►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Session 9-21-2021
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).
C
D
B
D
A
Thank
you
very
much.
The
first
thing
we
need
to
do
tonight
is
to
amend
the
agenda.
We
are
tonight
going
to
remove
item
4b,
which
is
a
call-up
consideration
for
2504
spruce
street.
We
have
moved
that
item
to
the
september
28th
meeting
when
we
all
have
a
full
council
compliment.
So
could
I
please
have
a
motion
to
him
in
the
agenda.
A
F
F
A
F
Sure
thing
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
aware
that
this
meeting
is
called
to
conduct
the
business
of
the
city
folder
only
and
any
activities
that
disrupt
that
business
are
not
allowed.
The
time.
F
Asking
questions
is
limited
and
we'll
make
sure
to
move
through
our
participants
and
hope
and
comment
when
we
get
there
and
open
comment,
participants
will
share
with
their
full
name
and
we'll
hear
from
our
open
comment.
Participants
audio
only
and
you
know
the
the
person
presiding
at
this
meeting
in
this
case,
mayor
weaver
will
work
to
enforce
these
rules
as
needed,
and
just
to
note
that
the
chat
functionality
has
been
disabled.
A
G
My
name
is
patrick
murphy.
I've
lived
in
boulder
for
52
years.
The
muni
mercifully
died
on
november
2020
boulder
had
a
chance
to
demonstrate
what
fast
and
responsive
means
with
respect
to
climate
change
and
engaging
boulder
citizens
in
what
some
of
you
have
correctly
defined
as
an
existential
threat.
Climate
change
boulder
is
failing
both
the
speed
and
quality
tests.
For
example,
the
excel
energy
partnership
advisory
panel
took
six
months
to
establish
and
is
made
up
of
18
boulder
citizens.
G
In
addition,
in
a
totally
illogical
faction
fashion,
boulder
collects
about
7
million
dollars
a
year
in
carbon
taxes.
I
repeat:
carbon
taxes,
the
other
three
million
are
producing
very
little
in
comparison
to
what
they
could
be.
Give
us
back
that
four
million
dollars
of
carbon
taxes
and
pay
for
police
and
fire
with
a
separate
tax.
The
carbon
action
leadership
are
leftovers
from
the
muni
effort
and
have
lost
the
ability
to
act
versus
proselytized
endlessly.
G
H
H
It's
like
biden
today,
deporting
the
haitians
and
denying
the
argument
that
it's
a
matter
of
public
health
in
a
pandemic.
Talk
about
climate
change,
refugees,
two
of
them
for
haiti,
and
now
the
creation
of
more
development
in
boulder
to
subject
more
inhabitants
to
be
subjected
to
climate
change
events,
so
they
can
be
transformed
to
refugees.
H
Asylum
is
stopped
before
you
create
the
need
for
asylum
in
boulder.
Now
there
was
a
very
great
letter
written
today.
The
current
agreement
will
not
achieve
long-term
flood
protection
for
fraser
meadows.
It
may
fail
to
even
achieve
adequate
flood
protection
at
all.
This
is
due
to
a
provision
of
the
agreement
that
blocks
the
future
authority
of
the
city
of
boulder
over
the
property.
Once
signed,
the
city
will
have
no
power
to
block
or
alter
any
aspect
of
cu's
future
development
plans.
H
Successful
flood
mitigation
depends
on
exactly
what
is
built
on
the
cu
south
side
throughout
its
development
and
redevelopment
in
the
future.
This
depends
upon
ongoing
city
authority
over
building
decisions
on
cu,
south
informed
by
future
information
about
site
plan,
climate
impacts
and
other
situations,
continued
equal
partnership
and
solving
solution.
Solving
issues
in
decades
to
come
will
be
absolutely
critical.
Climate
change
will
move
the
goal
close
from
100
to
500
year
flood
standards.
Thank.
A
I
You
hear
me
now:
yeah,
yes,
great!
Thank
you.
Okay,
I
own
a
condo
in
the
gold
run
community
on
boulder
creek,
near
scott
carpenter
park
and
year
round.
We
have
an
issue
with
waste,
artifacts
of
substance,
abuse
and
other
discarded
items
in
and
around
the
creek.
This
is
much
worse
in
the
summer
time
when
there
are
individuals
camping
on
the
banks
of
the
creek,
as
I'm
sure
you
know,
many
of
them
leaving
strewn
clothing
and
kitchen
scraps
among
other
unsanitary
items
in
and
around
the
water.
I
In
recent
weeks
I
found
dinner
plates
and
something
that
looked
like
a
toilet
seat
from
across
the
bank.
The
water
of
the
creek
is
of
spiritual
significance
to
me
and
experiencing
it
as
a
healing
is
a
healing
ritual
for
me
on
august
22nd
this
summer,
in
a
place
where
I
often
enjoy
bathing
in
the
water.
I
found
a
rusty
grate
under
the
water
threatening
to
cut
my
bare
feet
and
soiling
my
experience
of
being
with
the
water.
I
I
So
I
wonder
if
the
issue
of
waste
in
the
water
might
be
slightly
ameliorated
by
having
permanent
trash
receptacles
more
readily
available,
I'm
often
collecting
trash
with
me
and
carrying
it
back
to
the
gold
run
private
trash
bins
because
between
30th
street
and
28th
street
and
beyond
that
there
are
no
obvious
waste
bins
to
be
found
on
the
creek
trail.
I
I
myself
have
led
small
group
trash
cleanup
efforts
twice
and
I've
always
carted
away.
You
know
big
bags
of
trash
and
realize
I'm
running
out
of
time,
so
I
noticed
that
there
was
a
let's
tidy
up
boulder
challenge
posted
on
the
website,
which
I
would
not
have
known
about
on
my
own
and
while
that's
a
well-intentioned
effort,
it
is
underwhelming
as
a
solution
to
our
waste
problem