessness
and
his
situation
worse.
Thank.
A
AA
AA
So,
on
broadway
north
of
table
mesa
from
1982
to
2035,
there's
been
a
12
growth
in
traffic
on
table
mesa
drive
east
of
broadway
from
1985
to
2035,
there's
been
a
32
percent
growth.
This
is
clearly
not
flat
and
finally,
on
broadway,
south
of
the
city
limits
from
1982
to
2035,
there's
been
110
percent
growth.
That's
quite
a.
Q
AA
In
addition,
fox
tuttle
group
collected
data
at
various
locations
in
2019
and
november
of
2020.
traffic
data
collected
in
2020
should
be
rejected
due
to
the
reduction
in
traffic
due
to
the
covet
19
pandemic.
Finally,
fox
tuttle
group
neglected
to
collect
traffic
data
on
key
residential
streets
located
in
martin
acres,
such
as
ash
moorhead
and
martin
drive.
AB
Hi
council,
my
name
is
brendan
sohn
and
I'm
a
law
student
at
cu.
I'm
here
to
request
that
once
city
council
meetings
return
to
an
in-person
format,
the
public
is
still
allowed
to
participate
remotely
for
one
of
my
year-long
classes
at
cu
law.
A
course
requirement
is
to
participate
each
semester
in
a
public
meeting.
By
giving
public
comment.
AB
When
I
gave
comment
last
semester,
which
was
remote,
of
course,
I
was
nervous
even
standing
in
my
bedroom
in
front
of
my
computer
screen,
delivering
only
my
audio
to
city,
council
and
listeners,
even
though
it
may
have
been
a
more
valuable
experience
for
me.
I
have
to
say
I
was
relieved.
I
did
not
need
to
go
to
city
hall
and
stand
in
front
of
a
microphone
to
deliver
my
comment.
AB
G
Thank
you,
I'm
deborah
biasca
and
I
live
in
south
boulder.
First,
yes,
cu
south
is
crucial
to
flood
protection,
but
the
wise
approach
is
not
to
kowtow
to
the
university's
whims,
as
appears
from
negotiations
thus
far,
but
to
decouple
downstream
flood
mitigation,
which
virtually
no
one
opposes
from
the
construction
of
a
cu
campus,
which
many
see
as
a
terrible
plan
for
that
location.
G
This
huge
development
in
a
flood
zone
is
bad
business.
It's
not
climate
smart,
either
as
it
would
bring
7
000
more
cars
daily
to
south
boulder
roadways
already
gridlocked
for
hours.
Each
weekday
and
coupling
flood
mitigation
with
cu's
expansion
puts
the
taxpayers
on
the
hook
for
upwards
of
25
million
dollars
for
the
thousands
of
tons
of
filter.
Cu
is
asking
the
city
to
dump
there
to
raise
their
development
area
out
of
the
flood
plain.
G
I
have
no
issue
with
proposed
flood
mitigation,
but
the
campus
should
be
redirected
to
a
suitable
building
site.
The
land
at
the
north,
boulder
planning
reserve
cu
publicly
says
that
they
don't
want
to
wait
for
the
land
swap
process
to
play
out,
yet
their
spokespersons
attempt
to
modify
our
concerns
for
their
development
by
saying
that
their
plans
are
in
the
future,
depending
on
the
day.
Those
plans
are
10
years
out
or
7
or
5..
G
AC
A
shame
I
got
all
dialed
up.
Well,
you
have
to
trust
me,
I'm
very
handsome
before
I
get
begin
I'd
just
like
to
thank
all
you
guys
for
your
hard
work.
AC
I
know
that
you're
all
overworked
and
underpaid,
and
what
you're
doing
here
is
really
a
labor
of
love
for
the
city
and
no
matter
what
side
of
any
particular
issue
that
we're
on.
I
want
to
thank
the
council
for
its
time.
Dedication,
even
though
I'm
a
16-year
resident
of
central
boulder
I've.
Never
I've
never
done
anything
like
this
before
so
you
know
get
involved
in
community
issues.
AC
So
please
bear
with
me
while
I
I
stumbled
through
this,
I
was
compelled
to
reach
out
to
you,
because
I've
had
a
couple
separate
instances
of
violence
and
near
violence
that
I
wanted
to
share
with
you.
I
know
you've
heard
about
this
from
other
residents,
but
I
think
every
story
matters
right.
I'm
a
pretty
avid
user
of
the
boulder
bike
paths
and
on
more
than
one
occasion,
I've
seen
residents
of
the
encampments,
be
aggressive
and
threaten
feign
violence
to
people
using
the
past.
AC
But
most
recently
I
saw
that
happen
to
a
young
mother,
pushing
a
baby,
and
you
know
I'm
a
grown
man.
I
can
handle
myself,
but
I
really
worried
about
how
she
felt
and
her
safety
around
that
so
I'd
like
to
have
you
guys
consider
those
encampments
even
more.
Secondly,
about
a
year
ago,
I
invited
my
nephew
to
move
here
from
california
he's
a
he's,
a
a
craftsman,
and
I
thought
it
would
be
great
place
for
him
to
to
live
and
work
and
within
about
two
months
of
moving
here.
AC
He
as
he
was
leaving
the
store.
He
was
slashed
on
the
chest
by
somebody
with
a
knife
who
was
asking
for
money
that
he
didn't
give
them,
so
he
turned
tail
and
he
went
back
to
california
and
I
have
to
deal
with
his
mom,
my
sister
about
why
this
is
happening
in
the
city
that
she
felt
was
a
safe
one
to
send
him
to
just
a
couple
stories
for
you
guys
to
consider.
As
you
deal
with
these
tough
issues.
I
appreciate
your
time.
Thank
you.
A
AE
AD
Great
thank
you.
We
have
an
epidemic
in
boulder
of
homeless,
drug
addicts
living
on
our
streets,
setting
up
illegal
encampments,
burglarizing
our
homes,
hassling
us
for
money
on
every
street
corner
and
just
discarding
used
needles
where
people
can
get
stuck
by
them.
Boulders
overrun
by
homeless,
addicts
threatening
our
lives,
our
livelihoods,
polluting
the
environment
with
their
trash
and
camps,
going
to
the
bathroom
in
public
and
being
mean
to
their
dogs.
One
of
these
transients
threatened
to
shoot
me
recently,
because
I
wouldn't
give
him
any
money.
AD
AD
Why
did
city
council
ignore
a
petition
signed
by
more
than
8
000
people
demanding
you
address
this
issue?
Why
are
people
being
released
from
jail
when
they
commit
crimes
against
our
citizens,
if
you're
trying
to
protect
them
from
covet?
That's
laughable,
considering
the
drugs
they
voluntarily
put
in
their
bodies?
AD
This
soft
approach
the
city
council
has
taken
must
end.
These
are
addicts
who
don't
want
recovery.
If
they
did,
they
could
go
to
any
12-step
meeting
for
free.
You
can't
change
someone
who
doesn't
want
to
change.
That's
enabling
and
enabling
doesn't
work.
These
people
enjoy
how
they're
living
and
they
don't
want
your
help.
They
sustain
themselves
by
committing
crimes,
and
we
law-abiding
citizens
of
boulder
are
the
ones
paying
the
price
people
are
moving
away
from
boulder.
They
aren't
establishing
new
businesses
here
and
they
aren't
shopping
here.
They
are
fed
up.
AD
AF
AF
I'm
encouraged
by
the
process
I've
seen
in
fleshing
out
the
annexation
guiding
principles,
and
I
see
real
concessions
to
neighbors
concerns.
Some
like
the
height
ceiling
at
the
roof
level
of
a
low-rise
subdivision,
are
things.
I'd
normally
argue
against
as
an
urbanist
and
housing
advocate.
But
here
it's
a
way
of
getting
the
job
done.
AF
A
C
Just
add
real
quickly,
I
think
a
person
named
brendan
law
school
student
spoke
about
engagement
and
continuing
having
virtual
engagement
as
an
option
and
how
much
less
stressful
it
is,
which
I
appreciate
it
as
someone
who
testified
to
counsel
often
so
just
wanted
to.
Let
them
know
that
there
is
a
subcommittee
meeting
on
engagement
tomorrow,
where
we
will
be
discussing
that
exact
topic,
and
that
is
open
to
the
public.
C
A
Very
good
thanks
for
that,
and
I
think
we
have
a
specific
item
tonight
about
prevention
of
gun,
violence,
resolution
and
so
I'll
turn
to
rachel
and
aaron
to
talk
to
us
about
that.
C
I'll
take
a
stab
at
it.
Erin
I
think
aaron
is
going
to
read
the
resolution,
but
probably
we
want
to
talk
through
it
a
little
bit
first,
because
we
got
a
hotline
post
today
and
also
wanted
to
invite
any
feedback
or
comments
from
our
colleagues
on
it.
But
shortly
after
the
mass
shooting
on
march
22nd
aaron
and
I
were
asked
to
co-draft
a
resolution
around
gun
violence
prevention,
as
well
as
the
appeal
of
the
court's
decision
on
our
assault
weapons
ban.
C
So
carl
castillo
kindly
helped
us
to
draft
the
resolution
that
is
in
front
of
council
tonight,
and
we
did
run
the
resolution
by
giffords,
which
is
a
national
gun,
violence
prevention
organization
to
get
their
suggested
edits,
and
we
incorporated,
I
believe,
all
of
them
that
they
advised-
and
we
were
also
advised.
H
It's
a
good
summary
rachel
and
I'll
just
mention.
We
have
already
been
in
conversations
with
multiple
of
our
legislators
on
on
this
topic
as
well.
I
know
sam
has
spoken
to
them
and
rachel
and
I
have
been
in
meetings.
We
spoke
with
governor
polis
yesterday
and
impressed
upon
him
our
community's
desire
for
significant
new
legislation,
including
an
assault,
weapons
ban
and
communicated
that
message,
and
he
indicated
he
was
very
interested
appreciative
of
our
feedback
and
was
looking
forward
to
getting
the
text
of
the
resolution
that
hopefully
we'll
be
passing
tonight.
H
So
after
the
incredible
tragedy
that
our
community
experienced
last
month,
we
feel
like
it's
it's
very
important
for
us
to
step
forward
and
really
take
up
advocacy
as
much
as
we
can
for
legislation
at
the
state
and
federal
level.
That
would
have
some
chance
of
preventing
similar
tragedies
like
this
from
happening
in
in
other
cities
across
the
country.
So
that's
why
we're
bringing
it
forward.
C
And
and
yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
add
that
I'm
hoping
that
we
will
share
our
final
resolution
with
all
of
our
legislators,
all
statewide
elected
officials
as
well
as
share
it
pretty
widely,
with
at
least
regional
other
city
councils
and
county
commissions,
in
an
effort
to
encourage
some
collaboration,
which
was,
I
think,
one
of
the
points
that
mary
made
mary
and
jeannie
made
in
a
hotline
post
today.
A
Yeah,
I
I
think
that
would
be
best,
that's
my
opinion.
If
we
wanted
to
read
it
once
we're
done
with
the
editing
so
aaron,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
trying
to
track
the
edits
and
what
we,
what
we
say,
then,
when
you
read
it
at
the
end,
we'll
have
those
incorporated,
perhaps
so
mary,
we
have
the
resolution
in
front
of
us
and
you
and
junior
sent
out
a
hotline.
Would
you
like
to
speak
to
that
and
see
what
what
council's
will
is
on
that.
AH
Sure
I'll
defer
to
juni
on
the
first
couple
items
since
they
were
mostly
came
from
her.
My
edition
was
focusing
on
the
on
the
edition,
the
section
4
edition.
However,
we
did
collaborate
on
the
language
for
the
others,
so
I'll.
Let
juni
kick
this
off.
J
All
right,
thank
you,
mary,
I'm
looking
at
several
screens
here,
I
thought
it
was
a
well-written
resolution,
but
I
thought
maybe
a
few
things
that
I
thought
we
could
add,
or
at
least
to
make
it
more
solid
was,
I
believe
it
was
d
on
march
22,
2021,
an
assault
weapon,
an
assault
weapon
was
used
to
murder,
10
people
in
a
mass
shooting
at
the
table
mesa
king
supers.
J
Well,
I
thought
this
was
passive
language
and
I
thought
it
could
be
more
active
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
guns
are
inanimate
objects
and
a
person
used
the
gun,
and
so
I
thought
maybe
it
would
be
best
to
have
a
language
that
expressed
that,
because
I
just
thought
just
saying
that
you
know
a
weapon
was
used.
It
was
too
impersonal
and
I
believe
the
change
I
was
considering
was
on
march
22nd
2021,
a
gunman
with
an
assault
weapon
murdered
10
people
in
a
mass
shooting
at
the
table
mesa
king
supers.
J
Which
was
number
d
finding
d,
we
are
called
upon
to
prevent
such
suffering
from
reoccurring.
J
I
thought
that
language
at
the
end,
it
was
almost
like
too
tall
of
an
order
and
it
felt
slightly
imprecise
as
well,
and
I
thought
maybe
we
could
use
language
that
says,
for
instance,
the
boulder
community
call
upon
the
city
council,
the
state
legislature
and
the
federal
government
to
seek
effective
legislation
to
reduce
gun
violence
and
mass
shootings
in
our
community,
and
I
felt
that
that
language
actually
follow
up
to
the
next
section,
as
opposed
to
just
saying
that
we
are
called
to
end
suffering.
J
I
just
think
that
language
is
too
strong
and
I'm
an
idealistic
person
as
well.
I
just
thought
we
could
be
more
centered
in
what
we're
asking
and
who
we
are
number
three
change.
The
first
sentence
to
say
of
the
section
now
I
think
for
me:
it's
just
the
language
that
we
use
and
we
strongly
urge
the
cds
state
and
federal
delegation
to
advocate
for
legislation
that
will
preempt
future
mass
shootings.
J
And
I
know
it's
like
parsing
language,
but
I
think
language
matters,
especially
in
resolutions,
and
I
was
thinking
well.
We
do
talk
about
gun
prevention
in
this
country,
but
preemption
I
felt
was
much
a
much
stronger
language.
It's
almost
like
stopping
it,
not
giving
it
not
giving
it
the
time
to
even
grow.
If,
if
you
really
think
about
it-
and
I
thought
the
national
expansion
of
red
flag
laws
in
federal
support
of
mental
health
program,
programs
or
programming
should
be
part
of
the
list,
I
know
in
our
hotline
the
way
we
send
it.
J
It
seems
like
it's,
it
reorders
the
language,
but
that
was
not
the
intent
at
all.
Actually
it
was
the
intent
was
to
ensure
that
we
mentioned
red
flag
laws,
because
I
believe,
that's
also
part
of
the
president's
proposals
back
last
week
and
federal
support
of
mental
health
programming.
I
think
it's
a
no-brainer
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
want
gun
reform,
but
I
think
there's
also
that
mental
health
piece
that
is
very,
very
important
part
of
it
also
number
four
again.
J
That
was
just
for
clarity
purposes,
because
we
mentioned
city
council
we
mentioned
city
which
one
so
I
just
thought.
Is
it
the
city's
position
or
is
it
the
city
council's
position?
So
that's
up
to
to
us
to
decide,
but
I
just
thought
it
would
it's
it's
important
to
be
clear
on
which
of
these
two
entities
is
it
coming
from
city,
council
or
the
city
staff
and
number
five?
I
think
it's
mary's
idea
I
and
I
think
she'd
probably
be
better
at
explaining
it.
A
AH
Thanks
juni
and
first
of
all,
I
just
want
to
support
the
changes
that
that
junie
mentioned.
I
know
that
the
language
in
the
hotline
is
slightly
different
from
what
she
just
stated
and
I
would
totally
support
what
she
stated
and
item
number
three.
AH
I
do
think
that
the
additions
present
a
more
holistic
approach
to
the
mass
shootings
and
I
think
it's
important
to
approach
problems
in
holistic
manners.
So
I
support
that
and
then
the
changing
the
city's
position
to
the
city
council's
position.
The
legislative
agenda
is
a
council
document
that
can
actually
change
from
council
to
council.
So
it's
not
the
city's
position.
It
is
the
council's
position
that
is
then
supported
by
the
city
staff.
So
that's
my
comments
on
those
items
and
then
the
intent
and
I'm
totally
open
to
changes
in
the
language.
AH
The
intent
of
number
four
is
to
create
some
sort
of
a
national,
collective
collaborative
of
cities
that
have
been
affected
by
violence,
either
through
mass
shootings
or
in
the
daily
shootings
of
of
people
in
in
in
street
shootings
or
in
or
by
suicide.
AH
So
I
had
a
list
in
there
initially,
but
I
I
think
that
just
calling
on
cities
who
are
inspired-
and
perhaps
that's
another
place-
that
we
would
want
to
send
the
resolution
and
and
to
encourage
other
cities
to
write
their
own
resolutions
and
send
them
off
to
the
president's
office.
So
that's
the
intent
of
number
four
and
the
language
is
definitely
totally
up
to
us.
A
Very
good
well,
thank
you,
juni
and
mary.
For
that
I'll
just
say
one
quick
thing.
I
support
all
those
changes.
My
comment
on
number
one
is
I
like
what
was
written
where
it
says
a
lone
individual
with
an
assault
weapon
murdered
ten
people.
A
I,
like
that,
a
little
bit
better
than
gunman,
and
then
I
will
just
say
on
the
last
one:
I'd
like
to
suggest
a
friendly
amendment
to
one
word:
it,
the
the
new
section,
four
would
say
something
and
then
say
they
are
backed
by
collective
intelligence
and
service
of
collaborative
initiatives.
A
I'd
like
to
change
intelligence
suggests
that
we
change
intelligence
to
actions,
so
it's
are
backed
by
collective
actions
and
service
of
collaborative
initiatives,
so
I
would
make
that
suggestion.
Personally.
I
think
these
are
all
positive
changes.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
them
and
thank
you,
rachel
and
aaron,
for
bringing
the
resolution
forward
with
carl's
help.
Anyone
else
have
thoughts,
aaron.
H
Yeah
well,
mary,
and
she
appreciate
the
input.
I
did
have
a
couple
kind
of
kind
of
responses
to
them
in
terms
of
the
specific
language
changes
that
maybe
I'll
just
share
with
you
here
that
I
thought
that
that
first
sorry
about
the
dog.
H
In
the
background
that
that
first
change,
I
thought,
worked
well
sam,
I
I'm
gonna
go
with
either
individual
or
gunman
over
lone
individual,
because
I
feel,
like
the
word,
loans
sort
of
promotes
the
idea
of
misguided
lone
individuals
who
do
terrible
things
rather
than
kind
of
the
systemic
culture
of
gun
violence
in
our
society.
A
H
Great
and
then
this
for
the
second
one,
the
the
one
thing
was
that
the
very
first
sentence
of
the
next
section
talks
about
how
we're
calling
upon
our
state
and
federal
delegations
to
make
changes.
So
it
feels
like
the
the
language
is
somewhat
redundant.
So
I
wonder
if
we
could
preserve
like
ginny.
H
Your
point
about
like
that
we
are
called
upon,
is
too
vague
to
sort
of
change
that
to
something
like
you
know,
our
you
know
it's
it's
our
responsibility,
as
the
city
council
to
you
know,
put
forward
measures
to
reduce
gun
violence.
H
AH
Could
I
could
I
offer
some
language
on
that
one
in.
Let
me
go
back
to
that
screen.
AH
To
to
your
point
of
of
the
redundancy
to,
instead
of,
we
call
upon
the
state
of
colorado
and
federal
governments
to
strike
that
and
to
instead
say
it.
Our
primary
responsibility,
as
elected
officials
in
the
city
of
boulder,
is
public
safety.
Therefore,
we
seek
effective
bipartisan
legislation
onward.
Something
like
that.
H
I
know
rachel,
what's
your
thought,
I
mean
I
kind
of
like
that,
we're
sort
of
going
a
lot
of
wordsmithing
here,
but
the
the
preventing
such
suffering
from
reoccurring.
I
thought
I
thought
was
good
language,
I'm
concerned
about
the
bipartisan
word.
I
think
we
want
effective
legislation,
you
know
and
who
votes
for
it,
whether
it's
all
republicans
all
democrats
or
some
mix
is
not
the
critical
thing.
C
Yeah,
I
am,
I
don't,
have
very
strong
attachment.
I
do
think
that
for
this
one
you
know
we
were.
We
were
sort
of
in
the
the.
Why
part
of
you
know,
like
the
background,
the
findings
of
of
why?
So
that's
why
we
were
saying
you
know
we're
moved
to
do
this
because
of
these
things,
and
then
you
know
the
how
is
sort
of
in
the
next
section.
So
this
seems
like
it's
it's
a
little
bit
muddling
those
two.
C
I
would
strongly
object
to
bipartisan,
not
because
I
object
to
that
end,
but
because
we
have
no
control
over
whether
legislation
is
bipartisan,
and
so,
by
focusing
on
that,
we
may
you
know,
maybe
ushering
this
into
a
dust
bin
somewhere,
because
we
have
no
ability
to
control
how
who's
gonna
sign
on
to
effective
legislation.
So
I
think
our
our
goal
should
be
to
focus
on
what
it
is
we're
asking
for
and
and
then
I
think
we
lay
that
out
in
the
next
one.
So
that's
what
I
would
say
in
that
one.
C
You
know
I'm
not!
I
don't
have
any
pride
in
authorship
on
this,
but
but
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
kind
of
separating
out
what
goes
in,
you
know
the
background
section
and
then
the
action
section.
So,
however,
you
want
to
do
that
and
again
I
wouldn't
for
this
one
use
bipartisan.
I
do
have
a
couple
more
thoughts,
but
I
can
share
them
until
you
nail
down
this
language.
AI
I
I
cannot
imagine
any
version
of
this
that
is
not
approvable
and
will
not
be
approved,
and
rather
than
word
smith
it
this
way
would
it
make
some
sense
for
either
aaron
or
rachel
to
wordsmith
it
with
either
juni
or
mary
and
come
up
with
mutually
agreeable
language,
because
I'm
just
not
sure
it
as
a
as
a
productive
process
to
be
doing
it
this
way-
and
I
cannot
imagine
that
we
would
not
come
up
with
something
that
is
mutually
agreeable
to
everyone
and,
as
I
said
this
is
this
is
going
to
be
the
easiest
approval
I
have
encountered
in
a
year
and
a
half
on
council,
and
I
would
just
ask
the
parties
to
get
comfortable
with
each
other's
language
and
bring
it
to
us,
and
let
us
read
it,
but
I
I
there's
almost
no
circumstance
under
which
I
would
not
support
it
wholeheartedly.
AI
C
A
Well,
I
I
also
agree:
wordsmithing
is
not
the
most
productive
use
of
our
time
that
one
of
the
points
of
doing
it
now
was
what
rachel
said
another
point
of
viewing
it
now
is
we
have
a
deadline
on
filing
any
appeal
that
we're
going
to
do
for
the
assault
weapons
ban
question,
so
I
think,
mark
at
the
very
least
what
I
would
hope
we
do
tonight.
Even
if
we
don't
adopt
a
resolution,
I
would
like
to
I'd
like
to
let
aaron
and
rachel
make
the
kind
of
editorial
calls
and
and
adopt
it.
A
That's
my
position,
but
if
we
don't
want
to,
I
think
the
most
important
thing
that
has
a
time
sensitivity
is
that
we
check
in
with
tom
about
the
appeal
so
so
I'll
turn
to
rachel
and
aaron.
How
would
you
like
to
close
out
the
word
smithing
part,
I'm
perfectly
willing
to
defer
to
your
judgment
on
this.
C
Well,
it
seems
like
I
don't
know
how
much
more
we'll
have
to
go
through
tonight
to
just
it
seems
like
it
would
be
more
optimal
to
adopt
a
resolution
tonight
and
and
get
through
it.
So
that
would
actually
be.
My
vote
is
to
spend
another
five
minutes
if
we
need
it
and
and
get
to
the
unanimous
resolution
support.
Hopefully.
A
J
I
C
The
the
only
other
two
things
I
was
going
to
share
sam
is
number
one.
The
language
as
presented
was
vetted
by
giffords,
so
I
think
the
less
we
veer
away
from
what
we
had
approval
from
by
an
agency
that
was
looking
at
it
to
make
sure
that
it
it
kind
of
complied
with
the
the
goals
that
we
were
setting
forth,
as
well
as
didn't
like
create
any
legal
issues
like
there
was
one
version
where
they
were
like.
C
I
I
think
we
all
do
support
that,
but
it
wasn't
relevant
to
our
our
shooting
situation,
and
so
there
were
a
lot
of
other
things
that
we
talked
about
that
stripped
away
from
including
because
they
they
didn't
directly
impact
this,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
open
up
to
other
things
that
we
prioritize,
as
that
aren't
even
I
think
currently
in
our
legislative
action
guide,
I
think
that's
a
much
longer
conversation.
C
I
think
we
maybe
took
it
out
after
it
was
passed
at
the
state
level
again,
because
we
already
have
that
one
in
place
would
not
have
impacted
our
situation
and
then
mental
health
is,
you
know
it
impacts,
so
many
things
in
in
our
city,
not
just
gun
violence
and
in
our
world
that
putting
it
just
in
here,
I
think,
is
a
maybe
a
meteor
discussion
for
the
subcommittee.
C
So
my
thoughts
would
be
you
know
a
couple
of
the
changes
I
think
that
are
just
stylistic
are
probably
fine,
but
anything
meaty
should
probably
go
back
to
subcommittee
for
further
consideration.
E
I
was
going
to
make
a
process
a
suggestion,
maybe
along
the
lines
of
what
mark
offered.
Why
don't
we
pass
the
resolution
tonight
as
originally
drafted
that
gives
tom
the
instruction
he
needs.
That
gives
us
a
position
with
respect
to
state
legislation,
and
then
we
designate
one
among
rachel
and
aaron
and
one
among
juni
and
mary
to
the
two
designees
to
go
back
and
work
on
potential
amendments.
E
So
we
passed
something
tonight
and
if,
if
those
two
people
are
determined
that
that
it's
important
for
us
to
mend
some
of
our
language,
we
can
bring
it
back
in
two
weeks
and
do
an
amendment,
but
that
doesn't
hold
us
up
on
legislative
activism
that
doesn't
hold
up
tom's
work.
A
I
I
think,
that's
good.
What
do
you
think
juni
rachel
aaron
mary
got
a
thumbs
up
from
mary
thumbs
up
from
juni
all
right.
I
think
we'll
go
ahead
with
that.
Then
that's
a
good
suggestion.
Aaron.
Would
you
like
to
read
the
current
state
of
the
resolution
and
we
can
move
forward.
H
Sure
I
mean
since
marion
juni,
you
both
said
that
was
okay.
I
do
I
appreciate
your
feedback,
I
think
we've
got.
I
was
starting
to
mock
up
a
revised
document
with
with
these
changes,
and
so
I
think
I
think
we
can
incorporate
some
of
them
in
a
way
that'll
make
the
resolution
even
better.
H
So
why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
I'm
really
not
having
to
read
and
edit
it
on
the
fly
version,
so
we
will
read
the
original
one
and
we'll
collaborate
and
we'll
come
up
with
some
some
amendments
and
and
then
pass
those
next
time.
If
that's
right
with
everybody.
H
The
city
council
of
the
city
of
boulder
colorado
hereby
finds
that
a
in
may
of
2018,
the
boulder
city
council
adopted
an
ordinance
banning
the
sale
and
possession
of
assault
weapons,
large
capacity
magazines
and
multi-burst
trigger
activators
within
the
city
limits
boulder's
assault
weapons
ban.
It
also
raised
the
age
for
legal
firearm
purchase
and
possession
from
18
to
21
years
of
age
b
in
the
years
since
the
city
has
also
advocated
for
a
range
of
state
or
federal
gun,
violence
prevention
legislation
that
could
extend
that
would
extend
the
impact
of
the
city's
ordinance
see.
H
On
march
12th
12
2021,
a
state
district
court
declared
that
colorado
state
law,
preempted
boulder's
assault,
weapons
ban
and
consequently
enjoined
the
city
from
enforcing
it
d.
On
march
22
2021
an
assault
weapon
was
used
to
murder,
10
people
in
a
mass
shooting
at
the
table.
Mesa
king
supers
e
the
weapon
used
in
the
shooting
was
considered
legal
to
purchase,
possess
and
use
in
colorado,
but
had
up
until
10
days
earlier
been
prohibited
from
being
purchased,
possessed
or
used
in
boulder
f.
H
H
Sorry
each
has
inflicted
profound
pain
on
the
surviving
victims,
the
families
and
loved
ones
of
those
who
did
not
survive
as
well
as
their
entire
communities.
We
are
called
upon
to
prevent
such
suffering
from
reoccurring
resolution.
The
city
council
of
the
city
of
boulder
resolves
as
follows:
section
one.
We
strongly
urge
the
city's
state
and
federal
delegation
to
continue
their
efforts
to
pass
legislation
that
could
prevent
mass
shootings.
H
H
A
That's
it
very
good,
thank
you
for
that
aaron
and
thank
you
to
everyone
who
took
part
in
pulling
this
together.
This
is
part
of
our
consent
agenda.
Are
there
any
bob?
Is
your
hand
still
up,
or
is
that
left
over.
AI
Well,
I
am
comfortable
with
the
basic
premise
of
extending
the
the
area
of
appendix
j
to
include
ball,
aerospace
and
certainly
the
extension
of
time
I
think,
is
quite
appropriate.
But
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
a
planning
board
voted
against
at
this
time.
AI
AI
E
Yeah
I
did
mark
and
thanks
for
for
reason,
that
we
should
probably
have
a
discussion,
quick
discussion
about
this
issue.
I
was
a
little
unpuzzled
by
the
planning
boards
vote,
which
was
four
to
three.
I
didn't
go
back
to
watch
the
video,
so
I
don't
know
the
reasons
that
those
who
did
not
want
to
extend
independence
j
to
diagonal
plaza.
E
The
thing
I
would
say
about
dagon
plaza
is:
it
is
a
probably
our
most
problematic
part
of
town
and
it's
public
information
that
there
is
a
concept
plan
that
has
been
filed
with
respect
to
a
large
segment
of
of
plaza
that
will
provide
market
rate
and
low-income,
affordable
housing
on-site
in
a
number
of
units,
and
so
I
think
we
want
to
encourage
that
type.
I
don't
know
what
the
concept
plan
will
will
turn
out
to.
E
AI
And
I
I
suspect
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
going
to
be
a
very
appropriate
spot
for
additional
height
considerations.
AI
A
Mighty
make
a
suggestion
that
we
have
jacob
lindsey
speak
to
us
about
his
view.
Our
director
planning
about
what
planning
board
said
jacob.
AJ
Well,
good
evening
mayor,
we
are
members
of
council
I'll
also
bring
into
the
the
discussion
the
voice
of
charles
farrow
as
well
for
feedback
on
this,
as,
as
we
discussed
previously
mark
and
as
well
as
members
of
council,
the
vote
by
the
planning
board
was
not
a
unanimous
vote.
There
was
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
around
the
extension
of
appendix
check
and
in
regards
to
the
specific
project
that's
proposed
at
diagonal
plaza.
AJ
The
proposal
that
is
currently
on
the
boards
does
not
include
a
request
for
height
above
three
stories.
It
does
not
include
an
a
request
for
height
modification
planning
board,
since
was
at
their
vote
was
that
further
study
could
be
helpful
at
diagonal
plaza,
but
they
did
not
specifically
address
the
issue
as
related
to
the
current
proposal,
simply
because
that
proposal
does
not
request
a
fourth
or
fifth
story,
so
I
hope
that's
helpful
in
terms
of
clarifying
the
discussion.
I
would
also
go
to
charles
farrow
if
you'd
like
to
add
anything
additional
to
the
discussion.
A
AJ
Well,
thanks
sam
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
no,
it
would
not
because
again,
they're
not
requesting
for
additional
height
I'll,
also
add
that
the
inclusion
of
the
diagonal
process
site
and
appendix
j
going
back
to
2015,
in
fact
predating
my
time
here
in
boulder,
was
done
to
enable
the
redevelopment
of
that
site,
along
with
sites
like
ball
aerospace,
the
downtown
city
center
around
pearl
street.
These
were
areas
where
council
and
staff
anticipated
future
redevelopment
taking
place
so
that
height
potential
at
diagonal
plaza
was
granted
to
enable
a
larger
scale
redevelopment.
AJ
The
current
proposal
at
diagonal
plaza
is
only
one
parcel.
It
is
not
the
entirety
of
the
site
and
it
in
fact
leaves
intact
most
of
the
retail
in
that
location.
So
the
appendix
j
designation
of
diagonal
plaza
is
something
that
was
done
years
ago
to
enable
a
larger
scale
redevelopment.
The
current
proposal
only
anticipates
three
stories,
so
I
do
not
believe
that
it
would
impede
the
current
proposal.
That's
there,
it
could
move
forward
presently.
A
If
I
could
ask
one
more
clarifying
question,
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to,
but
I
want
to
double
check
for
all
of
us
if
we
include
diagonal
plaza
in
appendix
j,
that
only
means
that
a
development
is
allowed
to
apply
for
a
height
exemption,
but
it
would
still
have
to
comply
with
all
the
other
requirements
of
that
height
exemption.
Correct,
that's,
correct,
okay,
thank
you,
and
then
I
see
I
don't
know
what
should
be
used.
First,
let
me
get
it
up
aaron
and
then
rachel
aaron.
H
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
make
that
point
sam,
that
there's
no
harm
in
adding
it
back
in,
because
we
have
total
discretion
on
whether
to
accept
an
application
for
a
height
modification.
The
planning
board
could
still
turn
them
down
and
we
could
turn
them
down
on
appeal.
If
we
decide
it
was
necessary,
so
I
would
go
ahead
and
take
staff's
recommendation
and
the
at
least
the
vote
of
three
of
the
four
playing
board
members
and
go
ahead
and
include
them.
C
I
appreciate
mark
bringing
this
up
because
it
was
a
good
idea
to
talk
about
it.
So
thank
you.
I
guess
I'm
a
little
confused.
I
my
recollection
is
our
last
discussion
of
appendix
j
was
that
it
was.
It
was
sort
of
due
to
expire
in
like
august,
or
we
were
gonna,
let
it
sunset
in
in
the
coming
few
months.
So
it
seems
like
if
it's,
if
that
was,
if
I'm
remembering
correctly,
that
that's
the
will
of
of
council
that
it's
likely
to
to
drop
out,
then
I
wouldn't.
C
AJ
Well,
that's
correct
rachel!
This
is
going
to
come
back
to
council
for
a
vote
and
you
all
will
have
the
choice
to
decide
whether
or
not
appendix
j
stands
or
whether
it
should
dissolve.
So
that
will
be
back
on
the
plate
in
front
of
council.
So
you're
correct.
C
AJ
Correct
again
I
would
go
to
charles,
but
I
believe
this
comes
back
to
you
in
august.
If
my
recollection
serves
correctly
and
charles
may
have,
he
may
have
a
better
memory.
AK
Yeah,
that's
correct.
We're
hoping
to
bring
forward
community
benefit
phase
two
for
the
board's
consideration
in
august,
so
that
would
be.
The
idea
is
that
the
appendix
j,
the
council
could
consider
whether
or
not
to
sunset
that
or
reality.
A
Thank
you,
rachel
bob.
E
I'm
going
to
do
something
very
dangerous
and
I'm
going
to
disagree
slightly
with
jacob
lindsey.
I
have
looked
at
the
concept
plan
and
I
think
there
is
an
alternative
that
does
would
require
a
height
variation.
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
options
that
are
presented
in
the
concept
plan
and
I
think
one
of
them
does
does
contemplate
that.
E
So
I
agree
with
aaron
that
on
let's
let
this
go
through
its
normal
process
and
go
to
concept
and
and
council,
you
can
call
it
up
if
it
like
and
then
same
with
site
review.
I
I
just
wouldn't
want
to
type
in
that.
We
we've
been
waiting
for
years
and
years
and
years
to
detect
literally
decades
for
someone
to
come
along
and
redevelop.
Diagon
plaza,
and
I
hate
to
to
quash
this
at
a
moment
of
opportunity
again.
Council
may
not
like
it.
E
Bloody
board
may
not
like
it,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
foreclose
our
options
here,
including
the
option
that
is
in
the
concept
plan
for
a
potential
height
variation.
A
Very
good
aaron,
I
see
your
hand
still
up.
Is
it
left
over?
Okay,
very
good,
so
mark
we've
had
the
discussion.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
com,
I'm
sorry
the
consent
agenda.
So
why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
vote?
Anyone
who
doesn't
want
to
support
any
of
the
items
on
consent
can
vote
yes
on
the
consent
agenda,
but
no
on
any
particular
item
they'd
like
so.
If
we've
had
enough
discussion,
alicia
I'd
turn
back
to
you
for
the
roll
call.
J
K
B
B
E
A
Very
good,
thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
you
can
take
us
on
to
the
next
item.
Please.
B
All
right,
sir.
Next,
on
our
agenda,
we
have
item
number
6a
matters
from
the
city
manager,
the
cu
south
discussion
of
key
issues.
AM
Yes,
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
good
evening
council.
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
here
today.
Let's
see
and
one
moment.
AM
So
good
evening,
council,
phil
kleisler
planning
and
development
services
on
behalf
of
the
project
team
for
the
cu
south
project,
south
boulder
creek
project.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
before
to
visit
with
you
tonight
and
have
this
discussion.
This
is
an
update
and
an
opportunity
for
council
to
provide
input
on
the
direction
and
focus
of
the
cu
south
annexation
before
getting
into
the
proposed
agenda.
We'd
like
to
we
thought
it'd
be
helpful,
just
to
have
a
quick
note
around
the
anticipated
structure
of
the
annexation
agreement.
AM
What
we
would
anticipate
this
would
be
an
agreement
negotiated
by
staff
and
presented
for
approval
or
denial
to
city
council
later
this
year.
We
would
anticipate
the
agreement
being
structured
in
kind
of
several
different
categories,
one
of
which
would
be
general
terms,
and
these
would
be
terms
that
apply
to
the
entire
site,
such
as
wetland
standards,
administrative
processes
and
then
there
would
be
other
terms
specific
to
geographical
areas
of
the
site
and
so
and
those
geographical
areas
would
be
likely
pretty
similar
or
identical
to
the
land
use
designations
found
in
the
boulder
valley.
AM
Comprehensive
plan
shown
here.
And
so
we
wanted
to
mention
that,
just
because
we'd
like
to
structure
tonight's
discussion
in
a
way
that's
similar
as
we're
working
like
we're
working
through
the
annexation
agreement
and
so
to
use
the
next
two
hours.
What
staff
proposes
is
a
very
brief
introduction
by
myself
and
then
we're
going
to
hit
each
of
these
topics
in
order,
and
so.
AN
AM
So
we
would
anticipate
that,
and
so
what
we
would
do
is
to
have
a
brief
presentation
and
then
we'll
pause
for
q,
a
and
council
input
and
then
move
on
to
the
next
topic
once
we're
finished
and
we'll
work
behind
the
scenes
to
try
to
figure
out
the
presenting
function
once
we're
finished
with
the
introductory
part
of
this,
we
also
have
staff
from
several
city
departments,
as
well
as
representatives
from
cu
boulder,
including
derek
silva
assistant,
vice
chancellor
for
business
strategy,
abby
benson
associate
vice
chancellor
chancellor
for
strategic
relations
and
support
rachelle,
riley
acting
interim
campus
architect
and
bill
fox
principal
at
fox
tuttle
transportation,
the
university's
consultant
so
a
few
notes
about
where
we
are
in
the
process.
AM
AM
This
is
our
anticipated
and
review
review
process
for
the
annexation.
We
last
visited
with
council
back
in
2020
in
november,
and
it's
been
a
busy
few
months
since
then.
AM
We're
very
grateful
for
the
community
members
who
have
visited
with
us
through
neighborhood
meetings,
group
meetings,
drop-in
sessions
and
the
over
900
people
who
have
participated
in
an
online
questionnaire
that
feedback
is
included
is
summarized
as
attachment
b
to
your
packet
this
evening,
and
we
were
also
listening
along
the
way
and,
as
we
were
hearing
things
brought
other
items
to
the
table
as
a
result
of
that
community
input
that
we
look
forward
to
discussing
this
evening,
we've
had
several
public
meetings
over
the
last
week
and
a
half
or
so
leading
into
this
meeting,
including
a
transportation
advisory
board
meeting
last
monday
and
a
planning
board
meeting
on
thursday,
open
space
board
also
took
some
kind
of
minor
action
that
we'll
get
into
later
on
wednesday.
AM
So
there
are
there's
a
lot
of
history
with
this
project
and
what
I
would
you
know,
kind
of
in
the
more
near
past
in
2016
2017,
the
university,
the
city
and
the
county,
boulder
county
partnered
to
facilitate
a
public
process
that
ultimately
resulted
in
the
cu,
self-guiding
principles
and
those
principles
included
high-level
vision,
statements
for
what
we
would
expect
to
happen
on
cu
south
in
early
20
or
in
early
2019.
AM
Last
october,
we
received
some
new
information
and
published
what
we
called
a
briefing
book.
That
is
basically
a
snapshot
in
time
about
where
we
are
in
the
process,
and
we
recently
refreshed
that
briefing
book
and
that's
included
as
attachment
a
to
your
memo.
This
evening,
after
tonight's
meeting
and
leading
into
the
following
months,
we
will
be
kind
of
picking
up
the
pen
and
the
the
attorneys
and
the
staff
from
both
the
city
and
the
university
will
be
drafting
the
annexation
agreement
moving
ahead.
AM
There
are
several
new
things
in
the
briefing
book.
There's
a
key
issues
map
we'll
get
into
this
evening.
We
heard
from
planning
boarding,
council
and
interest
in
additional
information
around
financial
impacts,
and
so
we
added
some
more
information
there.
The
university
did
submit
design
guidelines.
Recently
we
have
a
recommendation
from
the
open
space
board
of
trustees,
additional
information
around
transportation,
as
well
as
some
of
those
emerging
issues
that
came
out
of
the
public
process.
AM
So
there
are
several.
This
is
the
first
topic
and
so
we'll
just
have
a
few
slides
as
an
introduction
and
just
as
a
reminder
we'll,
let's
see
cu
boulder
is
also
asked
to
just
say
a
few
words
to
council
relating
to
this
item
as
well,
and
so
back
in
2017.
AM
During
those
guiding
principles,
we
there
were
several
written
relating
to
transportation
and
they
were
written
really
to
state
the
city's
expectations
for
mitigating
transportation
impacts
and
given
the
long-term
nature
of
the
project
and
really
the
unknowns
around
specific
development
plans,
we
felt
that
performance-based
standards
were
a
reasonable
approach
for
ensuring
that
the
future
transportation
needs
of
the
site
do
not
unduly
impact
the
city's
transportation
network,
and
some
of
those
examples
are
shown
here
that
we'll
get
into
in
just
a
bit.
AM
We
wanted
to
ensure
that,
when
that
a
safe
multimodal
system
is
designed
on
the
on
the
site,
it's
done
so
in
the
context
of
the
overall
city
transportation
network
and
also
keeping
an
eye
on
impacts
to
adjacent
open
space
and,
lastly,
discouraging
or
preventing
a
bypass
between
from
the
north
part
of
the
site
around
table
mesa
down
to
the
south
part
of
the
site
towards
colorado.
93.
AM
The
the
universities
consultant
is
here
for
any
technical
questions
that
council
may
have,
but
the
study
in
in
a
nutshell,
did
include
a
land
use
scenario
that
that
included
1100
residential
units
and
that's
consistent
with
our
guiding
principles.
It
also
did
include
500
000
square
feet
of
academic
facilities.
It
recommended
two
primary
points
of
access.
One
would
be
the
existing
access
to
the
site,
which
is
south
loop
drive.
The
other
would
be
on
the
south
portion
of
the
site,
colorado
93,
with
limited
and
secondary
access
to
tantra
drive.
AM
It
also
provided
some
additional
information
around
a
multimodal
hub
and
again
it
will.
Staff
has
shared
those
comments
and
we've
also
been
sharing
comments
that
we've
received
and
council
has
also
received
from
community
members,
and
we
expect
our
expectation
is
that
the
revised
study
will
be
responsive
to
all
of
those
comments.
AM
The
concerns
around
the
neighborhood
are
really
around
some
of
the
methodology
used
in
the
study,
as
well
as
some
of
the
impacts
associated
with
potential
increases
in
traffic,
particularly
in
the
martin
acres
area,
south
creek,
seven
moorhead
those
areas
of
the
site
generally
within
the
vicinity
of
cu
south.
AM
Lastly,
the
briefing
book
includes
some
high-level
information
about
where
we
are
seeking
to
go
with
the
transportation
program
on
the
site,
and
so
really
in
addition
to
ensuring
that
those
transportation
impacts,
don't
unduly
impact
the
city's
transportation
networks.
We
also
wanted
to
determine
ways
to
ensure
that
advanced
phases
of
development
are
contingent
upon
meeting
those
performance-based
standards,
so
the
next
phase
would
be
responsible,
for
example,
for
meeting
a
trip
cap
program.
AM
The
trip
cap
program
and
practice
would
limit
vehicle
trips
to
and
from
the
site
at
those
specific
access
points,
and
so
it
would
be
a
specific
number
that
would
be
permitted
through
those
there
would.
There
need
to
be
some
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
to
the
city
that
would
be
established
as
well
as
a
compliance
process
for
what
happens
if
those
trips
are
exceeded.
AM
The
university
is
we're
also
looking
at
transportation
demand
management
strategies
and
I
believe
cu
wants
to
mention
some
of
those.
In
just
a
moment,
we
have
got
an
agreement
that
the
university
will
construct
a
multimodal
hub
on
the
site
and
some
of
the
basic
requirements
for
what
we'd
be
looking
for
from
the
city's
transportation
master
plan
are
included
in
the
briefing
book
and,
additionally,
we
will
be
looking
and
having
a
discussion
around
necessary
off-site
and
on-site
improvements
once
the
study
is
finalized.
AM
As
I
mentioned,
I'm
going
to
stop
sharing
the
screen.
The
transportation
advisory
board
and
planning
board
met
last
week
both
had
a
fair
number
of
questions
for
the
university
and
its
consultant.
I
think
overall,
the
tabs
discussion
transportation
advisory
board.
It
really
focused
on
ensuring
innovative
approaches
to
mobility.
That
includes
some
flexibility
for
future
conditions,
given
the
long-term
nature
of
the
project,
so
kind
of
testing
things
out
and
making
adjustments
down.
The
road
tab
also
suggested
more
creative
thinking
around
morehead
avenue,
like
changing
it
to
local.
AM
So
that's
my
my
introductory
presentation
and
transportation.
What
we'd
like
to
do
is
pause
derek
silva
from
the
university
asked
to
address
council,
if
that's
okay
with
the
with
council-
and
we
appreciate
your
time
and
once
we
get
through
this
topic,
we'll
go
to
the
next.
A
Great
thank
you
phil
and
my
opinion
is
we'd
like
to
hear
from
derek
specifically
about
traffic
right
now
and
transportation.
Any
objection
from
council
great
seeing
none.
Let's
have
derek
talk
to
us.
AO
Yes,
thank
you
mayor
and
thank
you,
council.
I
wanted
to
just
address
a
couple
of
points
about
the
traffic
study.
There
certainly
has
been
a
lot
of
public
dialogue
about
it,
but
just
a
few
clarification
points,
one
is
is
that
the
current
study
is
a
draft
study,
so
we
anticipate
taking
the
public
input.
AO
Council
input,
tab
input
and
considering
all
of
that,
whenever
we
go
to
revise
our
final
study,
so
the
the
current
study
out
there
is
in
draft
form,
it's
not
final
form
and
part
of
what
will
lead
us
to
that
final
study
is
exactly
this:
getting
feedback
from
you
all
and
getting
feedback
from
the
public
which
we
have
and
from
tab
and
then
just
to.
Let
you
all
know
as
well
is
that
we
did.
AO
We
didn't
create
the
scope
and
the
assumptions
and
all
that
in
a
vacuum
we
actually
worked
with
city
staff
to
develop
those
for
that
traffic
study.
So
before
the
study
was
ever
run,
we
did.
We
met
and
collaborated
with
city
staff,
transportation
staff
to
get
those
key
assumptions
in
that
study
and
then
just
a
couple
of
other
things.
AO
AO
So
there's
a
lot
of
tdm
activities
that
we
currently
engage
in
to
help
reduce
the
impact
of
the
campus
and
the
traffic
that
it
generates,
and
then
I'll
just
like
to
point
out
as
well
that
there
are
many
instances
where
we've
also
collaborated
with
the
city
of
boulder
on
different
transportation
related
projects.
These
include
the
30th
in
colorado
underpass,
which
is
now
underway.
AO
The
college
underpass
baseline,
underpass
euclid
underpasses,
we've
also
partnered
as
a
stakeholder
on
different
transportation
studies,
including
the
arapahoe
corridor
study,
the
highway
119
first
and
final
mile
study
and
the
30th
in
colorado,
corridor
studies
and
we're
currently
partnering
with
the
city
to
evaluate
micro
mobility
options,
specifically
scooters
in
the
city.
So
thank
you.
That's
what
I
wanted
to
add.
A
AM
AI
Phil,
the
the
I'm
a
little
confused
about
the
trip
cap
concept.
How
exactly
does
it
work?
I
mean,
does
a
gate
come
down
when
you
start
to
exceed
the
approved
number
of
trips,
I
mean,
I
think
it's
a
great
concept.
I
just
want
to
understand
a
little
better
about
how
it
works.
AM
A
AM
AI
H
H
I
appreciated
what
you're
saying
about
taking
feedback
into
account
in
terms
of
doing
a
final
traffic
study,
so
maybe,
if
you
or
bill
thanks
for
being
here,
could
just
address
you
know,
people
have
talked
about
when
the
trips
were
counted
and
what
day
it
was
things
like
that
and
just
can
you
confirm
that
you're
going
to
be
looking
at
those
issues
and
make
sure
we
get
those
exactly
right
for
the
final
version.
AO
Yeah,
absolutely
we
can
confirm
that
bill.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
say
anything
else
about
what
will
what
will
occur
between
now
and
the
final
study,
but
and
as
well
as
some
of
those
the
concerns
around
the
data.
AE
Great,
I
just
want
to
say
that
you
know
and
just
to
reinforce
that
all
the
key
assumptions
of
the
study
were
done
collaboratively
with
cu
and
city
boulder
staff
in
early
november,
before
we
started
on
the
study
and
we've
been
scrutinizing
and
potentially
preparing
to
update
all
those
key
assumptions
based
on
the
input
that
we've
heard,
including
trip
generation
rates,
multimodal
assumptions
about
how
that
will
influence
the
trip
generation
rates,
trip,
distribution
assumptions
and
where
the
traffic
might
come
and
go
from
and
the
surrounding
networks.
AE
All
of
those
things
have
been
scrutinized
as
part
of
this
update
process
and
we've
also
heard
a
lot
of
concern
about
the
use
of
traffic
counting
during
covet
conditions,
and
this
is
the
topic
that
we
have
to
deal
with
on
every
study.
We
do
in
any
any
community
for
the
last
year
year
or
more.
Unfortunately,
we
had
to
take
some
traffic
counts.
In
november
we
had.
Our
study
area
has
nine
intersections
in
it.
AE
Existing
intersections,
we
had
pre-covered
signalized
counts
at
six
of
those
nine
intersections
and
those
six
intersections
account
for
over
90
percent
of
the
approach
movements
in
our
study
area.
So
the
lion's
share
of
our
study
is
based
on
pre-covet
traffic
counts,
and
that
in
and
of
itself
is
conservative,
because
I
don't
think
we'll
ever
go
back
to
commuting
the
way
we
did
before
the
influence
of
covid.
We
figured
out
how
to
work
from
home
as
office
employees,
but
we
we
had
to
take
some
counts
during
covid.
AE
We
did
that
on
the
six
on-ramps
along
table,
mesa
onto
onto
us
36
and
foothills
parkway,
and
we
had
to
adjust
those
to
pre-covered
levels
and
we
made
some
comparisons
based
on
historic
counts,
and
I
would
love
to
go
into
more
detail,
but
it's
probably
not
for
tonight,
but
we've
brought
those
those
additional
counts
forward
into
pre-covered
estimates
and
and
having
to
take
counts
during
covet
was
unavoidable,
but
it's
not
changing
or
significantly
influencing
the
the
traffic
projections
in
this.
AE
In
this
study,
we
also
had
another
thing
that
was
of
concern
was
projecting
the
future
growth
of
background
traffic
with
even
without
cu
south,
and
in
that
case
we
were
able
to
rely
on
some
historic
counts.
The
city
has
been
counting
traffic
in
all
of
these
corridors.
In
our
study
for
since
19,
early
1980s,
and
so
we've
looked
at
that
those
the
the
change
in
traffic
over
time
to
help
us
predict
the
future
background
growth
without
even
before
cu
comes
into
play.
AE
And
we've
been
criticized
a
little
bit
for
not
for
being
for
implying
that
traffic
has
been
flattening
out
in
many
of
these
corridors,
particularly
table
mesa
and
broadway.
And
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
traffic
grew
faster
between
19th,
early
80s
and
the
year
2000,
and
it's
been
flattening
out
since
so
going
forward.
We're
really
looking
at
the
current
projections
of
traffic
and
that's
based
on
all
the
hard
work
that
city
boulder's
been
doing.
AE
The
c
has
been
doing
with
your
tdm
measures
and
changing
the
culture
of
how
we
travel
in
boulder
and
and
so
to
think
that
we're
going
to
go
back
to
1985
and
travel
the
same
way
doesn't
make
sense
when
we're
looking
to
the
future,
so
that
that
helps
explain
some
of
the
concern
about
projecting
future
background
traffic.
But
those
are
and
then
the
last
thing
that
there
was
a
significant
concern
is
we
did
not
project
that
a
ton
of
traffic
would
use
neighborhood
streets
like
moorhead.
AE
There
are
a
couple
different
alternatives
to
moorhead,
one
being
us
36,
the
other
being
table
mesa
to
broadway.
Both
of
those
routes
are
significantly
faster,
both
physically
measuring
those
and
then
relying
on
some
of
the
google
maps,
information
that
we
have
electronically,
and
so
it's
a
significant
time
penalty
to
to
use
moorhead
as
your
route
between
cu,
south
and
the
main
campus.
So
we
don't
think
a
lot
of
people
want
to
do
that.
AE
Certainly
in
congested
times
there
may
be
the
incentive,
but
you
have
to
overcome
between
a
one
and
a
half
to
three
minute
time
deficit
to
even
want
to
go
on
morehead.
We
just
don't
think
that
will
be
the
case,
but
so
anyway,
with
with
the
input
from
tab
with
the
input
from
planning
board
and
with
the
input
from
citizens,
we'll
do
much
better
job
explaining
all
of
our
assumptions
in
our
updated
report
and
we're
going
to
be
turning
the
crack
again
here
shortly
with
the
updated
information.
H
H
Thanks
so
much
just
one
more
question,
which
is
that
so
it
look,
it
seems
like
the
residential
units
here
will
be
a
little
different
from
our
typical
new
residential
units
like
if
you,
if
you
build
an
apartment
complex
at
you,
know,
30th
and
pearl,
there's
a
decent
chance
that
that
a
fair
number
of
people
live
there
are,
you
know,
moving
in
from
out
of
town,
but
but
my
point
being
that
student
housing,
that's
students
who
are
living
there,
who
would
already
be
going
to
you
and
would
be
living
somewhere
else,
but
traveling
in
to
see
you
anyway,
and
so
some
number
of
those
students
would
be
coming
in,
say
from
you
know,
broomfield
or
along
the
us
36
corridor
already
right,
so
that,
while
some
number
of
those
trip,
those
trips
that
are
coming
from
the
site,
some
of
them
would
be
coming
through
that
intersection.
H
Anyway,
if
the
students
had
had
to
live
further
away
down,
that
quarter,
are
we
taking
that?
Are
we
making
any
guesses
as
to
that
trips
that
we're
removing
from
the
roadway
system
by
having
the
snow
housing
in
these
traffic
studies?.
AE
Well,
we
haven't
specifically
set
out
to
do
that,
although
that's
certainly
worth
trying
to
do
put
some
numbers
to
that.
We
have
tried
to
accommodate
the
reduction
in
automobile
traffic
based
on
the
the
parking
management.
That
cu
has
the
difficulty
to
find
parking
on
the
main
campus,
and
so
certainly
we're
trying
to
be
make
a
realistic
effort
to
project
the
impacts
of
or
or
the
potential
to
not
travel
by
automobile
between,
but
as
far
as
an
intercept
from
the
other
trips
that
might
have
already
been
going
farther
into
boulder.
H
I
understand
that
this
may
be
something
worth
considering,
at
least
in
the
narrative
of
the
traffic
study.
I
don't
know
derek,
I
imagine
you
have
pretty
good
numbers
on
how
many
students
live
outside
of
the
city
of
boulder
and
maybe
in
what
parts
of
the
region.
H
So
you
know,
maybe
we
don't
do
a
hard
and
fast
reduction
in
roadway
trips,
because
it's
so
hard
to
estimate,
but
it
might
be
worth
a
couple
of
paragraphs
in
the
study
to
say
how
many
you
know
some
number
of
hundreds
of
trips
daily
may
well
be
replacing
trips
that
have
gone
through
here
anyway.
Sure.
C
I
think
a
really
small
one,
but
just
I
also
wonder
like
I
live
right
near
the
area
and
often
drive
my
son
to
fairview
high
school,
which
is
sort
of
on
the
other
side
of
broadway,
and
I
would
imagine
that
some
number
of
trips
will
also
be
eliminated
if
there's
a
much
better
bike
path.
Sort
of
that
connects
fraser
meadows
area
to
table
mesa
shopping
and
and
fairview
area,
so
how's
that
being
factored
in,
if
at
all
kind
of
like
what
some
some
changes
in
current
residence
habits.
C
By
that
maybe
having
better
bike
paths
and
pedestrian
paths.
AC
AH
I
make
colloquy
on
the
colloquy,
because
I
was
I
was
going
to
ask
a
question
along
the
veins
of
what
aaron
and
rachel
are
asking,
and
I
just
want
to
go
ahead
and
put
it
out
there.
So
so
you
can
answer
it
all
at
once.
So
my
question
has
to
do
with.
Has
there
been,
has?
AH
AO
Yeah
I
can
say
that
to
answer
rachel's
question
rachel,
I
think,
was
yours
specifically
about
extension
of
the
path
across
south
boulder
road
to
connect
to
the
site
into
south
boulder
from
that
direction.
C
Generally,
if
you're
making
improvements
that
make
it
more
attractive
for
people
to
walk
and
bike
from
one
part
of
town
to
the
other,
and
it's
safer,
because
right
now
like
if
you're
traveling
table
mesa,
like
my
my
son,
doesn't
usually
bike
to
high
school,
because
it's
especially
at
that
time
in
the
morning,
as
we've
heard
from
a
lot
of
people,
it's
so
congested
and
and
not
a
real,
safe
route.
So
if
there
becomes
a
really
viable
path
for
families
to
use,
especially
that
are
getting
over
to
high
school
or
middle
school
over
there.
AO
It
hasn't
been
the
in
the
current
study,
but
it
is
something
that
I
think
that
is.
It
does
seem
to
be
a
a
gap
in
the
connection
there.
I'm
not
sure
how
how
to
handle
that.
It's
a
that.
AO
I
know
that
if
I'm,
if
I'm
thinking
about
what
you're
speaking
about
correctly
rachel,
it's
the
there's,
the
path
that
comes
down
36
essentially
and
runs
parallel
to
36,
but
then
there's
that
path
does
not
make
it
across
south
boulder
road
right
there
I
mean,
and
I'm
not
sure,
I'm
not
sure
what
how
to
solve
that
problem.
It
seems
like
something
that
maybe
this,
the
city
and
cu
could
take
a
look
at
down
the
road.
When
we
start
developing
here
and
start
to
look
at
looking
at
different
tdm
things
we
can
do.
AO
C
Yeah
and-
and
that
may
be
mary's
point
is
like
it's
only
going
to
be,
you
know
as
good
as
the
connections
between
the
spaces
right,
so
I
don't
know
how
that's
looked
at
holistically
as
part
of
this,
but
I
also
just
wondered
for
the
numbers
for
the
the
counts:
how
how
does
that
get
factored
in
one.
C
AE
We
have
also
heard
from
city
staff
that
maybe
we
haven't
been
aggressive
enough
in
focusing
on
some
of
the
bicycle
and
pedestrian,
or
particularly
bicycle
and
transit
connectivity
between
the
campuses
and
so
we'll
be
scrutinizing.
The
assumptions
we've
made
there
as
well.
But
beyond
that
I
don't
have
a
specific
path
or
a
specific,
a
number
associated
with
a
specific
connection.
AH
Yeah
somewhat
especially
the
part
about
overlaying
the
connections
plan
on
this
and
and
seeing
whether
or
not
that
needs
to
change
someone
adjusts
to
the
needs
of
this
area
or
the
the
the
upcoming
needs
of
this
area,
and-
and
I
have
another
question
but
I'll
wait.
My
turn.
A
Great
and
I
have
a
colloquy
and
then
we'll
go
on
to
adam
mary
and
nearby,
but
my
colleague
would
build
just
about
your
assumptions
that
were
made.
There
will
be
on
order
if
the
build-out
happens
in
the
way
that
the
university
and
the
city
have
been
discussing.
There's
eleven
hundred
units
a
little
more
than
two
thousand
people,
whether
they're
students
or
faculty
or
grad
students.
A
The
question
I
have
is:
did
you
ascribe
a
different
traffic
pattern
to
those
residents
because
they're,
mostly
presumably
going
to
go
either
to
east
campus
or
to
the
main
campus,
as
opposed
to
traveling
kind
of
new
build
at
30th
and
pearl?
Those
folks
could
go
anywhere
right
for
for
their
trips,
particularly
for
their
work,
but
it
seems
like
the
folks
who
live
here
are
going
to
be
traveling
specifically
to
the
other
campuses
in
town
or
to
that
campus.
So,
did
you
have
any
different
travel
behavior
for
the
residents
of
the
site.
AE
Specifically,
that
was
representative
of
of
what
we
thought
would
occur
and
and
is
consistent
with
what
we
saw
occurring
in
other
housing
areas
for
cu
in
boulder
and
then
with
the
non-housing
academic
portion
of
the
trip
generation.
We
specifically
used
a
trip
generation
rate
that
was
based
on
observed,
trip
making
on
the
east
campus
and
because
there
isn't
an
ite
cookbook
for
academic
facilities
in
boulder
colorado.
AE
K
Thanks
sam
one
of
my
just
quick
questions-
and
I
think
one
of
the
bigger
concerns
about
the
traffic
study
was
one
of
the
only
non-coveted
times
where
there
was
data
taken
was
while
there
wasn't
school
in
session
right,
which
kind
of
is,
you
know
a
big
deal
since
we
are
a
school-based
town,
both
high
schools
and
a
major
college.
So
was
there
any
reason,
particularly
behind
that
date,
and
will
that
sort
of
you
know
be
bored
out
in
the
data
in
a
certain
way.
AE
Well,
yes,
there
was
a
very
good
reason
why
we
picked
that
date
to
count,
because
that
was
the
absolute
soonest
day.
We
could
count
after
the
work
scope
was
approved
by
the
city
and
cu.
It
just
so
happened
to
be
in
the
week
before
thanksgiving
was
the
first
week
that
we
had
authorization
to
get
out
there
and
we
needed
to
count
those
six
on-ramps.
AE
It's
the
only
thing
we
needed
to
count
and
because
we
had
pre-covered
information
at
all
the
other
58
out
of
64
movements
that
we
are
interested
in,
so
we
have,
but
we
wanted
to
get
some
numbers
for
that,
those
six
on-ramps
and
the
only
time
we
could
count
was
that
week
before
thanksgiving.
We
compared
that
traffic
count
in
during
covet
to
counts.
From
a
year
ago,
before
covid
and
came
up
with
an
adjustment
factor,
we
actually
used
a
comparison
to
october
counts
from
the
previous
year
on
purpose
and
we've
people.
AE
I
think
we're
trying
to
finesse
some
some
underhanded
comparison
there,
but
really
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
avoid
the
holiday
season
adjustment,
we're
trying
to
adjust
for
covid
not
to
adjust
for
covid
and
the
impact
of
the
holiday
season,
because
as
traffic
engineers,
we
never
count
from
the
the
thanksgiving
week
on
in
november.
So
when
we
had
a
count
before
thanksgiving
in
november,
it
compared
well
to
some
previous
accounts
that
were
from
october
in
the
previous
year.
AE
So
we
we
that
was
one
of
the
things
we
tested,
but
we
also
took
and
did
a
count
during
covid
at
the
intersection
of
of
loop
drive
and
table
mesa
and
compared
that's
one
of
the
intersections
where
we
had
pre-covered
information.
So
we
were
able
to
compare
that
covid
versus
precovet
in
november,
and
we
saw
an
adjustment,
an
appropriate
adjustment
of
1.33
to
take
the
current
counts
and
bring
them
up
to
pre-covert
conditions.
AE
That's
that's
and
that's
the
same
comparison
we
saw
between
the
october
of
last
year
to
the
early
november
of
this
year
the
pre-holiday
covet
adjustment.
So,
yes,
we
have
and
we're
doing
this
for
every
study
all
over
colorado
that
we
have
to
do
right
now.
We
have
to
go
through
this
covet
adjustment
process.
AE
It's
nothing
specific
to
this
study,
but
we
had
good
data
to
make
those
adjustments,
and
it
was
only
done
on
six
of
of
the
of
the
64
movements
that
we
have
in
our
study
and
and
yet
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
believe
our
pre-covered
estimates
are
conservatively
high.
If
anything,
because
of
the
the
fact
that
I
don't
think
we're
ever
going
back
to
commuting
like
we
did
before
kobe.
A
Great
mary
and
nearby
mary.
AH
Thanks
sam
so
similar
to
sam's
question
about
the
trips
coming
out
of
this
area
would
be
mostly
inter-campus
trips.
So
I'm
just
wondering
in
terms
of
the
the
planning
piece
of
it
is
what
work
is
being
done
to
address
potential
routes
or
changes
in
in
our
connections
plan
with
respect
to
that
inter-campus
travel.
AE
Well
I'll
start
and
then
there
can
can
jump
in
too,
but
we
have
projected
the
logical
routes
between
the
various
campuses
based
on
their
physical
proximity
in
boulder
and
and
who
might
want
to
go
where
and-
and
so
that's
part
of,
the
trip
distribution
portion
of
the
study
and
then
with
that
information.
That
would
lend
that
would
help
define
where
the
transit
routes
are
put
in
place.
AE
The
high
frequency,
transit
and
shuttles
that
will
connect
the
various
campuses
and
what
routes
they'll
use
to
connect
the
campuses
and
we've
talked
about
that,
whether
it
makes
sense
to
use
foothills,
parkway
or
us,
36
or
broadway
to
and
there
may
be
different
shuttle
routes.
So
certainly
some
thought
was
put
into
where
traffic
might
go
and
how
it
might
be
accommodated.
And
when
we
overlay
that
connections
plan
that'll
help
us
with
the
bicycle
portion
as
well.
AO
And
I
would
say
that
I
have
nothing
to
add.
I
would
just
dumb
down
what
bill
just
said,
so
he
said
it
well.
AH
Okay,
thank
you
and
I'm
not
sure
what,
with
the
scope
of
the
questions
we're
allowed
to
ask
here,
is
it-
and
this
is
a
question
for
sam?
Is
it
just
wide-ranging
on
all
of
the
pieces.
A
AH
Okay,
so
the
other
question
I
have
with
respect
to
traffic
is,
I
think
we
can
all
recall
the
the
little
tight
spot
that
we
got
into
with
c-dot
in
the
initial
phases
phases
of
this
planning.
So
I'm
just
wondering
a
is
c
dot
at
the
table
or
attending
some
of
the
meetings
and
what
kinds
of?
I
So
garrett
slater
principal
transportation
projects,
engineer
with
the
department
of
transportation
and
mobility
and
the
the
interaction
we've
had
with
cdot
to
date
has
been
very
preliminary
in
nature
and
primarily
regarding
the
access
that's
been
proposed
at
state
highway
93,
the
the
the
areas
that
have
been
focused
on
in
the
traffic
study
are
largely
the
domain
of
the
city,
and
so
the
state
would
not
be
involved
in
that
type
of
a
review.
I
They
might
come
into
play
a
little
bit
with
any
sort
of
timing,
modifications
that
would
happen
at
the
at
the
ramps
to
the
interchange
at
36,
but
largely
the
the
focus
is
going
to
be
on
the
axis
at
state,
highway
93
and
we
have
had
preliminary
coordination
with
them
and
then
we'll
be
following
up
with
them
in
more
detail,
as
the
process
continues.
D
First,
I
guess
I'll
address
the
easy
one,
so
I
maybe
am
not
understanding
this
all
the
way
and
so
happy
to
if
this
is
going
to
be
updated
when
you
come
back
to
us
bill,
but
you
stated
on
two
different
on
topics
now
about
your
thoughts
that
you
don't
think
people
will
be
going
through
moorhead
in
some
of
the
neighborhoods,
because
it
could
be
a
one
to
three
minute
travel
time
longer,
which
I
can
tell
you
personally
if
it's
less
traffic
and
it
takes
me
longer
I'll,
do
in
a
heartbeat
and
I'm
guessing
there's
other
people
who
feel
the
same
way
and
then
that
you
feel
that
you
don't
think
the
levels
are
going
to
return
to
covet,
which
I
can
tell
you.
D
I
just
was
in
tucson
arizona
and
it's
the
worst.
It's
ever
been
in
25
years,
my
husband
who
travels
I-25
and
70
it's
right
back
to
where
it
was,
and
family
members
who
have
just
been
back
to
chicago
it's
worse
than
it's
ever
been.
So
I
don't
personally
experience
that.
Maybe
well
there's
a
bubble,
but
I
highly
doubt
it
so.
I
guess
the
question
comes
down
to
on
your
thoughts
on
this.
Are
you
gonna
what
happens
when
people?
D
Actually
when
this
I
understand,
we
all
hope
that
they
don't
use
the
neighborhood
and
we
hope
the
levels
of
traffic
don't
return.
But
what
happens
if
it
does
is
their
contingency
plan
and
are
we
going
to
be
receiving
an
update
on
this
when
you
guys
come
back
to
us?
So
that's
my
first
part
of
my
question.
AE
So
I
will
say
that
I'll
start
at
the
this.
The
second
part
about
kovid
my
opinion
about
the
the
pre-covered
going
going
back
to
pre-covet
for
office
workers.
I
don't
believe
we'll
ever
go
back
to
commuting
the
way
we
did
before
covet.
We
found
out
how
to
commute
and
how
to
interact
like
we're
doing
right
now,
and
none
of
us
drove
to
downtown
boulder
to
be
in
the
same
room
and
so
we're
conducting
business
without
having
to
drive.
And
it's
not
saying
we
that
there
won't
be
peak
hours.
AE
It's
not
saying
that
traffic
won't
go
up
and
down
during
the
day,
but
I
don't
believe
that
the
office
component
of
the
commute
will
be
as
as
high
as
it
was
before.
That
said,
there
will
still
be
congestion,
and
I'm
not
saying
this
solves
all
the
problems
and
in
in
that
context
there
may
be
incentive
to
find
a
faster
route,
and
maybe
that
route
is
to
go
down
moorhead
to
get
to
the
main
campus,
and
I
can
tell
you
I
spent
three
and
a
half
years
living
on
that
the
southeast
end
of
moorhead.
AE
While
I
was
attending
cu
and
if
I
didn't
have
to
go
down
moorhead
I
wouldn't
have
because
it's
a
circuit,
it's
the
right
turn
a
left
turn
another
right
there.
Another
left
turn
to
get
through
where
there
are
other
two
other
routes
that
are
much
more
direct
in
terms
of
the
number
of
turns
and
a
better
and,
in
my
mind,
a
better
way
to
go.
But
I'm
not
saying
people
won't
try
to
go
through
moorhead,
but
we
have
heard
tonight.
AE
We've
heard
others
talk
about
it
in
other
meetings
about
the
potential,
maybe
to
make
morehead
a
neighborhood
bikeway,
where
it's
it's
just
discouraged
to
have
cut
through
traffic
non-local
traffic
using
a
road
like
moorhead
when
there
are
more
arterial
based
connections.
So
I
can't
speak
to
when
that's
done
or
how
that's
done
at
this
point.
But
certainly
there
are.
There
are
potential
options
to
try
to
mitigate
significant
neighborhood
cut
through.
D
Okay,
so
I'm
understanding
that
there's
no
technical
contingency
plan,
it's
just
that
there
might
be
some
plans
in
the
work
to
mitigate
this
and
adjust
how
the
traffic
flow
is.
AE
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
what
you
mean
by
a
technical
contingency
plan,
but
I
mean
I
could
route
tr
some
traffic
down
moorhead
in
the
updated
study.
I
could
do
that.
I
don't.
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
that
will
really
happen
to
a
significant
level,
but
if
the
group
thinks
that's
the
appropriate
way
to
distribute
traffic,
I
can
try
to
put
some
there.
But
again
I
don't
think-
and
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
be
the
route
of
choice
for
many
people.
D
And
I
understand
that
I
think
it's
just
one
of
those
it'd
be
nice
to
see
it
in
the
option,
because
what
we
always
think
would
happen,
sometimes
is
not
the
case
and
so
for
the
neighbors
who
are
concerned
about
this
it'd
be
nice
for
them
to
have
an
understanding
of
what
could
actually
happen
or
a
model,
at
least
so
that's
just
a
thought
there.
The
second
question
I
guess
would
be
regarding
36.
So
often
we
see
that
the
on-ramp
to
36
is
completely
backed
up.
D
So
I
mean
is
again:
is
this
coming
back
to
us?
How?
How
are
we
planning
on
mitigating
this?
I
understand
that
it's
again,
maybe
a
special
time
with
covid,
but
the
on-ramp
to
36
is
always
backed
up.
I
mean
that's
just
a
fact
of
life,
so
is:
is
there
a
way
for
this
to
be
worked
into
the
plan
a
little
bit
more
or
addressed
further.
D
AE
It
could
be
for
spouses
that
are
unrelated
to
this
to
connecting
to
cu,
but
most
of
the
the
traffic
in
the
morning
is
probably
going
toward
the
other
campuses,
but
the
other
on-ramp
onto
us,
36,
which
may
be
of
concern-
and
we
have
identified
as
potentially
being
of
concern
in
the
future-
is
the
on-ramp
to
turn
left
to
go
back,
northwest
toward
cu
main
campus,
and
we
have
identified
a
way
to
mitigate
that
left.
Turn
congestion
it'll
likely
require
a
traffic
signal.
AE
Much
like
the
signal
that
exists
at
broadway
in
college
where
one
direction
the
travel
never
has
to
stop,
because
there's
never
any
conflicting
traffic,
but
the
oncoming
traffic
is
stopped
to
allow
the
left
turn
to
go
onto
the
ramp
and
we
believe
that's
a
legitimate
mitigation
measure
for
that.
On-Ramp
congestion.
H
Well,
just
a
quick
colloquy
in
terms
of
nearby
you're
asking
about
contingency
plans
if
it
doesn't
work
out
and
and
certainly
if
your
guesses
are
wrong
about
moorhead-
maybe
not
so
much.
But
there
is
the
trip
cap
though
right
cu
is,
is
held
to
a
maximum
number
of
trips
and
they
they
have
to
decrease
them
if
they
exceed
them
right.
So,
if
bill
somehow
you're
wrong
and
commuting
goes
to
120
of
pre-coded
conditions,
they're
still
stuck
with
that
trip
cap
right.
A
Great
we'll
see
no
other
mary,
your
hand's
still
up.
You
have
another
question:
nope.
Okay,
then
I
have
a
few
bill
for
the
traffic
study.
You
did.
What
assumptions
did
you
make
about
tantra
the
connection
from
tantra
to
cu
south.
AE
We
assumed
a
relatively
small
amount
of
traffic,
would
use
tantra,
say
from
sea
south
to
get
onto
westbound
table
mesa,
and
I
don't
have
that
volume
open
in
front
of
me.
But,
as
I
recall,
it's
probably
three
percent
of
the
traffic
might
want
to
go
through
that
way,
and-
and
we
did
that
because
at
the
time
we
didn't
know,
we
don't
have
a
finished
site
plan.
We
don't
know
how
that
route
might
be
mitigated.
AE
But
it
was
always
done
with
the
understanding
that
at
very
least
that
would
be
an
emergency
access
into
the
the
cu
south
campus.
But
it
could
also
potentially
maybe
serve
a
little
bit
of
the
say,
residential
development.
If
it
were
right
there
at
the
end
of
tantra,
because
tantra
right
now
stubs
out
into
the
edge
of
cu
south
and
and
so
we
did
assign
a
little
bit
of
traffic
to
go
on
tantra,
but
in
the
management
of
how
to
enforce
or
regulate.
AE
A
AO
So
we've
had
that
as
look
at
it,
both
as
both
a
connection
to
the
site,
just
an
open
connection
to
the
site
and
an
emergency
access.
I.
AE
G
AE
It's
through
a
school
zone
and
it's
it's
past
existing
residences
and
so
and
that's
why
we
didn't
assign
a
lot
of
traffic
there.
AO
Yeah,
so
I
think
that
we
would
look
more
toward
really
highway
93
as
adding
that
as
a
primary
access
from
the
south
and
table
mesa
having
those
be
the
primary
access
for
residents
and
the
traffic
coming
in
and
off
the
site
tantra,
we
would
be
okay
with
that,
going
to
more
just
emergency
access.
Okay,.
A
I
I
think
that
would
help
erase
some
questions
about
what
would
happen
there.
If
that
were
that
way,
and-
and
I
I
guess
then
bill
this
last
questions
for
you-
if
you
are
imagining
folks
taking
morehead
as
some
kind
of
shortcut
from
south
campus
to
main
campus,
I
guess
that's
the
only
one
that
would
make
a
lot
of
sense.
Would
you
imagine
they'd,
come
south
luke
drive
and
then
go
on
table
mesa
and
then
on
to
moorhead.
Is
that,
like
the
alternative
to
going
on
36
or
broadway
that
you'd
imagine.
AE
Well,
that
would
be
the
only
choice.
The
way
to
get
to
moorhead
right
would
be
to
go
from
loop
drive
to
on,
to
make
a
left
onto
table
mesa
and
then
make
a
ride
onto
moorhead,
and
that
would
be
the
route
they'd
have
to
take
to
get
to
moorhead
and
right,
and
so
they
turn
off
of
off
a
table
mesa
rather
than
going
over
to
broadway,
say
and
and
traveling
of
broadway
and
they've
already
made
a
decision
not
to
use
us
36,
because
they
turn
left
instead
of
right
coming
out
of
loot.
Draft.
A
Great
and
just
out
of
curiosity,
and
maybe
for
people
watching
who
are
concerned
about
this,
how
do
you
simulate
that,
like,
if
your
obvious
pathway,
that's
usually
quicker,
would
be
to
take
a
right
off
south
loop
and
then
a
left
and
get
on
36
versus
the
longer?
As
you
say,
three
minutes
longer
down
morehead?
How
do
you
have
a
simulation
that
takes
that
into
account.
AE
Well,
we
don't
have
a
very
detailed
calibrated
simulation
model
to
say
where
you
might
go,
that
the
the
level
of
effort
to
calibrate
a
model
to
make
that
decision
would
be
pretty
significant
and
most
of
the
travel
models
are
not
at
that
level
of
refinement
to
make
that
decision.
But
it
would.
It
would
pick
particular
corridors
one
over
the
other,
but
we
don't
have
a
reason
or
we
don't
have
a
regional
or
a
city-wide
travel
model
to
run
in
boulder.
AE
So
we
had
to
rely
on
conversations
between
city
staff
and
cu
staff,
get
an
idea
of
where
the
desire
lines
were
first
and
foremost,
and
then
then
look
at
the
grid,
and
it's
a
little
bit
of
my
crystal
ball
too,
on
where
we
think
the
traffic
might
go
looking
at
how
people
are
going
today.
Looking
at
the
turns
that
are
happening
onto
moorhead
today
versus
the
turns
that
are
happening
over
onto
onto
broadway.
AE
So
there's
not
a
a
travel
model
that
I
can
point
you
at
it
says:
that's
what
we
ran
and
that's
all
we
did,
but
it
was
based
on
a
lot
of
conversation
and
estimation.
But
that's
how
big
studies
are
done.
A
Okay,
very
good.
I
have
no
more
questions.
I
don't
see
any
other
council
questions
so
phil.
I
think
we're
good
to
move
on.
AE
A
AM
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much,
so
I
am
going
to
relinquish
relinquish
the
power
of
technology
to
our
more
capable
staff
and
emily
if
you
want
to
put
the
slide
up
to
slide
13.
That
would
be
great
appreciate
it.
So
the
next
topic
is
the
general
terms,
and
so
we
mentioned
earlier
that
we
would
anticipate
the
agreement
having
some
kind
of
general
terms
that
impacts
the
entire
site.
AM
Two
community
benefits,
but
we
heard
through
the
engagement
process
and
obviously
city
staff,
agrees
that
affordable
housing
is
critical,
and
if
that
can
be
a
part
of
this
package,
then
it
would.
It
would
certainly
strengthen
the
community
benefit
package.
At
the
end,
the
university
is
aware
that
we're
interested
in
this
and
is
also
aware
of
the
the
need
in
the
community
for
this
type
of
housing,
and
so
it's
basically
in
the
queue
now
to
be
discussed.
AM
Another
thing
we
heard
was
what
happens
if
cu
boulder
sells
a
portion
of
the
property
after
annexation
or
the
entire
property,
and
so
what
we
have
preliminary
agreement
on
now
is
that,
if
that
happens,
the
city
would
receive
a
first
right
of
offer
or
first
right
of
refusal
to
purchase
the
property.
Additionally,
if
the
city
is
not
the
ultimate
holder
of
the
title,
if
it
goes
to
a
different
property
owner,
then
city
regulations
processes
would
apply
to
that
new
owner
annexation
contingent
on
the
flood
mitigation
project.
AM
In
just
a
moment,
we'll
have
a
slide
on
that,
so
we'll
touch
on
it.
There
some
minor
changes.
We
are
working
with
the
university
to
determine
how
to
best
apply
our
outdoor
lighting
standards
and
wetland
standards
to
this
site,
as
well
as
opportunities
for
the
city
to
review
and
comment
on
this
future,
seeing
south
master
plan
and
future
development
plans
for
the
site.
AM
AM
One
would
be
a
more
of
a
compliance
check
like
the
buildings
are
this
tall,
but
we
also
wanted
to
work
into
the
agreement
and
understanding
and
intent
that
we
don't
know
what
we
don't
know
now
in
in
in
or
what
what
will
be
important
in
15
20
years
from
now,
and
so
the
university
has
agreed
that
we'll
also
have
discretionary
comments
and
if
the
university
cannot
meet
those,
then
we'll
receive
a
response
explaining.
Why
there's
also
no
change
to
two
other
items?
AM
AM
It's
probably
gonna,
be
up
to
the
city
and
the
university
to
work
together
after
the
annexation
at
the
appropriate
time
to
determine
how
to
best
use
that
those
two
acres
of
land,
if
that's
a
new
fire
station-
and
we
also
want
to
emphasize
that
it
by
receiving
two
acres
of
land
in
south
boulder,
it
doesn't
automatically
trigger
a
closure
of
any
fire
station
like
station
number
four.
So
I
wanted
to
just
emphasize
that
the
payment
and
low
of
taxes
is
a
point
of
disagreement
currently
with
the
city
staff
and
the
university
staff.
AM
AM
That
has
not
been
something
we've
been
able
to
reach
agreement
on.
We
did
provide
more
information
in
the
briefing
book
attachment
of
them
to
the
packet
tonight.
That
includes
some
additional
information
about
that
and
happy
to
answer
questions
too
emily.
Can
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
the
annexation
contingent
on
flood
mitigation?
AM
If
you
could
go
to
the
slide
14.
under
this
scenario,
for
example,
if
the
property
were
annexed
in
2021,
there
would
be
a
period
of
time,
probably
several
years.
Maybe
it's
2024.
We
not
we're
not
quite
sure
yet,
where
the
university
would
forego
all
development
except
for
recreation
fields.
AM
During
that
time,
the
city
would
would
be
pursuing
an
earnest.
The
final
design
and
permitting
for
the
flood
mitigation
project
and
there'd
be
a
set
point
in
time
where
the
question
would
be
called
of.
Is
the
flood
mitigation
project
approved?
If
the
answer
is
yes,
then
the
university
would
proceed
with
the
development
of
the
site
consistent
with
the
annexation
agreement.
A
Great,
thank
you
phil,
so
I
guess
questions
or
comments
on
the
general
terms.
AI
Mark,
I
I
think
the
negotiating
team
and
staff
are
making
great
progress
on
a
number
of
issues.
I
have
a
question
relating
to
a
subsequent
sale
of
the
property
phil
in
your
in
your
correspondence
with
me.
You
indicated
that
the
annexation
agreement
will
run
with
the
land.
That
is
correct.
Yes,
okay,
then
my
question
would
actually
be
for
tom
tom
carr
tom.
AI
And
if
the
annexation
agreement
in
effect
is
running
with
the
land,
does
that
require
any
subsequent
purchaser
to
build
to
comply
with
all
the
traffic
requirements,
to
build
1100
units
to
stay
within
the
the
the
buffer
zones
and
the
limited
development
zones
and
and
all
the
other
design
guidelines?
In
effect?
Can
it
be
converted
to
one
office
park
or
a
or
even
an
educational
use
that
is
vastly
different
than
what
we're
negotiating.
AG
So
that,
let's
show
what
runs
what
the
land
means
is
it's
a
it
is
a
binding
on
future
purchasers.
You
would
also
mark
have
the
option,
as
a
council
to
legislate
restrictions
for
that
area
by
by
zoning
it
or
building
in
other
restrictions.
The
challenge,
of
course,
with
cu,
is
that
they
don't
abide
by
city
zoning,
so
the
annexation
agreement
is
designed
to
restrict
them
in
the
future
by
agreement
in
ways
we
couldn't
do
legislatively.
AG
If,
if
you
were
worried
about
futures
transfer
to
non
non-governmental
entities,
you
could
draft
regulations
that
zoned
it
in
a
way
that
would
protect
it
appropriately.
Okay,
that
belt.
C
I
can
I
calculate
on
that
for
a
second,
so
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
following
what
you're
saying
tom
so
simultaneously
with
annexation.
Could
we
pass
an
ordinance
say
that
says
this
zoning
applies
to
this?
You
know
cu
south
area
that
says
it's
limited
to
ownership
by
or
I
don't
know
use
somehow
that's
educational
related
or
university
related
or
somehow
gets
it
like.
C
Ensuring
that
you
know
part
of
our
assumptions
are
that
people
who
are
living
there
are
going
to
be
basically
working
at
cu
and
going
to
school
there
and
sort
of
encapsulated
within
that
region
and
and
use.
So
is
there
some
ordinance
that
we
could
pass
that
would
sort
of
lock
that
in
in
the
event
of
of
a
future
sale
and
limited
in
those
ways.
AG
So
I'm
going
to
hesitate
yes
from
a
legal
standpoint
you
could.
I
would
defer
to
my
colleagues
in
planning
to
talk
about
how
we
would
do
something
like
that.
AG
Usually
doing
that
kind
of
zoning
is
a
heavy
lift
so
and
since
it's
not
necessary
for
this,
because
cu
wouldn't
be
subject
to
it,
you
could
put
it
on
the
long-range
plan
or
you
could
pass
an
ordinance
that
basically
did
it
on
for
on
an
overall
overarching
basis.
I'd
have
to
think
through
how
you
do
it,
but
yeah.
The
basic
answer
to
your
question
is
rachel.
Yes,
you
could
do
something
like
that.
AI
If
10
years
from
now
cu
wanted
to
sell
the
property,
whether
it's
developed
or
half
developed
or
not
developed
at
all
to
the
toll
brothers
development
company
back
east
would
would
that
be
able
to
occur
in
light
of
the
obligations
that
are
being
imposed
upon
that
purchaser.
AG
So
right
now,
yes,
the
city
would
have
a
right
of
first
refusal.
Y
AG
Is
what
we're
negotiating,
but
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
council
could
could
zone
it
in
a
way
that
an
applicant
would
be
subject
to
those
restrictions
as
long
as
you
do
it
before
the
sale
before
the
before
somebody
makes
an
application
as
long
as
you're
not
depriving
the
future
owner
of
all
all
potential
value
of
the
land
you
can
zone
in
a
way.
That's
consistent
with
your
your
goals
for
the
community.
Well,.
AI
Tom,
can
you
clarify
the
difference
between
doing
this
through
zoning
and
doing
this?
By
having
this
annexation
agreement
run
with
the
land?
I
was
under
the
impression
that
every
covenant
contained
in
the
annexation
agreement,
if
it
is
running
with
the
land,
would
be
binding
upon
purchasers,
successors
and
the
signs,
and
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
come
in
and
make
that
proposal
for
4
000
condos,
because
you're
obligated
to
follow
this
plan
is
that
incorrect.
AG
AM
Okay,
thank
you.
We're
also
getting
the
intent
from
the
planning
side,
too,
of
it's
sold
the
next
day.
This
proper
private
property
owner
has
public
zoning
for
a
hundred
and
acres,
or
so
what
can
they
do
there,
and
that
may
not
be
what
we
had
in
mind
now,
and
so
what
are
the
mechanisms
to
to
kind
of
address
that,
and
so
I
think
it
gives
us
something
that
you
want
at
least
mark
okay.
I
appreciate
it.
H
Aaron
yeah
well
I'll
start
with
the
colloquy.
That's
an
interesting
line
of
questioning,
so
I
think
if,
if
this
all
proceeds,
we
may
want
to
consider
changing
the
underlying
zoning
to
something
that
would
not
be
terribly
attractive
to
a
third
party
that
would
you
know,
on
top
of
the
annexation
agreement
right.
H
So
that's
an
interesting
idea
to
look
at
down
the
line
if
this
continues.
My
question
was
just
about
the
the
de-annexation
in
case
of
not
getting
permits
process.
I
think
this
is
a
creative
idea,
so
appreciate
people
looking
into
this.
H
My
question,
though,
is
that,
to
what
extent
are
we
required
to
make
a
good
faith
effort
with
these
clauses
to
obtain
those
approvals
like
let's
say
that
we
applied
for
permits
and
one
of
the
approving
bodies
came
back
and
said
you
know
what
we
can't
approve
that,
as
is
tweak
it
by
five
percent
and
you'll
be
fine.
H
AM
AM
So
I
don't
know
what
the
answer
is,
but
it
would
have
to
be
something
that
both
the
city
and
the
university
would
be
comfortable
with
if
it's
in
the
annexation
agreement
and
what
you're
describing
gives
more
latitude
to
the
city.
So
but
I'm
not
sure,
legally
speaking,
what
that
would
mean.
H
AG
K
Thanks
sam,
I
hadn't
realized
that
we
had
moved
on
from
comments
too
in
the
last
section.
So
I'll
just
save.
K
We
need
a
traffic
mitigation
on
moorhead,
just
put
a
three-way
stop
at
every
intersection
along
the
way,
and
I'm
not
sure
anyone
would
ever
use
that
street
again
so
that
that's
always
an
option
if
we
need
to
go
for
the
nuclear
option
there,
and
as
far
as
this
number
of
slides,
I
remember
bringing
up
the
sort
of
fees
for
usage
of
city
services,
since
you
use
the
city
services
but
doesn't
really
contribute
to
them.
K
A
Great
and
I
apologize
you're
right
adam,
I
had
not
called
for
comments
on
transportation,
so
in
answering
phil's
questions
on
this
deal
terms,
please
feel
free
to
weigh
in
with
anything
that
you
didn't
get
in
on
transportation.
Mary.
AH
Yeah
thanks
salmon,
I'm
where
adam
is
both
in
not
realizing.
We
hadn't
provided
the
comments
on
transportation
and
also
on
the
comment
regarding
the
the
pilot
fees,
but
my
comment
on
transportation
is
to
just
make
sure
that
as
we're
moving
forward
that
we're
looking
at
the
big
picture
and
looking
at
how
the
uses
in
this
area
will
be
affecting
our
connections
plan
as
well
as
looking
at
the
travel,
the
inter-campus
travel
and
making
sure
that
we
have
the
right
mitigations
in
place.
So
that's
my
comment
on
that.
AH
My
questions,
my
question
has
to
do
with
affordable
housing
and
what
are
we
thinking
to
this
point
and
is
there
a
some
sort
of
a
thought
to
address
a
broad.
AH
AM
AO
We
we
recognize
that
that
is
a
concern
and
we
reckon
we
have
the
same
concern
with
how
to
most
equitably
create
if
we're
going
to
create
housing
here.
How
do
we
do
it
for
across
the
community,
not
just
for
one
segment
of
the
community,
so
that
is
foremost
on
our
minds
with
regard
to
affordable
housing?
You
know
this
is
something
that
I
know
the
city
has
mentioned.
That
is
very
important
to
to
them.
AO
What
we
don't
haven't
gotten
yet
is
a
specific
ask
for
what
that
affordable
housing
could
look
like,
but
another
another
point,
and
I've
made
this
in
other
meetings
recently,
which
is
that
the
university
as
a
public
entity
cannot
avail
itself
of
the
of
the
federal
tax
incentives
that
actually
incentivize
the
development
of
affordable
housing,
and
so
it's
a
challenge
for
us
to
to
develop
what
is
what
people
typically
refer
to
whenever
they
mean,
whatever
they
say,
affordable,
housing.
AH
D
Yeah
and
I'll
just
wrap
up
my
comments
for
traffic,
because
I
didn't
know
we're
completely
done
with
that.
So
I
will
just
say
that
I
would
prefer
to
go
off
of
what
our
residents
are
stating
and
their
concerns
rather
than
the
thought
of
people
who
don't
live
in
boulder.
Our
residents
do
live
here
and
deal
with
this
on
a
daily
basis,
especially
when
traffic's
at
a
standstill
or
going
five
miles
an
hour
and
backed
up
like
it
usually
is
so.
D
I
would
strongly
urge
us
looking
at
ways
to
mitigate
moorhead
and
other
areas
that
could
be
impacted
by
the
traffic.
That's
always
going
to
back
up.
I'm
sorry,
it
doesn't
matter
if
coveted
or
not
we're
going
to
continue
to
increase,
as
the
population
continues
to
increase
so
for
thoughts
to
be
brought
into
this
rather
than
facts
is
not
something
I'm
interested
in
addressing
so
doing
this
in
a
factual
way
and
and
with
hardcore
evidence
and
and
listening
to
what
our
our
residents
say
is
more
important
to
me.
A
All
right
thanks.
I,
I
only
have
a
couple
of
comments.
None
on
traffic
here
derek.
I
just
mentioned
that
the
way
nonprofits
typically
deal
with
the
tax
credits,
the
light
tech
tax
credits.
Is
they
get
resold
at
a
discount,
so
you
can
usually
get
85
or
90
percent
of
the
value
by
using
a
third
party
that
can
monetize
those
tax
credits,
so
I'll
just
put
out
there
that
I
think
you
can
get
a
lot
of
the
value
as
a
public
institution.
A
It's
not
100
for
sure,
but
that
is
definitely
something
to
explore
when
you're
looking
at
financing
for
affordable
housing
is
how
to
monetize
those
with
partners.
So
that's
one
bit
and
the
other,
I'm
just
going
to
emphasize
that
I
agree
with
the
point
about
impact
fees.
You
know
we
will
have
to
provide
the
the
water
and
the
sewer
and
everything
that
that
goes
on
there
in
the
flood.
Control
obviously,
is
the
main
point
of
the
project,
so
we
will
need
to
be
discussing.
A
You
know
what
the
how
to
make
that
all
square
up
over
time.
I
think
we're
all
well
aware
of
it,
but
I'll
just
say
it
out
loud
here
for
that,
but
I
think
you
know
I
I,
like
the
general
terms
that
we're
talking
about
here.
I
think
it's
going
in
the
right
direction,
with
the
annexation
with
the
first
right
of
offer.
I
really
do
appreciate
mark
the
concept
of
looking
at
the
zoning.
I
think
that's
an
important
way
to
back
up
whatever
we
get
in
the
annexation
agreement.
A
AM
Okay,
emily,
if
you
don't
mind
going
to
number
16
there'll,
be
some
animations
with
this
one.
This
is
the
the
area
designated
public
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
It's
it's
of
the
308
acres
of
cu
south
it
represents
129
acres,
and
so
this
is
coming
up.
Thank
you,
emily.
You
can
press
next
once
so
through
the
various
recommendations,
and
it's
outlined
there
in
in
the
darker
line.
AM
We
city
staff
are
recommending,
through
the
totality
of
the
agreement,
that
upwards
of
40
of
the
site
be
conveyed,
is
open
space,
flood
mitigation
and
for
the
public
safety
facility.
We
we
just
discussed,
and
so
that's
land,
that
we're
negotiating
around
of
the
300
acres
380
acres
129
are
anticipated
for
development,
with
housing
being
the
predominant
use
in
small-scale
academic
buildings
being
constructed
after
a
significant
amount
of
housing
is
built.
AM
We
can
we
assembled
this
key
issues
map
to
highlight
that
some
of
the
constraints
we're
imposing
on
the
site
would
actually
further
limit
that,
and
so
emily
can
press
next
city
staff
is
proposing
and
press
it
again
that
a
buffer
along
the
western
property
line
be
established.
AM
So
after
meeting
with
some
of
the
neighborhoods,
we
were
initially
thinking
about
that,
certainly
around
the
high
view
subdivision
to
the
southwest,
but
we
also
heard
from
the
south
creek
7
folks,
but
they
were
interested
in
that,
and
so
we
have
proposed
that
and
are
negotiating
it.
It'd
also
be
a
good
location
for
a
multi-use
path
per
our
transportation
master
plan.
You
can
hit
that
again
emily,
so
that
would
also
there's
also
going
to
be
some
areas.
AM
The
university
is
developing
consistent
with
our
wetland
standards,
and
so
there
are
some
wetlands
on
the
site
shown
there.
You
can
press
it
again.
AM
You
can
hit
it
one
more
time,
emily
and
what
that
would
probably
leave
it
would
be
kind
of
pockets
of
development
when,
when
all
is
said
and
done,
given
the
constraints
that
were
noting
on
the
site
so
next
slide.
AM
We
are
also
the
guiding
principles,
has
a
section
around
prohibited
uses,
and
so
some
of
those
uses
include
things
like
a
large-scale
sports
venue
like
a
football
stadium.
That
was
a
big
concern
in
2017
when
we
were
adopting
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
so
our
task
at
this
point
is
to
define
what
that
actually
means.
So
recently,
the
university
proposed
that
large
sports
venue
be
capped
and
so
no
larger
than
a
300
or
3
000
person,
seating
venue.
AM
The
guiding
principles
also
detail
that
large
research
complexes,
like
those
on
the
east
campus,
will
be
prohibited.
What
we're
seeing
here
is
is
being
proposed
is
just
for
context.
AM
That
would
certainly
be
a
research
complex
and,
what's
being
proposed
by
the
university,
is
175
000
growth
square
feet,
which,
when
developing
that
I
know
there
were
discussions
around
the
aerospace
building
as
being
a
potential
example
of
what
that
may
look
like
on
cu
south
in
terms
of
the
overall
size
of
non-residential
buildings,
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
there'll
be
other
prohibited
uses
as
well.
The
first
three
are
in
the
briefing
book,
as
initially
proposed
by
the
university
and
we'll
need
to
work
on
other
definitions
like
enclosed
buildings.
AM
AM
Okay,
you
can
hit
next
until
those
two
boxes
are
just
filled.
Emily.
The
guiding
principles
also
talk
a
bit
about
balancing
residential
and
non-residential,
and
so
the
box
on
the
left
is
talks
a
bit
about
phasing
and
ensuring
that,
except
for
the
recreational
facilities,
that
development
will
be
phased
only
after
a
non-residential
space
will
be
phased
only
after
a
significant
amount
of
housing
is
built.
AM
The
university
recently
proposed
to
construct
100
residential
units
before
constructing
any
non-residential
space,
with
an
exception
of
ground
floor
retail
as
part
of
a
mixed
use.
Building
the
rationale
there
is
to
really
try
to
limit
some
of
the
off-site
trips,
and
so
that's
something
that
we've
been
talking
about
of
accessory
uses
that
would
limit
some
of
those
trips
to
the
grocery
store.
AM
The
other
guiding
principle
is
around
housing,
being
the
predominant
use
and
emphasizing
housing
units
over
non-residential
space.
We
don't
have
that
one
resolved
yet,
but
in
the
spirit
of
transparency,
wanted
to
share
what
we're
talking
about
and
that's
a
square
foot
ratio,
and
so
at
any
given
time
on
the
site.
We'd
be
looking
at
a
square
footage
overall
of
housing
and
a
square
footage
overall
of
non-residential
space.
And
if
you
thought
about
it,
as
a
ratio
or
a
scale,
it
would
always
be
leaning
towards
the
housing.
AM
AM
This
is
the
other
concept
that
you've
heard
about
a
little
bit
in
public
comment
is
that
the
university
has
agreed
to
comply
with
the
city's
55-foot
charter
height,
limit
and
measure
it
consistent
with
city
code.
However,
we
did
recognize
that
as
the
elevation
increases
to
the
west,
so
this
is
a
cross-section
looking
north
and
that
limited
impact
zone
is
that
southwest
portion
of
the
site.
AM
We
just
saw
those
tall
buildings
like
that,
may
not
be
appropriate,
and
so
what
we
have
agreement
on
is
to
limit
the
overall
roof
lines
of
buildings
as
it
at
roughly
the
height
of
the
single
family
homes,
one
or
two
story,
homes
at
the
highview
subdivision,
and
so
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide
emily,
and
so
what
that
would
look
like
is
this:
is
that
the
highest
point
of
the
site?
Looking
north?
AM
You
can
press
next
once
emily
and
if
you
could
just
imagine
a
horizontal
plane
going
over
the
site
and
no
building
on
the
site,
regardless
of
location,
would
be
able
to
exceed
that
particular
limit.
You
can
hit
next
two
more
times
emily
that
fence.
There
is,
I
believe,
the
property
line,
and
so
what
you
see
on
the
left
side
of
the
fence
is
a
strip
of
land
owned
by
the
city
and
in
our
transportation
master
plan.
AM
AM
And
that
those
are
the
key
points,
so
we
could
probably
stop
sharing
there.
I
did
want
to
provide
some
a
couple
of
notes:
the
community
input
on
the
development
of
the
site,
I
think,
there's
a
wide
range
of
views
on
whether
or
not
whether
or
not
the
site
should
be
developed.
AM
The
planning
board
did
note
some
preference
for
more
housing
in
less
non-residential
space
as
you'll.
Remember
the
scenario
and
the
transportation
plan
assumed,
and
there
seems
to
be
some
interest
on
capping
the
amount
of
non-residential
space
that
could
be
built
on
the
site
from
the
planning
board.
There
was
some
interest
in
open
space
within
the
development
itself
and
addressing
that
and
not
having
a
sea
of
parking
and,
lastly,
that
the
development
limitations
like
the
height
limits
and
things
seem
like
a
reasonable
approach.
AI
Mark
first,
I
think
the
the
height
ceiling
is
a
terrific
concept.
I'm
glad
you
guys
are
getting
to
agreement
on
it.
I
think
it's,
it's
really
excellent.
AI
AM
So
we
have
talked
about
applying
outdoor
lighting
standards,
but
operationally
with
hours
of
operation
noise,
that's
something
that
did
come
up
at
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
and
would
certainly
be
we'd,
be
interested
in
hearing
council's
opinion
on
it.
It's
not
something
that
we've
dove
into
with
the
negotiations
yet
well,.
AI
Then
I
then
I
will
express
a
view
that
we
ought
to
give
some
consideration
to
those
constraints,
because
a
a
sports
contest
in
front
of
3
000,
rabid
fans,
if
it
happens
to
be
at
10
o'clock
at
night,
is,
is
entirely
disruptive
to
communities
next
door
different
types
of
activities.
There
will
generate
different
types
of
noise
levels
and
both
in
terms
of
hours
of
operation
and
types
of
activities.
We
ought
to
be
looking
at.
I
in
my
hotline,
I
I
facetiously,
you
know,
talked
about
a
a
heavy
metal
band
concert.
AI
You
know,
and
I
don't
think
that
would
be.
That
would
go
over
really
well.
So
I
think
from
the
from
the
perspective
of
those
neighboring
communities,
we
ought
to
be
looking
at
ways
in
which
we
can
you
know
both
keep
the
light
and
sound
ought
to
be
uppermost
in
our
minds.
AI
A
Great,
I
I
have
a
colloquy
on
something
that
you
raised
that
I
I
didn't.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question.
Maybe
it's
for
derek.
You
know
the
kind
of
outlines
within
the
site
we've
seen
the
transportation
hub
and
then
I
saw
most
recently
there's
a
circle
for
a
parking
garage,
and
so
my
impression
was
that
there
would
be
a
concentrated
site
for
parking
one
or
two
that
were
garage
oriented.
Is
that
correct
or
will
there
be
parking
kind
of
distributed
throughout?
What's
the
view
on
auto
traffic
and
specifically
parking.
AO
We
don't
we
don't
know
just
because
we
don't
have
plans
out
there,
yet
it
would
follow
our.
I
think
what
we're
looking
to
do
on
campus
is
to
is
just
place
parking
in
the
most
strategic
locations
and
the
accessible
locations
and
keep
the
more
around
the
perimeter.
Now
I
don't
know
if
that'll
translate
out
to
here,
but
I
don't
think
that
we're
not
planning
on
building
a
giant
parking
garage
there.
AO
I
think
that
was
certainly
there
was
a
parking
garage
that
was
in
some
earlier
renderings
from
a
number
of
years
ago,
but
that's
not
something
we've
discussed
or
have
any
plans
for
at
this
point
we
do
have
with
regard
to
parking.
We
want
parking
to
play
a
big
role
in
the
tdm
program,
so
that's
going
to
be
limiting
limited
parking
and
it'll
be
shared,
unbundled
and
managed,
and
it
will
be
paid
parking.
So
those
are
kind
of
the
principles
that
the
acronym
is
sump.
AO
That's
used
for
that,
but
those
are
principles
that
we
use
on
campus
to
discourage
vehicle
trips
and
discard
and
discourage
people
having
cars,
bringing
cars
to
campus.
So
we'll
use
those
same
principles
here
on
the
site
and
those
are
part
of
the
design
guidelines.
A
They're
part
of
the
design
guidelines,
I'll
just
make
a
comment.
While
I've
got
the
floor,
it
seems
like
parking
might
be
something
that
we
want
to
put
into.
You
know
the
annexation
agreement,
so
we
understand
what
principles
will
be
used
and
they're
they're
well
understood
going
forward.
So
next
I've
got
mary
rachel
and
aaron
mary.
AH
Thank
you.
I
was
curious
as
to
how
the
3
000
number
for
the
sports
arena
was
arrived
at.
AO
AH
AO
That's
probably
a
question
for
me,
so
I'll
jump
on
and
answer
that
it
so
and
this
is,
it
may
be
just
a
misunderstanding
and
certainly
an
understandable
one,
because
where
we
came
up
with
that
three
thousand
number
and
a
possibility
number
is,
we
were
trying
to
define
what
the
threshold
is
for
prohibited
use.
It's
not
that
we
envision
that
we
will
build
pots
field
out
there
at
some
point
or
replicate
that
there
it
really
is.
AO
Is
that
as
we're
going
through,
we
had
this
list
of
prohibited
uses
and
one
of
those
was
no
large
sports
complexes,
and
so
we
got
into
a
dialogue
with
staff
about
okay.
So
what
is
large?
And
so
we
were
really.
Then
it
really
depends
upon
a
number
and
we
chose
potsfield
as
what
seemed
reasonable
because
it
wasn't
a
stadium.
It's
not
like
folsom
field.
It's
not
like
the
event
center,
which
holds
11
000
pokes
for
basketball
games.
AO
So
we
wanted
to
find
something
that
was
much
smaller
than
that.
But
how
can
then
have
everything
above
that
be
the
prohibited
use?
So
it
really
was
about
establishing
that
threshold
and
not
necessarily
planning
for
a
specific
field
to
be
developed
out
on
that
site
and
that's
not
saying
it
won't
be
in
the
future.
But
we're
trying
to
establish
parameters
for
those
prohibited
uses.
AH
And
has
thank
you
for
that
derek
and
has
the
in
connection
with
this
parameter?
Has
parking
been
considered
as
one
of
the
parameters
that
would
go
along
with
that.
AO
We've
thought
about
parking,
we
don't
know
yet
what
wreck
facilities
would
be
developed
in
that
area.
This
would
be
in
the
area
where
we
will
have
other
recreation
facilities.
That
would
be
other
say,
a
tracking
field
that
could
be
shared
with
parks
and
recreation,
city
and
bvsd.
AO
That's
one
thing:
that's
we've
had
discussions
about,
so
we
don't
necessarily
know
what
the
parking
would
look
like
there,
but
we
think
it
would
need
to
occur
most
likely
on
the
public
side
of
the
line
and
have
those
fields
aligned
on
the
pkuo
side
and
there's
a
there's
a
boundary
there
that
I
can
envision
and
I
apologize
if
you
can't
envision
that,
but
it's
we
would
have
to
build
things
like
parking
on
the
public
area
and
recreational
fields
would
be
on
the
in
the
pkuo
area.
AO
So
wherever
that
parking
would
be,
it
would
not
be
on
that
in
the
same
area
as
the
rec
fields,
but
we'd
have
to
develop
the
rec
field
so
that
the
parking
was
close
by.
So
if
people
were
coming
to
see
a
certain
event
there
or
to
participate
in
in
rec
sports
or
intramural
sports
for
the
university
that
they
have
easy
access
to
that.
AH
Okay,
great
and
as
long
as
there
are
some
parameters
that
are
being
considered
is
the
time
of
day
another
parameter
that
could
be
considered.
AH
Okay,
great,
thank
you
thank
you
for
that,
and
my
next
question
probably
is
for
you
as
well,
in
the
building
100
units
of
housing
before
building
any
non-residential.
AH
How
would
there
be
kind
of
a
leapfrogging
process
where
you
build
a
hundred,
and
then
you
can
build
so
much
non-residential
and
then
you've
built
that
much
non-residential?
Now
you
got
to
build
more
housing
or
I,
how
is
that
envisioned?
I.
AO
Don't
really
know
those
are
good
questions.
It's
a
complicated,
math
problem
that
we
haven't
solved
yet
to
try
and
figure,
because
it
was
a
guiding
principle
that
was
fairly
ambiguous,
that
there
would
be
a
a
substantial
number
of
housing
units
built
before
any
commercial
units
we
built
and
so
really
we're
just
trying
to
come
up
with
a
with
a
again
a
parameter
or
a
threshold
of
what
is
that
number?
What
does
that
mean
that
a
substantial
or
significant
number
of
housing
units
will
be
built
before
commercial.
AO
About
earlier,
because
there
will
always
be,
and
it's
that's
a
struggle
right,
we
don't
know
in
the
phasing
of
development
whether
that
you
could
take.
If
you
could
look
at
that
and
have
that
ratio
applied
at
any
given
point
in
time
or
if
it
just
needs
to
be
at
certain
stages
and
overall,
the
development
out
there
meets
that.
So
it
those.
C
Yeah,
it
was
kind
of
colloquially
on
mary's
points.
So
for
one
thing
I
I
guess
I
would
just
say
somebody
who's.
You
know
in
the
rooms
and
following
along
on
these
negotiations,
that
staff
are
having
nothing
set
in
stone
yet
so
like
to
me,
3000
sounds
kind
of
high
and
as
a
neighbor,
not
a
number
that
I
I
am
in
love
with
yet
so
I
would
just
say
to
council
like
part
of
what
we
are
doing
here
tonight.
C
I
hope
is
getting
feedback
from
you
all
on
what
you
hope
to
see
staff
negotiating
for
and
again
like
that,
though
you
know,
I
think
we
get
a
lot
of
emails
like
this
is
high.
I
can't
believe
you're
doing
that
and,
like
you
know,
nothing's
been
agreed
to
so
just
wanted
to
highlight
that,
in
terms
of,
I
think,
maybe
mark
made
the
point
about
a
heavy
metal
band.
C
I
this
is
maybe
a
question
for
staff,
but
I
assume
that
our
general
noise
ordinances
come
into
play
here
and,
like
sort
of
as
we've
seen
happening
at
the
rez
and
they're
expanding
services
out
there
into
the
evening
hours
like
they're,
doing
serious,
like
sound
level
checks
as
to
how
far
away
you
can
hear
what
decibel
and
what
impacts
it
will
have
in
the
neighborhood.
C
So
just
wondering,
is
it
accurate
that
that
at
a
sports
venue,
if,
if
a
heavy
metal
band
was
playing
outdoors
at
10
pm
and
all
these
new
residents,
we
know
we're
going
to
have
at
least
100
new
housing
units
built
before
anything
else
there?
What
will
that
look
like
in
terms
of
ordinances
and
and
requirements
for
noise?
So.
AM
I
don't
know
the
specific
answer
about
whether
or
not
a
heavy
metal
concert
would
violate
our
noise
ordinance,
but
I
assume
that
it
would
at
10
o'clock
and
I
think,
really
the
open
space
board
recommendation,
which
is
concerned
about
amplified
music
hours
of
operation
outdoor
lighting
ball
field
lighting.
AM
It's
a
concern
about
impacts,
the
open
space,
but
it's
very
similar
to
what
some
of
the
neighbors
have
concerns
about,
and
so
it
there's
very
much
overlap.
Overlapping
concerns
there,
and
so
I
I
do
want
to
just
say
that
it
is
how
to
apply.
The
noise
ordinance
is
in
the
queue
for
the
negotiation
discussion,
and
so,
if
there
were
even
it
doesn't
have
to
be
technical
or
specific,
but
like
what
sounds
acceptable
and
reasonable
and
what
doesn't
would
be
helpful
tonight
and
we
can
translate.
L
C
Thanks
and-
and
I
think
one
place
to
start
may
just
be
what's
in
our
code
and
is
that
directly
pertinent
to
an
outdoor
venue
on
on
a
campus
and
at
various
hours
and
then
also
just
to
add
from
the
neighborhood
perspective,
there's
there's
discussion
of
of
these
being
ncaa
certified
fields
and
things,
and
I
will
say
that
it
has
been
appealing
to
me
at
cu
south
that
there
would
be
fields
available
for
recreation,
for
people
who
live
nearby
and
community
members
and
the
way
that
the
tennis
courts
are
structured
there,
which
I
believe
are
ncaa
compliant.
C
Those
are
not
open
like.
I
can't
go
play
tennis
on
the
c
south
tennis
court
right
now,
and
so
I'm
hoping
that
whatever
is
put
there
or
most
of
what
is
put
there
is
rec
fields,
are
public
amenities
and
not
like
gated
off
and
then
wanted
to
just
agree.
I
like
the
idea
of
having
the
parking
principles
put
in
the
agreement,
because
I
could
see
if,
if
we
don't
do
that,
you
may
get
overflow
at
the
table
mesa
park
and
ride,
and
things
like
that
that
we
don't
anticipate.
C
So
there
does
need
to
be
adequate
parking.
I
think
conceived
of
for
on-site
and
and
not
overlooked.
That's
all.
I
got
thanks.
A
Thank
you,
rachel
aaron,.
H
I'll
just
write
in
the
comments:
I've
gotten
all
my
questions
answered
thanks
for
for
the
information
well
I'll,
just
say
that
that
the
3
000
attendees
does
seem
like
a
large
number
for
sports
facility
to
me.
That
feels
like
a
large
sports
facility.
So
I'd
encourage
us
to
see
if
we
can't
work
that
number
down.
H
I
don't
know
what
the
magic
number
is,
but
maybe
it's
more
like
I
don't
know
1500
or
something
I'm
I'm
not
an
expert
in
sports
fields,
but
I
you
are,
we
are
noticing
it
already
in
input
from
from
the
public.
There.
People
are
talking
about
the
proposed
3000
seat
sporting
field,
which
of
course,
is
not
what's
there's
nothing
specific
proposed,
but
it
would
be
allowed
under
that
proposed
number.
So
I
encourage
us
to
to
limit
that.
I
do.
H
I
appreciate
some
of
the
the
the
buffer
and
limited
impact
zones,
ideas
that
we
put
in
there.
Those
I
thought
were
creative
and
well
designed
I'm
glad
to
see
those
moving
forward.
I
had
a
meeting
with
somebody
who
lived
up
in
this
one
of
those
neighborhoods
a
few
months
ago
who
had
some
suggestions
about
ways.
They
could
mitigate
impacts
on
their
neighborhood
and
you've
done
them
all
already
in
this
proposed
agreement.
H
So
that's
that's
great
to
see
just
some
thoughts
on
the
the
residential
versus
non-residential
that
maybe
we
do
go
with
a
ratio.
I
mean,
I
think
our
community
has
a
really
desperate
need
for
additional
housing
in
in
in
town.
So
I
would
we
do
really
want
to
see
it
tilt
in
that
direction.
H
H
You
know
1.1
to
one
for
housing
versus
non-residential,
so
whatever
kind
of
numbers
we
can
get
the
university
to
agree
to
and
in
terms
of
staging,
maybe
there's
say
that.
Well,
you
generally
have
to
follow
that
ratio
all
the
way
through
site
development,
but
you
get
a
15
or
20
wiggle
room
for
up
to
a
couple
years.
You
know
like
if
you,
if
you
need
to
develop
one
major
non-residential
building,
that's
going
to
put
you
over
the
the
cap.
H
You
could
be
that
way
for
a
little
while
as
long
as
you
brought
it
back
by
the
the
time
of
the
eventual
completion.
You
know
you
could
have
some
some
formulas
with
some
allowances,
maybe
either
a
percentage
on
either
side
or
a
time
frame
or
both
so
that
they
could
still
practically
come
to
implement
a
set
of
development
plans.
H
A
AH
Okay,
thank
you
so
yeah
comments.
I
agree
with
everything
that
aaron
just
said,
and
especially
the
the
ratio
portion
of
it
it'll
be
tricky
with
allowing
non-residential
to
leapfrog
over
the
housing,
because
non-residential
generally
would
yield
more
need
for
housing.
So
then
you
get
out
of
balance
again
as
well
as
yield.
More
need,
more
need
for
parking
and
all
of
that
stuff.
So
so
it
has
to
be
done
in
consideration
of
all
the
other
ratios.
AH
So
with
respect
to
the
sports
field,
I
agree
with
aaron
there
too,
that
3000
is
too
high
and
to
say
that
that
sports
field,
a
smaller
number
of
potential
size,
would
not
have
any
lighting
need
for
lighting,
so
that
would
necessarily
limit
it
to
day
use
so
to
consider
those
things
so
that
there
is
no
potential
for
an
evening
concert
or
loud
game
or
or
lighting
that
is
going
to
upset
folks
and
and
wildlife,
and
things
like
that
so
yeah,
so
the
consideration
of
no
lighting
and
therefore
therefore
defaulting
into
deus.
A
Thanks
mary,
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
this
question,
so
I'm
not
asking
for
an
answer
tonight,
but
I
think
it
for
us
to
wrap
our
heads
around.
It
would
be
interesting
to
know
what
the
seating
is
at
the
fairview
stadium,
as
well
as
at
the
boulder
high
school
stadium.
Just
so
that
we
can,
you
know,
get
some
kind
of
scale.
Pots
field
isn't
probably
a
good
one,
because
not
lots
of
people
go
by
it,
and
I
don't
remember
many
big
sporting
events
there.
A
I
agree
with
everything
aaron
said
so
most
important,
that
the
focus
here
be
residential,
because
I
think
that's
the
way
that
the
the
development
was
conceived
and
talked
about
for
the
longest
time,
and
it
is
very
appealing
to
have
residential,
much
less
appealing
to
have
academic
and
non-residential
space.
So
I
think
there
are
two
parts
to
it.
I
find
the
idea
of
100
dwelling
units
before
you
can
begin
building
non-residential
not
to
be
substantial
enough.
A
You
know
I
would
want
to
be
thinking
more
in
the
line
of
250
or
300
dwelling
units,
just
as
a
starting
point,
because
100
dwelling
units,
I
can't
imagine
what
non-commercial
building
you're
going
to
put
up
there
of
any
significance
that
you're
going
to
have
less
than
100
dwelling
units
needed
for
it.
So
anyway,
I
would
say
100
seems
small.
The
ratio
is
important
as
aaron
said,
and
I
think
the
focus
really
does
need
to
be
clear
in
the
annexation
agreement
that
we
want
residential
first
and
predominantly,
and
then
on
the
field.
A
I
think
mary's
idea
is
one
well
worth
considering
of
not
having
lighting
at
all
or
if
we
do
have
lighting
on
a
field
that
that
be
the
furthest
away
from
residences
both
on
the
site
as
well
as
off
the
site.
So
I
think
that's
all
I've
got
on
this.
I
think
I
want
to
re-emphasize
what
mark
said
that
the
height
ceiling
concept
was
a
really
important.
A
J
Yeah,
I
agree
with
everything.
That's
been
said
that
housing
is
very
important
and
it
should
be
the
primary
focus.
J
I
just
wanted
to
just
make
a
comment
about
the
lighting
that
I
heard
earlier
and
I
think,
as
a
woman
thinking
about
safe
space
for
women,
I
think
lighting
is
something
that
is
very
important,
especially
at
night
time.
So
I
think
that's
something
that
we
have
to
consider,
or
at
least
ensure
that
if
we
do
it,
we
do
it
in
a
way
that
is
that
protects
the
safety
of
women
and
other
people
who
were
impacted
by
you
know
feeling
unsafe
or
at
night
time.
A
AM
Yep
and
I,
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
maybe
just
combine
the
next
two
and
we
can
hit
them
some
they're
kind
of
related
emily.
If
you
could
get
us
to
the
next
slide,
it
was
number
24..
The
next
area
is
the
park
urban
other
area,
and
so
this
is
60
acres
of
the
site.
The
actual
footprint
of
it
is
the
old
floodplain
flood
mitigation
footprint,
which
was
known
at
the
time
as
option
d.
AM
The
what
you're
seeing
here
is
just
the
city's
flood
mitigation
project
that
was
accepted
by
council
last
july.
That
includes
both
the
area
of
inundation,
excavation
and
also
the
area
of
phil,
the
area
phil
being
outside
the
flood
plain
right
now,
and
it
would
be
raised
to
a
level
that
would
be
protected
by
the
500-year
floodplain
and
that's
within
the
public
area
that
we
just
discussed
emily.
AM
If
you
could
press
next
once
please
so
in
this
area,
we
would
recommend
that
it
primarily
be
used
to
prioritize
the
construction
of
the
city's
flood
mitigation
project
and,
secondarily,
we're
also
exploring
areas
for
recreation
fields.
AM
The
university
has
a
stated
interest
in
30,
acres
or
so
of
recreational
fields,
and
it's
not
specific
to
citing
them,
but
really
reserving
the
land
to
use
it
later
and
design
them
through
a
planning
process.
So
what
we've
been
able
to
look
at
is
really
outside
that
excavation
area
being
about
roughly
15
acres
or
so
again.
AM
It's
something
we're
working
through
and
we're
trying
to
look
at
other
areas,
even
areas
in
that
excavation
area
that
would
be
appropriate
for
recreational
fields
if,
through
our
engineers
and
other
staff,
were
able
to
to
find
room
adequate
room
for
the
university
we
could.
We
could
solve
that
particular
point
of
disagreement,
but
more
discussion
is
needed.
We're
also
in
some
discussions
around
a
publicly
available
track,
so
whatever's
built
there.
It
would
include
something
like
that
and
that's
something
that
we're
discussing
and
we're
also
we've
heard
a
lot.
AM
Obviously
it's
a
lot
of
dog
walking
there,
and
so
we've
talked
about
having
a
publicly
accessible
dog
park,
and
so
those
are
under
discussion
right
now,
too
emily.
If
you
could
go
to
the
next
one
and
then
hit
next
again,
please
so
that
that's
a
might
be
a
quicker
conversation.
There
might
be
some
other
questions.
AM
We
have
joe
tattayucci
with
our
utilities
division
here
for
any
of
the
questions
around
flood
mitigation,
but
I
thought
that
we
could
probably
also
go
through
open
space
as
well,
and
so
this
is
129
acres
of
the
site.
It's
designated
open
space
other,
and
so
this
is
a
land
use
designation
that
indicates
land
in
our
comprehensive
plan
in
the
boulder
valley
that
the
city
and
county
would
like
to
preserve
through
various
means
and
methods.
AM
The
open
space
other
in
this
case
is
really
split
kind
of
in
half
by
an
existing
levee
system,
and
so,
when
you
hear
us
say
inside
and
outside
the
levee
outside,
the
levee
is
to
the
south
and
east
adjacent
to
city,
open
space
and
that's
44
acres
and
then
inside
the
levy
is
75
acres.
So
as
part
of
the
annexation
proposal,
the
university
is
offering
80
acres
of
land
to
the
city
at
no
cost
for
the
flood
mitigation
project.
AM
AM
AM
Let's
see
the
only
other
points
I
think
we
need
to
hit
on
here
is
that
the
roughly
the
boundary
of
this
open
space
area
is
roughly
the
500
year
flood
plane
and
we've
agreed
through
the
guiding
principles
that
no
structure
enclosed
structure
will
be
built
in
the
100
or
the
500-year
floodplain,
the
open
space
board
and
their
recommendation.
We
sent
meeting
summaries
of
the
planning
board
and
the
transportation
advisory
board
and
the
open
space
board
or
meeting
summaries
of
those
meetings
and
the
open
space
board
recommendation
to
counsel
yesterday
via
email.
AM
But,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
there
was
a
lot
of
comments
around
view
shed
protection.
So
with
removing
the
levy
there
will
be
some
vegetation,
that'll
be
removed,
and
so
the
board
has
interest
us
working
into
the
agreement.
Some
screening
requirements
for
development
on
the
site,
particularly
to
protect
the
view
shed
from
the
east
from
the
open
space
that
city
the
city-owned
open
space,
there's
also
a
lot
of
interest
in
minimizing
light
and
noise
pollution.
AM
The
planning
board
supported
also
staff
and
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
recommendation,
and
they
also
noted
that
we
should
consider
a
specific
term
that
we
will
collaborate
with
the
university
on
some
research
and
learning
opportunities
in
this
area,
so
it
could
kind
of
be
a
living
lab
in
in
some
form
or
fashion
emily.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
this
is
the
last
slide
of
the
the
slide
deck
for
tonight.
The
open
space
board
last
week
did
make
just
a
minor
tweak
to
one
of
their
recommendations.
That's
underlined
here.
AM
We
do
have
members
from
open
space
staff
here
with
us
today
and
emily.
You
could
probably
stop
sharing
the
screen
now
and
we
could
break
for
questions
and
input
on
both
the
park,
urban
other
area
and
the
open
space
area,
and
that
would
conclude
the
meeting.
A
Super
council
questions
on
park
urban
other,
which
I
think
we're
thinking
lots
of
fields
there
or
open
space
questions
or
comments.
A
Great
well,
there
we
go
mark
and
then
aaron
mark.
AI
I
guess
I
would
want
to
discuss
the
elephant
in
the
room,
which
is
there's
widespread
dissatisfaction
with
the
concept
of
boulder
paying
for
phil
to
be
placed
on
property
to
be
used
by
cu.
Has
that
conversation
changed
at
all,
because
I
see
it's
not
part
of.
A
Could
I
suggest
I
was
gonna
bring
us
to
that
the
the
question
of
cost
after
this,
so
if
we
could
do
park
urban
other
and
open
space,
I
I
I
have
a
bookmark
myself
to
bring
that
up
and
I'll
call
on
you.
First,
I
will
defer
okay,
aaron
and
rachel.
H
Yeah
so
appreciate
your
negotiations
on
figuring
out
the
the
rooms
for
those
recreational
fields
and
if
there
is
room
for
them
in
the
park,
urban
other
space
and
maybe
even
an
excavation
space,
great
and
well.
But
while
I
appreciate
the
open
space
board's
recommendation
to
to
put
nothing
in
the
oso
area,
my
understanding
the
guiding
principles
has
some
allowance
for
the
possibility
of
recreation
fields
within
the
oso
areas,
providing
that
they
are
in
areas
that
are
of
kind
of
lowest
ecological
quality
and
with
a
restoration
possibility.
H
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
that
on
the
table
that,
if,
if
you
know
if
it
fits
great,
but
if
it
doesn't,
if
you
need
five
or
ten
acres
on
the
edge
of
oso
and
places
that
are
not
suitable
for
restoration,
I
think
that
would
be
worth
considering.
AM
So
the
continuum
of
the
timeline
for
this
is
that
when
we
did
the
guiding
principles,
there
was
an
expectation
that
the
flood
wall
along
us
36
would
be
completely
in
the
c
dot
right
of
leg.
And
then
we
adopted
the
guiding
principles
and
then
we
find
out,
we
actually
had
to
move
it
onto
open
space,
and
I
think
it's
that
that
triggered
probably
additional
needs
from
the
open
space
board
to
to
be
firm
on
it,
and
I
think
that's
and
I'm
not
it's.
Ultimately,
it's
council's
decision,
but
I
just
want
to
provide
the
context.
H
I
I'm
aware
that
phil.
I
appreciate
the
comment,
but
I
understand
where
their
concerns
are
coming
from,
but
I
I
do
think
that
the
the
the
guiding
principles
were
written.
That
way,
as
I
recall,
with
the
with
the
idea
that
that
there
are
areas
of
that
oso
area
that
are
less
psychologically
sensitive
and
that
a
relatively
low
impact
recreational
field
would
not
be
incompatible
with
that.
H
So
I'm
just
going
to
disagree
a
little
bit
with
the
open
space
board's
recommendation
in
that
area
I
mean,
if
we
don't
need
to
fantastic,
you
know
don't
rush
there,
but
I
I
just
don't.
I
don't
want
to
break
the
deal
because
of
because
of
that,
and
that
also
appreciate
their
advocacy
for
getting
the
entire
oso
area
granted
to
the
city
along
with
the
water
rights,
and
if
we're
able
to
accomplish
that
fantastic,
but
you
know
see
how
that
goes.
I
it's.
H
I
don't
think
it's
in
the
university's
office
offer
currently
if
we
can
trade
for
other
things
fantastic,
but
I
I
would
not
walk
away
if
we're
not
granted
that
request.
C
I
think
this
maybe
is
a
question
for
open
space
staff
or
parks
and
rec
if
anybody's
on
the
on
the
call
you
know,
I
I
use
cu
south
a
lot
and,
and
it
is
a
very
convenient
place
to
walk
dogs
in
a
loop,
that's
flat
like
for,
for
people
that
want
to
walk.
That
is,
you
know,
I
don't
know,
maybe
have
knee
issues
or
you
just
want
a
flat
walk
or
whatever
it's
it's
a
great
spot
in
in
our
region
that
is
safe
to
have
dogs
off
leash
and
they're.
C
You
know
they're
not
going
to
run
into
traffic,
so
just
wondering
when
we
connect
open
space
with
the
other
available
open
space,
and
it's
great
that
there
may
be
a
dog
park
that
sees
south
in
the
in
the
future
incarnation
as
well,
but
that
won't
quite
have
the
same
feel
as
like.
You
know
you
getting
a
good
exercise
loop
in
yourself.
So
is
there
any
thought
to
maybe
recreating
some
of
what's
there
now
as
potential
when
we
convert
it
to
boulder
open
space
understanding
that
it?
C
AP
Hi
dan
burke,
director
open
space,
mountain
parks-
john
potter,
is
on
standby
too,
so
he
might
want
to
chime
in
on
this.
But
a
couple
of
things
rachel
on
that
is
first
I'll.
Just
go
back
to
the
board
motion
that
they
passed
in
march.
AP
They
did
make
us
provide
a
feedback
statement
in
regards
to
trails
future
trails,
and
it
was
basically
saying
it
would
be
to
plan
for
what
the
trail
system
would
be
on
the
cu
property
would
have
to
take
in
context
how
it
may
or
may
not
affect
open
space.
So
in
essence,
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
plan
just
a
trail
system
on
the
cu
south
property
if
it
ended
on
open
space
without
then
going
into
a
trail
planning
process
for
the
open
space
land.
AP
So
the
board
was
making
a
recommendation
that
when
it
comes
to
trails,
especially
trails
that
either
would
go
on
oso,
which
would
be
conveyed
over
to
the
city
or
that
would
end
at
open
space
lands
that
the
typical
planning
process
that
the
city
uses
plan,
open
space
trails
would
be
utilized
and
that's
a
pretty
robust
property
which
would
get
stakeholder
feedback.
Community
feedback
board
and
council
feedback,
and
so
that
would
in
essence,
that
we
wouldn't
design
isolated
trail
systems.
AP
But
we
would
use
a
robust
public
process
in
order
to
look
at
trail
design.
C
Okay,
and-
and
would
you
know
right
now,
you
can
park
at
sea,
south
and,
and
you
know,
take
dogs
some.
Some
people
arrive
with,
like
nine
dogs
that
hop
out
of
their
trunk
right
now
see
south.
So
would
the
vision
be
that
we
would
the
public
would
use
cu
south
parking
or,
like,
I
guess,
have
we
given
much
thought
to
sort
of
from
our
side
as
open
space
once
we
get
these
acres,
what
it
might
look
like
to
try
and
and
have
some
level
of
community
access?
AP
Yeah,
we
fully
anticipate
that
public
recreational
use
of
any
land
that
would
become
open
space
is
is
definitely
going
to
be
deserving
of
a
very
robust
discussion.
I
would
also
say
that
the
restoration
of
the
land
is
also
going
to
have
to
come
into
play
because
right
now
we're
contemplating
reconnecting
the
flood
plain,
which
would
be
a
really
robust
restoration
project.
AP
So
the
timing
for
recreational
trails
in
terms
of
the
the
restoration
project
too,
and
how
those
overlaps
would
also
have
to
come
into
consideration.
So
I
would
suggest
that
yes,
it's
definitely
on
our
minds,
but
that
that
would
be
a
pretty
much
a
a
public
planning
process
in
and
of
itself.
AP
A
Okay,
great
aaron,
I
assume
that's
a
leftover
hand.
Is
that
correct
great
so
on
on
these
subjects,
the
fields?
I
think
it
would
be
super
great
to
not
have
any
fields
on
oso,
and
I
think
it's
super
great
enough
that
we
should
make
that
a
is
something
that
we
definitely
work
towards.
A
The
the
other
reason
that
I
have
that
in
mind
is
if
we
are
going
to
use
oso
inside
the
levy
as
a
mitigation
bank
which
can
be
used
to
mitigate
some
of
the
development
on
the
other
parts
of
the
cu
property
that
do
have
ponds
and
wetlands
on
them.
Now
I
think
that
we
want
to
have
as
much
of
that
available
as
possible,
so
not
only
cu's
development
gets
mitigated,
but
we
do
as
much
as
we
can
to
restore
the
values
that
were
there
before
it
was
a
gravel
pit.
A
So
I
think
it's
well
worth
trying
to
get
as
much
of
that
oso
land
to
be
preserved,
not
only
for
the
values
that
we
want
for
our
open
space,
but
also
because
it
can
be
used
to
mitigate
some
of
the
land
that
will
be
developed
as
well.
A
So
I
think,
there's
a
double
upside
to
being
able
to
get
all
the
oso
into
preservation,
so
I
agree
there
and
we
don't
want
it
to
be
a
deal
breaker,
but
I
think
it
should
be
a
strong
area
of
emphasis
that,
if
we
can,
we
want
to
do
that.
So
that's
what
I've
got
on
oso
you've
already
heard
about
thoughts
on
fields
that
could
go
and
park
urban
other.
I
am
very
interested
in
knowing
the
excavation
area.
A
A
I
can
even
imagine
not
to
get
too
far
ahead
of
ourselves
that
you
could
have
what's
in
the
excavation
area,
be
more
rec
fields
and
then,
if
you're
going
to
have
intramural
or
things
where
there
will
be
standing
or
seated
but
not
bleacher
spectators
that
that
could
be
up
and
out
and
places
that
that
get
flooded
less
than
what's
in
the
excavation
area.
A
K
Process
question
there's
some
additional
slides
about
some
interesting
topics.
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
were
going
to
go
through
those
as
well
that
were
listed
under.
I
forget
what
it's
listed
under,
but
it's
like
the
fire
station
and
stuff
just
wanted
to
see
if
we
were
actually
going
to
cover
those
or
if
we
needed
to
ask
a
question
to
bring
those
up.
AM
A
A
If
it's
okay
with
council,
I
would
say
that
cost
is
an
area
that
I
think
is
big
enough,
that
we
need
to
touch
on
it
explicitly
and
at
least
make
our
feelings
known
to
staff
and
see
you
about
that,
and
then
I
would
say
anything
else
as
a
catch-all
that
we
didn't
touch
on.
So
are
we
good
with
going
to
cost
and
phil?
Are
you,
okay
with
us,
going
into
costs
and
then
other
things?
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we'll
make
sure
and
circle
back
adam
to
go
into
anything
else
that
you
want
to
cost
mark
brought
this
up.
So
I
think
I'll
just
turn
to
mark
and
mark.
Why
don't
you
tee
us
up
and
and
give
us
your
thoughts
on
that
and
other
council
members
can
react.
AI
There
are
a
couple
of
areas
with
respect
to
costs.
One,
of
course,
is
is
the.
AI
The
cost
of
the
project
itself,
which
I
would
contend,
is
probably
not
the
most
accurate
given
where
we
are
in
the
in
the
conversation.
AI
The
second
is
with
respect
to
the
payment
for
bearing
the
cost
of
fill
foresee.
You
know.
I
had
understood
that
it
was
the
recommendation
that
we
take
down
the
berm
and,
if
we're
taking
down
the
berm-
and
you
would
like
that,
fill
if
it
is
applicable
to
their
needs,
I
we
either
have
to
dispose
of
it
somewhere
else.
AI
We
might
as
well
provide
it
to
them,
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
sensitivity
in
the
community
to
the
concept
that
we
would
be
paying
to
raise
the
level
of
a
portion
of
the
property
to
get
it
out
of
the
floodplain
and-
and
I
had
also
thought
of
the
concept
of-
should
cost
at
any
point,
be
a
contingency
for
completion
of
the
transaction,
and
I'm
not
talking
about
it.
AI
If
the
costs
are,
you
know
15
or
20
percent
higher,
but
if
it
turns
out
that
they
are
very
very
substantially
higher,
we
either
have
to
take
the
position.
That
cost
is
not
a
factor
and
we
will
raise
the
utility
rates
to
whatever
is
needed
to
pay
for
the
project
or,
if
there's
a
level
at
which
cost
becomes
a
limiting
factor
for
us.
Should
we
build
that
in
as
a
sort
of
a
de-annexation.
AI
Those
are
my
cost
comments
so
far.
D
Thanksgiving
service
trying
to
get
my
hand
raised
up
yeah-
I
I
guess
I'll,
just
kind
of
jump
in
with
mark
and
and
throw
my
head
into
the
ring
on
this.
I
and
I
guess
I'll,
extend
it
to
further
stating
that
I'm
more,
not
only
am
I
concerned
about
the
costs,
but
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
amount
of
truck
travel
and
loads
that
this
is
going
to
be
to
carry
all
this
dirt
back
and
forth,
and
we've
heard
a
lot
of
this
from
the
residents.
D
So
I'm
mainly
raising
this
from
a
residential
standpoint
of
how
much
work,
pollution
and
cost
this
is
going
to
cause
the
city.
So
again,
I'm
still.
I
understand
that
it's
an
off
point
from
from
where
we're
at
and
that
we've
done
a
lot
of
work,
but
still
keeping
on
the
table
that
there's
planning
reserves
that
we
could
have
switched
this
to.
That
would
be
out
of
the
flood
plain
and
better
situated
to
handle
a
project.
D
That's
not
even
planned
yet
and
by
the
time
it
is
planned,
the
planning
reserve
would
be
ready
to
handle
it.
So
just
throwing
it
that
out
there.
There's
a
relatively
large
concern
when
we
talk
about
trying
to
mitigate
our
greenhouse
gas
impact
to
to
the
city
and
the
planet.
A
Thank
you
nearby.
I
guess
I'll
weigh
in
and
say
I
think
costs
are
a
big
deal.
I
I
think
the
fill
cost
is
definitely
one
that
we're
going
to
want
to
both
pay
attention
to
and
monitor.
I
think
there
are
options
that
we
will
want
to
return
to
as
council
and
talk
about
and
think
about.
I
would
say
that
I
I
know
that
we've
got
some
preliminary
work
on
this,
but
we
have
talked
about
filling
to
protect
against
500-year
flood,
which
is
consistent
with
the
guiding
principles.
A
A
I
think,
in
addition
to
phil
there's
all
the
other
components,
there's
pilot
there's
impact
fees
that
are
not
being
charged.
There's
construction
use
tax,
so
I
think,
there's
actually
a
long
list
of
items
that
fall
under
cost.
I
don't
think
we're
prepared
yet
to
talk
about
them,
because
I
don't
know
that
there's
been
much
more
than
just
listing
them
and
knowing
them
and
and
estimating
what
those
are.
A
So
I
don't
think
we
have
the
information
yet
to
be
able
to
have
a
robust
conversation
about
it,
I'll
just
flag
that
it's
going
to
be
one
of
the
most
critical
items.
So
as
we
get
those
developed,
we
might
think
about
a
study
session
where
we
focus
on
those
later
once.
We've
got
a
lot
more
clarity
on
on
some
of
the
other
issues,
because,
to
be
quite
frank,
some
of
the
other
decisions
we
make
will
drive
costs.
A
So
I
don't
want
to
gloss
over
it,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
enough
information
to
do
a
deep
dive
tonight,
but
I
think
we
can't
lose
track
of
it.
Nearby's
point
about
trucking
and
all
the
work
and
missions
that
go
along
with
trucking
phil
in
point
to
mark's
question,
which
is,
if
we
take
the
berm
down,
who
pays
for
that
and
if
we
do
remove
the
berm,
which
I
think
we
all
agree,
is
something
that
we
want
to
do.
How
much
does
that
mitigate
the
fill
trucking
requirements?
So
that's
another
component.
A
So
a
lot
comes
down
to
berm
phil.
Those
are
part
of
the
drivers
for
costs,
but
I
think
we're
going
to
need
to
definitely
return
to
this
and
return
to
it
within
the
next
six
to
eight
weeks,
because
we
can't
let
this
one
lie
too
long
to
get
to
the
end.
So
that's
all
I've
got
to
say
about
costs,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
hands
now.
Aaron
can.
C
I
just
one
of
your
points:
real
quick
sam
just
make
sure
that
we're
all
following
along
you
mentioned
the
100
versus
500
year
fill
requirement
and
the
guiding
principles,
I
think,
require
us
to
fill
to
500
year
and,
to
kind
of
you
know,
bring
their
level
up
to
being
outside
the
500-year
flood
plain
for
their
buildings.
C
And
so
my
question
is:
if
we
wanted
to
look
at
allowing
cu
to
build
in
the
100-year
floodplain,
which
is
essentially
the
protection
that
residents
are
getting
in
the
city
and
it's
a
cost
that
we
would
bear
to
go
up
from
100
to
500.
So
we
have
heard
a
lot
from
community
members
about
that.
What
would
that
look
like
given
that?
I
think
it's
in
the
guiding
principles
would
that
require
for
body
review
to
undo?
C
That
is
that
something
that,
if
we
even
wanted
to
think
about,
we
would
need
to
take
action
on
sooner
than
later,
or
is
that
just
a
normal
point
of
negotiations.
A
AG
AM
That's
my
thought,
too.
If
we
had
to
change
them.
The
chapter
in
the
comp
plan
that
they're
located
in
is
a
city
decision,
so
the
planning
board
and
council
could
make
that
decision,
but
they
are
guiding
and
so
and
we
we
are
consulting
with
our
county
colleagues
and
they'll,
have
a
referral
as
well,
but
yeah.
A
Great
and
I'll
just
say
rachel
one
other
thought
around
that
as
we
have
that
conversation
could
also
be
the
types
of
facilities
that
are
there.
So
you
know
if
they're
critical
facilities
you
might
say
in
if
we're
going
to
build
between
above
100
but
below
the
500,
you
might
also
be
able
to
talk
about
what
kinds
of
facilities
could
be
there.
So
just
a
thought:
aaron,
rachel,
mary
and
adam
aaron,.
H
I'll
start
by
continuing
the
colloquium
on
this
issue,
because
I
think
it's
a
good
point
and
rachel
to
put
a
fine
point
on.
I
don't
think
the
principle
was
that
we
would
elevate
all
of
their
buildable
land
to
the
500
year,
but
that
they
would
not
build
any
enclosed
structures
within
the
500-year
floodplain,
which
is
just
a
little
different,
but
also
my
when,
when
we
passed
those
guiding
principles.
My
understanding
the
intention
was
that
cu
would
not
build
any
enclosed
structures
on
the
existing
500-year,
floodplain
or
100-year.
H
Floodplain
was
how
I
sort
of
understood
it's
not
how
it's
written,
but
I
understood
that
to
be
the
intention,
rather
than
that,
when
the
mitigation
project
was
constructed,
that
we
would
have
to
elevate
any
land
to
the
500
out
of
the
500
year
level
that
was
put
into
it
by
the
excavation
project.
So
I
think
it's
worth
looking
at
I
mean
if
we
could.
H
I
don't
know
how
much
it
varies,
the
cost,
but
if
they
could
be
their
their
area
were
in
the
500
year,
but
not
the
100
year
and
it
saved
eight
million
dollars
in
filter.
That's
worth
looking
at.
So
I
think
it
bears
investigation
for
sure
sam.
I
thought
you
were
all
on
target
with
all
your
comments,
so
I
won't
repeat
any
of
those
the
costs
are
going
to
be
critical.
Obviously,
you
know
mark
had
a
great
point
of.
H
If
we
take
down
the
levy,
can
we
use
that
dirt
and
mitigate
some
costs?
That
way,
you
know
that's
really
worth
looking
into,
although
I
would
not
go
to
the
point
of
putting
in
a
de-annexation
clause
if
we
think
the
project
ends
up
being
too
expensive,
it's
a
kind
of
a
subjective,
or
you
know
the
financial
requirements
or
may
change
over
time.
So
I
don't
know
what
that
magic
number
would
be.
H
So
I
wouldn't
wouldn't
do
that
contingent,
but
we
got
to
keep
a
very
careful
eye
on
that.
I
just
wanted
to
to
come
back
to
something
from
open
comment.
If
the
person
is
still
around
some
one,
member
of
the
public
was
asking
why
what's
so
special
about
the
people
in
this
floodplain,
and
why
are
we
spending
a
bunch
of
money
here
and
not
other
places?
H
Just
to
be
clear,
we
spend
a
lot
of
money
on
a
regular
basis
on
flood
mitigation,
all
across
the
city
and
and
city
staff
can
back
me
up
here.
If
I
get
anything
wrong
or
correct
me,
but,
like
we
finished
the
wonderland
creek
project
in
the
last
handful
years
in
north
boulder,
the
there
was
the
goose
creek
mitigation
project
before
that
a
little
bit
further
south
of
that.
All
of
these
are
many
multi-million
dollars
projects
they
don't
protect
as
many
people,
but
they
cost
less
anyway.
H
We
just
the
point
being
that
we
spend
a
lot
of
money
on
flood
mitigation
all
over
the
city
on
a
regular
basis,
and
so
this
is,
you
know
this
is
taken
depending
on
how
you
count
20
years
to
to
get
to
this
point
and
planning
for
this
project.
Now
we're
at
this
project
we're
going
to
spend
if
it
all
works
out
a
bunch
of
money
on
this
one
in
a
few
years,
we'll
start
on
another
one
in
another
part
of
the
city
and
spend
a
bunch
of
money
on
that.
H
AQ
Yeah
that
that
is
a
fair
characterization
and
and
good
evening
council
and
joe
tatachi
utilities
director
and
yes,
the
the
south
boulder
creek
project,
would
benefit
the
2300
people,
as
mentioned
in
open
comet,
but
really
the
the
flood
fees
go
to
the
flood
protection
and
it's
also
the
storm
water,
which
are
two
two
distinct
things.
The
pipes
that
are
underground
that
convey
water
and
really
the
community
members
benefit
from
the
the
systems
that
we
have
in
place
and
that
we're
building
all
across
town.
It's
it's
not
just.
AQ
Does
it
protect
your
your
neighborhood
or
an
adjacent
neighborhood?
As
you
drive
around
bringing
people
to
school
or
or
shopping,
or
that
kind
of
thing
we
we
all
sort
of
benefit
from
the
collective
components
of
our
flood
in
stormwater
systems.
So
I
think
that's
an
important
point
to
consider
as
well
as
we're
thinking
about
the
fees
we
pay
and
the
rate
structures,
and
things
like
that.
H
I
appreciate
that
and
just
the
last
thing
while
I
I
have
the
floor
just
just
to
remind
everybody,
we
get
a
lot
we're
getting
a
lot
of
emails
right
now
saying
like.
Why
are
you
doing
this?
Why
would
you
consider
doing
this
and
fundamentally
we're
all
in
it
for
flood
mitigation
for
our
residents,
it's
those
protecting
those
2
300
people's
health
and
safety
and
property.
So
that's
why
we're
here?
A
And
aaron
I'd
like
to
call
it
way
a
bit
just
a
teeny
bit
and
ask
a
question
of
joe
joe.
We
saw
some
pictures
of
bear
creek,
you
know
the
bike
path,
flooding
and
so
on.
I
believe
that
that's
the
way
that
those
locations
are
designed
right
to
convey
the
flood
water
a
way
that
comes
out
of
in
that
case,
bear
creek,
but
all
along
goose,
creek
and
boulder
creek.
Could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about?
A
AQ
The
the
short
answer
is,
is
yes,
it's
functioning
the
way
it's
supposed
to,
and
I
believe
the
the
greenways
system
that
we
have
is
something
that
council
had
a
big
part
of
back
in
the
mid
80s,
I
believe
in
in
establishing
our
flood
and
drainage
ways
and
there's
definitely
a
fundamental
purpose
to
those
systems
of
conveying
flood
water.
But
we
have
multi-use
paths
in
them.
We
have
environmental,
habitat,
recreation
opportunities
and
all
those
things
and
in
in
normal
weather
conditions
the
community
gets
to
to
enjoy
all
of
those
different
benefits.
AQ
A
And
so
is
it
fair
to
say
that
there
has
been
some
flood
mitigation
effort
and
money
spent
in
the
south
boulder
area.
AQ
In
a
council
study
session,
there
there's
a
mapping
part
of
the
process,
there's
a
flood
mitigation
part
where
we
look
at
the
design,
alternatives
that
are
available
for
the
specific
drainages
and
then
there's
the
actual
design
and
construction
of
projects,
and
there
there's
a
series
of
slides.
I
have
in
the
backup
that
goes
through.
AQ
All
of
that,
but
and
staff
has
put
that
together
going
back
to
2004,
we
have
made
progress
on
on
all
of
those
fronts,
and
a
couple
of
the
significant
ones
in
recent
years
are
the
elmer's
two
mile
and
the
wonderland
creek,
which
were
designed
to
a
level
of
100
year.
Flood
protection,
the
wonderland
creek
project,
was
a
20
million
dollar
project
and
elmer's
two
mile,
I
believe,
was
was
9
million.
AQ
So
those
are
some
of
the
recent
ones
and
if
you
travel
around
town
on
the
multi-use
path,
the
there's
a
big
portion
of
the
goose
creek
path-
that's
been
developed
in
the
past.
So
we
we
are
making
progress
on
these
on
these
planning
studies
and
the
implementation
of
project,
but
there's
still
a
long
way
to
go
all
across
the
city.
A
Thank
you,
joe
rachel,
mary
and
adam
rachel,.
C
Joe,
while
you're
there
good
evening,
that's
really
interesting
about
like
the
multi-use
path,
could
look
catastrophically
flooded
and
yet,
as
functioning
as
designed,
I
hadn't
known
that.
So
that's
really
an
interesting
point,
but
I
do
I'm
obviously
very
sympathetic
to
people's
concern
that
that
they
need
need
better
flood
control
in
their
region
or
part
of
town,
and
I
think
that
we
are
that
that
we
started
a
community
work
group
with
flood
mitigation
effort.
AQ
Yeah,
thank
you
for
reminding
me
of
that
and
right
now
in
our
in
our
utilities
department.
One
of
our
priorities
in
our
work
plan
is
updating
our
comprehensive
flood
and
stormwater
master
plan
and
we're
working
on
that
and
planning
on
getting
that
finalized
in
2022.
AQ
I
believe,
and
we
formed
a
community
working
group
and
a
big
effort,
a
big
goal
of
that
plan.
AQ
It's
an
overarching
master
plan
for
that
utility
is
to
re-establish
how
we
prioritize
projects
across
the
city
and
historically
on
on
these
types
of
master
planning
efforts.
Yeah,
you
look
at
the
benefit,
cost
ratio,
how
how
many
structures
and
what
costs
are
they
that
are
being
protected?
And
what
is
the
cost
of
the
of
the
construction
of
whatever
project
you
might
be
looking
at
and
that
that
has
been
kind
of
the
the
central
point
of
of
planning
those
things
historically.
AQ
But
our
thinking
has
evolved
really
as
a
society
and
that
the
equity
and
racial
equity
and
and
like,
if
you
do
it,
just
purely
on
benefit
costs,
then
the
the
higher
damage
occurs
in
the
more
affluent
neighborhoods,
and
so
there's
there's
just
different
lenses
that
we're
looking
through
and
we're
having
conversations
with
a
community
working
group.
C
That's
that's
awesome
that
they
will
be
applying
that
lens.
It's
it's
long
been
a
concern
of
mine
on
this
project
that
there's
so
much
affordable,
housing
right
on
the
front
lines
of
the
flooding
here.
So
that's
just
good
that
that's
going
to
be
a
lens.
So
I
I
had
one
question
for
tom
and
then
also
just
wanted
to
speak
to
mark's
concern
about
you
know
if
the
cost
gets
too
high.
C
Do
we
consider
that
a
de-annexation
trigger-
and
I
mean
I
I
get
it
like-
we
don't
want
to
annex
this
property
and
then
not
get
flood
mitigation
like
that's.
Why
we're
looking
at
de-annexation,
but
I
do
think
it
would
be
hard
to
build
that
in
and
I
think
it
would
be
something
like
if
it
if
the
cost
was
too
high
from
cu
side
to
build
housing
like
we
would
not
expect
them
to
take
away
flood
mitigation
like.
C
I
would
hope
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
we
have
a,
you
know
approximately
half
of
the
property
given
to
us
as
open
space
and
then
affordable
housing
on
a
lot
of
it
and
and
still
get
the
benefits
that
we
could
hopefully
find
another
flood
mitigation
strategy
that
would
work
there
or
something
it
just.
C
It
would
feel
like
a
bit
of
a
a
slippery
slope
if
we
gave
ourselves
and
a
future
council
be
out
to
say
well
if
it
goes
up
by
a
penny
or
a
percent
or
whatever
that
we
can
undo
it.
So
I'd
just
be
concerned
about
people
manipulating
that
feature
from
kind
of
within,
and
then
my
question
for
tom
is
somebody
raised
the
question
of
you
know?
Is
it
legal?
Like?
Is
our
cost
structure?
Legal,
and
I
just
didn't
know
if
you
could
speak
to
that
or
if
that's
a
question
mark.
C
Well,
somebody
I
think
raised
you
know:
maybe
how
we're
gonna
do
the
the
rates
of
flow
mitigation
and
I'm
not
sure
what
their
it
was.
It
was
maybe
sam,
I
don't
know.
A
It
was
me-
and
I
was
just
pointing
out
that
you
know
open
space
expenditure
going
into
flood
rates
is
questionable,
so
I
mean
there's
just
some
open
questions.
I
think
we
need
to
be
clear
on
I'm
not
sure
that
I
I
feel
like
we're
running
a
foul
of
anything,
but
I
just
think
it's
just
a
question.
Yeah
and
we'll.
C
AG
Not
seen
something
that
gives
us
great
pause,
you
use
flood
mitigation
dollars
for
flood
mitigation
and
we'll
have
to
make
sure
that
we
account
for
it
and
aren't
using
it
for
the
wrong
thing,
but
that
that's
down
the
road
as
you
get
further
towards
the
actual
plan.
C
Okay
and
and
just
to
clarify,
if
we
can't
use
flood
mitigation
dollars
for
open
space,
we
can
use
open
space
dollars
for
open
space
purposes.
In
conjunction
with
this,
I
assume
yes,
okay,
thanks.
AI
C
Mac
holla,
quebec,
yes,
so
yeah.
I
do
think
that
that
it's
a
proper
consideration
like
at
some
point,
it's
it's
too
much
money
right
and
so
to
me.
The
question,
then,
is:
how
do
you
change
the
mitigation
strategy
to
be
workable
still
to
protect
lives,
because
it
is
a
health
and
safety
question,
and
this
is
why
we're
doing
it?
C
AI
I
I
understand
I,
I
guess
the
implicit
part
of
what
you're
saying
is
that
there's
some
sort
of
value
engineering
that
we
can
do
with
respect
to
the
flood
mitigation
project.
If
we
found
that
it
was
unreasonably
high,
I
don't
know
whether
that's
true
or
not,
but
I
would
certainly
you
know,
want
to
do
that
if
it
became
a
number
that
was
really
just
unsupportable.
C
AI
AQ
I
might
want
to
comment
on
that.
Definitely
the
the
costs
have
elevated
over
the
years
that
we've
been
planning
and
looking
at
design
of
this
project
and
and.
L
AQ
Some
of
the
things
like
the
the
fill
and
the
road
and
the
tennis
courts
and
and
those
things
should
have
been
in
our
cost
estimates
when
we
were
talking
about
this
in
previous
iterations
of
this
study,
because
those
are
real
costs
right
now
the
university
has
129
acres,
that
is
not
in
the
in
the
flood
plain
the
pub
land,
but
when
we
build
the
the
flood
wall
and
the
detention
facility,
it's
going
to
change
the
floodplain,
and
so
the
the
the
reason
for
the
fill
is
is
to
kind
of
make
them
whole
again
back
to
that
129
acres.
AQ
I
realized
that
that
has
been
a
real
point
of
contention
for
the
community
and
it
has
been
an
area
of
focus
in
our
staff
to
staff
conversations
with
the
university
we're
we're
exploring
every
option
and
looking
for
creative
solutions.
I
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
silver
bullet
option
to
deal
with
the
fill
and
the
costs,
but
we're
in
discussions
on
that
as
as
we
speak.
The
other
thing
I
would
say
is
in
this
latest
iteration
of
the
cost
estimate.
AQ
I
would
never
say
never
that
it
can't
go
up,
but
we
have
tried
to
err
on
the
conservative
conservatively
high
side
and
we
have
talked
internally
among
our
utility
staff.
If
it
starts
going
up
much
more
from
here,
then
I
think
we
would.
We
would
come
back
to
council
and
and
there's
a
point
where
we
would
say
we're
really
starting
to
have
some
concerns
with
this
fitting
into
our
future
funding
right
now,
at
the
cost
that
we
have.
AQ
We
can
fit
this
into
our
plan
and
our
bonding
capacity
and
there's
so
much
planning
in
process
with
all
these
projects
that
it's
going
to
take
time
to
develop
other
projects,
and
so
we
have
a
workable
financial
plan
right
now.
But
if
it,
if
it
doubles,
as
as
mark,
says
or
or
gets
in
the
100
million
range,
then
I
think
we'd
have
to
come
back
and
have
a
serious
conversation.
A
Thank
you
joe
thank
you
mark,
thank
you,
rachel,
mary
and
then
adam
mary.
AH
Thanks
sam
first
question
is
about
the
role
of
the
mile
high
flood
district
in
the
payment
or
or
coverage
of
the
costs
for
this
project.
How
what
role
do
they
they
play,
and
how
does
that
work
into
our
plans?.
AQ
So
the
the
mile
high
flood
district
is
is
partnering
with
us
on
this
project.
We
they
they
provide
funding
for
a
number
of
agencies
in
our
area
and
we
make
requests
for
their
funding
yeah
for
specific
projects
and
they
evaluate
that
and
and
and
they
make
grants
for
us
to
use,
use
those
funds
and
there's
there's
a
few
million
dollars
that
are
allocated
for
this
project
right
now
so
and
they're.
AQ
Also,
in
addition
to
providing
the
funding,
they
have
a
staff
lead
that
is
assigned
to
this
project
and
they
work
with
our
engineering
project
manager
and
are
involved
in
in
some
of
the
agency
discussions
and
in
in
meetings
with
us
and
helping
helping
us
partnering
with
us
on
and
some
of
the
other
agencies
on
those
things.
AQ
It
it
is
in
the
annual
budgets
it's
in
our
in
our
process.
I
don't
remember
the
years
and
how
much
is
allocated,
but
some
of
it
I
think
they
have
already
applied
some
funding.
I.
AH
Yeah
because,
as
I
recall,
what
they
do,
is
they
they
bank
it
up.
You
know
a
little
bit
every
year
targeting
that
year
in
which
it
happens
to
have
the
full
amount.
If
I
recall
correctly,
is
that
how
they're
doing
it
you.
AQ
Know
I
might,
I
might
defer
to
bob
or
juni,
who
are
the
board
representatives
on
that
and
I'm
getting
a
chat
note
here
from
my
staff.
It
is,
it
is
part
of
their
cip
planning
and
I
I'm
not
sure
if
they,
if
they
bank
it
up,
but
I've
I've
seen
it
in
rcip
in
certain
years.
There's
there's
an
amount.
AH
Yeah,
okay!
Well,
I
was
just
curious
about
how
how
that
works
into
our
our
planning.
But
it
sounds
like
it's
all
that
they're
they're
at
the
table,
basically
and
and
then
my
other
question
is
about
the
the
timing
and
the
plan
for
coming
back
to
council
with
respect
to
costs
because,
as
you
just
mentioned
a
little
while
ago,
that,
if
you
see
the
cost
starting
to
go
up,
you
need
to
come
back
to
council
and
you
know
and
raise
the
flag.
So
what
is
the
plan
there?
And
and
how
does
that?
AH
Work
into
meeting
scheduling
and.
U
AH
If
it's
necessary
to
have
like
a
special
meeting,
because
our
calendar's
full-
and
we
have
to
talk
about
this-
I'd
just
like
to
have
an
idea
of
what
the
the
planning
there
is
in
terms
of
the
costs.
AQ
Sure,
and,
and
going
back
to
the
question
on
the
mile
high
flood
district.
So
every
year,
when
we
do
our
budget,
the
capital
improvement
projects
are
a
huge
element
across
all
of
our
utilities
of
our
overall
funding
needs.
And
so,
when
we
show
our
fund
balance
for
the
flood
utility,
we
know
what
we're
getting
from
the
mile
high
flood
district
and
which
projects
they're
allocated
and
what
year
we're
going
to
get
them.
AQ
And
so,
when
we
bring
our
our
budget
and
our
rate
proposals
forward
for
council
approval,
those
are
factored
in
in
there
and
those
contributions
are
are
part
of
our
bottom
line
that
we
that
we
count
on
as
far
as
when
council
would
know
if,
if
there
was
an
issue
with
the
costs
and
how
it
relates
to
these
negotiations,
I
I
would
echo
what
sam
said.
It
is
a
big
part
of
the
discussions
with
the
university
and
it's
something
that
we
hope
to
resolve
before.
AQ
Council
has
to
take
action
on
this
annexation
agreement
later
in
the
year,
so
that
that
is
our
our
project
team.
Our
whole
project
team
and
including
phil's
goal
of
working
through
some
of
those
creative
ideas
that
we're
throwing
around
with
the
university
around
phil
and
what
options
we
might
have.
AQ
So
if
I
think
we
have
to
dig
deeper
into
those
discussions
and
negotiations
before
we
would
come
back
to
council,
so
sam
or
rachel,
I
don't
know
if
you
have
a
thought
on
that,
but
sometime
in
the
next
couple
months,
I
think
you
would
hear
from
us
if,
if
we
saw
that
there
was
a
big
problem
with
costs
or
resolving.
AH
Them
yeah,
thank
you
and,
and
then
just
finally
just
a
comment
about
as
we're
going
through
these
negotiations
and
hoping
that
as
we
do,
that
that
we're
connecting
the
dots
on
things
where
the
city
doesn't
want
to
pay
for
this
and
the
universities
want
to
pay
for
that.
AH
How
can
we
connect
those
two
to
maybe
even
come
up
with
some
sort
of
bartering
situation
where,
where
we
can,
you
know
we
can
do
a
win-win
sort
of
connection
there,
so
to
keep
in
mind
where
those
things
are
happening,
so
that,
if
there's
some
serendipity
that
they
can
be
connected
and
we
can
save
some
money
there,
I
I
think
we
should
be
looking
for
that.
AQ
Definitely,
I
think
it's
in
both
the
universities
and
and
the
city's
interest
to
keep
working
on
these
costs.
As
I,
I
think,
it's
a
big
factor
in
getting
community
support
as
well.
K
Yeah,
I
have
a
quick
question
about
dirt.
How
is
the
negotiating
process
for
the
dirt
going
to
work?
Because
that's
not
something
I've
actually
heard
a
lot
about
who
gets
to
control,
who
buys
the
dirt
who
sources
the
dirt?
AQ
So
I
I
think,
as
it
stands,
it's
our
our
project
is
changing
the
flood
plain
and
the
concept
is
that
we
we
would
place
it
as
part
of
the
as
part
of
the
project
the
city
would,
but
I
think
when
we,
when
we
get
down
to
it,
and
it's
probably
going
to
be
cost,
that
is
among
the
last
issues
that
were
we're
working
on
with
the
university
somebody
said
earlier
tonight,
nothing's
been
agreed
to
yet
so
it's
kind
of
all
on
the
table.
How
how
all
that's
going
to
work.
K
Gotcha,
I
just
don't
want
to
run
into
a
situation
where
cu
gets
to
choose
where
the
dirt
comes
from,
and
then
the
dirt
comes
at
a
substantially
higher
price
for
no
apparent
reason,
or
someone
gets
favoritism
and
sourcing
the
dirt
something
along
those
lines.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
make
it
a
transparent
and
you
know
easy
to
follow
process.
Also.
You
said
you're
trying
to
think
of
all
the
creative
solutions
you
can
I'll
just
provide.
K
One
comment
that
you
know
seems
to
make
sense
if
we
have
any
really
excavation
intensive
projects
for
flood
mitigation
or
anything
else
that
we
could
line
up
with
this,
to
try
to
do
that
as
best
as
possible.
If
this
is
actually,
you
know
what
we
decide
to
go
forward
with
eventually
or
if
we
need
to
have
a
dirt
drive,
let's,
let's
do
it.
AQ
But
we
we
definitely
do
that
in
our
in
all
of
our
projects,
if
there
are
sources
for
things
and
there's
synergy
between
projects
to
to
use
materials
from
one
area
to
another.
We
do
that.
The
contractors
that
that
work
on
our
projects
are
creative
in
sourcing
materials,
so
that'll
definitely
be
in
the
conversation.
A
Okay,
rachel.
C
There,
obviously
that's
part
of
why
we're
talking
about
looking
at
maybe
just
100
years
worth
of
dirt,
rather
than
500
years,
because
that's
less
dirt
that
would
be
required
there
and
also
that
if
the
berm
comes
down,
it's
just
so
close
to
it
that
that
would
be
really
nice
to
be
able
to
just
shuttle
it
right
over
to
the
filter,
and
I
don't
know
how
much
synergy
is:
is
an
option
there,
but
just
to
say
that
we're
definitely
thinking
about
dirt
and
thinking
about
making
dirt
cheap
and
also
just
wanted
to
say
from
my
perspective
or
my
understanding
is
we've
heard
many
people
say
why
can't
you
do
a
land
swap,
and
you
know
the
the
shorter
answer
is
we
can't
do
that
right
now,
but
I
don't
think
we're
precluded
from
doing
it
in
the
future
if
people
wanted
to
if
it
was
a
win-win
for
the
city
and
cu,
I
don't
think
anything
about
this.
C
Annexation
means
that
we
couldn't
come
back
to
each
other
in
in
one
three
five
ten
years
and
say
actually
that's
better,
so
just
putting
it
out
there.
I
don't,
I
don't
think
that
doing
this
annexation
forecloses
us
looking
at
the
planning
reserve
area
down
the
line
and
then
also
just
wanted
to
ask
procedurally
sam.
Might
it
make
sense
to
invite
derek
or
abby
to
respond
to
anything
tonight
so
that
we
don't
get
back
into
negotiations
and
wish
that
we
had
had
something
lifted
up
to
all
of
council
from
their
perspective?
So.
AI
Mark
just
one
more
question
about
dirt
for
joe,
that
seems
to
be
the
the
main
topic.
The
berm
is
the
berm,
it's
just
sort
of
sitting
there
do.
We
know
enough
about
it
yet
to
get
a
a
really
a
firm
estimate
as
to
what
it
would
take
to
deconstruct
that
berm.
AQ
Yes-
and
I
don't
personally,
have
the
details
of
all
those
those
types
of
things
but
brandon
coleman,
our
project
manager
is,
is
thinking
about
that
and
working
on
it
that
I
asked
him
about
the
the
material
from
the
levy
and
could
that
be
used
in
the
in
the
fill
and
definitely
a
thought
that
it
could
be
used
in
our
earthen
embankment
for
the
dam
itself
there.
AQ
There
is
not
a
significant
amount
there
to
to
really
make
a
huge
dent
in
the
fill
placement
that
we're
talking
about,
but
it
all
helps
and
and
sourcing,
what's
available
on
site
from
our
excavation
area
and
and
from
the
the
levy
would
be
potential
options.
Okay,.
AI
A
K
Yeah,
I
want
to
talk
very
briefly
about
the
fire
station
kicking
off
with
the
understanding
that
mark
and
I
went
and
visited
fire
station
number
four,
and
I
think
we
were
both
pretty
blown
away
by
what
it
is
and
so
yeah.
I
just
wanted
the
three
very
brief
two
sentence:
answers
to
these
three
questions
you
have
on
this
fire
station
slide
and
if
you
need
me
to
read
them,
I
I
can
do
that.
AM
AM
Started
when
we
made
our
initial
sponsor
response
to
the
annexation
application
in
2019,
we
identified
that
there's
just
an
opportunity
for
collaboration
between
the
city
and
the
university
on
something
here.
AM
It
seemed
like
a
mutually
beneficial
arrangement
to
have
additional
capacity
in
south
boulder
and
then
also
its
benefit
for
the
university
to
have
a
closer
fire
station
too,
and
so
it
seemed
like
a
win-win
situation
that
the
university
was
open
to
it
progressed
throughout
the
year
or
so
and
and
they
ultimately
had
made
a
firm
offer
of
two
acres
of
land
and
so
in
practice.
AM
AM
insurance
rates.
There
was
some
discussions
around
whether
or
not
they
will
increase
insurance
rates,
and
so
without
the
talking
points
in
front
of
me,
I
would
say
in
general,
it's
the
city
doesn't
have
as
many
as
much
leverage
or
influence
over
the
rates
of
insurance,
but
makes
decisions
to
increase
coverage
and
ultimately,
which
the
actions
cumulatively,
will
ultimately
decrease
insurance
rates.
K
K
I
could
just
say
one
thing:
sort
of
yeah.
I
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
a
lot
of
community
members
don't
want
anything
here
at
all
like
we
get
emails
saying
that
all
the
time-
and
I
totally
understand
that
I
probably
fit
in
that
sort
of
group
of
people
that
doesn't
ultimately
want
to
see
anything
here.
But
I
also
understand
that
there
are
competing
needs
in
the
community
and
to
work
on
a
good
faith
basis
to
try
to
find
the
best
solution
to
those
competing
needs.
K
Is
super
important,
so
just
understand
community
wide
that
your
input
is
being
heard,
and
we
still
have
a
process
here
that
we
have
to
go
through
to
make
sure
that
we're
sussing
out
the
best
solution
for
the
problems
we
have
here.
So
just
wanted
to
say
that
adam.
A
AM
No,
we
will
be
working,
we
appreciate,
aaron
and
and
mark
helping
us
out
with
the
process
committee
and
so
we'll
work
with
them
on
some
scheduling
matters
with
the
cost.
A
Okay,
thanks
for
that
now
I'll
turn
to
see
you
derek
any
anything
you
want
to
leave
us
with
any
answers
you
want
to
give
or
comments.
AO
Sure,
thank
you
sam
I'll,
say
something
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
abby
see
if
she
has
anything
to
add,
but
I
would
just
say
that,
based
on
the
conversation
tonight,
what
we've
heard
this
has
been
very
good
information
for
us
to
hear,
and
I
think
that
we
are
optimistic
that
we're
all
working
in
good
faith,
to
reach
an
agreeable
solution
to
to
to
this
transaction,
to
find
out
how
we
can
get
annexation.
AO
How
we
get
flood
mitigation,
how
we
can
make
all
this
work
in
a
way
that
will
work
for
both
the
city
and
cu
and
so
really
appreciate
your
efforts
and
yeah
yeah.
This
has
been
very
a
very
positive
meeting
for
us
to
be
involved
in
super
happy.
R
Thanks,
derek
and
yeah:
I'm
not
used
to
introducing
myself
at
the
end
of
a
meeting,
but
I
will
because
I
haven't
met
all
of
you.
My
name
is
abby
benson
and
I
know
many
of
you
know
francis
draper,
who
has
been
working
on
this
project
for
a
long
time
and
recently
retired.
So
I'm
attempting
to
step
in
her
very
large
shoes
and
and
help
work
with
derek
and
the
rest
of
the
university
to
move
this
project
forward,
and
I
just
want
to
echo
what
derek
said.
R
I
think
this
has
been
really
useful
to
hear
your
direction
in
the
comments.
I
think
you
know
we're
very
optimistic
about
the
progress
has
been
made
and
have
appreciated
the
commitment
of
staff
and
council
to
work
together.
I
say
I
agree
with
you.
R
I
think
costs
are
going
to
be
a
big
issue,
so
I
look
forward
to
digging
in
on
that,
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we're
you
know
bringing
an
agreement
to
the
campus
leadership
and
also
our
board
of
regents,
who
have
the
fiduciary
responsibility
for
the
university
that
we
can
all
come
to
agreement
on.
But
it's
it's
important
for
life
and
safety
and
it's
important
for
the
university
and
our
future,
so
look
forward
to
the
opportunity
to
keep
the
discussions
going.
So
thanks
for
letting
us
be
here
tonight.
A
Super
well,
thank
you
for
being
here
to
see
you
staff.
Thank
you
for
a
very
good
presentation
on
a
very
complicated
subject.
Thanks
for
breaking
it
down
into
chunks
that
we
can
manage
in
our
heads,
I
will
echo
what
adam
said.
I've
been
doing
a
lot
of
that
lately.
I
think
that
this
is
a
project
that
has
a
lot
of
disparate
interests,
involved,
life
safety,
first
and
foremost,
how
this
floodway
fits
into
our
management.
A
A
But
sometimes
you
know
when
you
have
competing
interests.
The
job
of
government
is
to
balance
those
competing
interests
in
a
way
that
gives
everybody
the
most
that
they
can
get
in
a
deal,
and
so
that's
what
we're
working
on
we're
working
very
hard
to
listen
to
input
from
the
community
to
help
us
do
the
best
job
we
can
at
that.
So
it
is
a
complicated,
difficult
project.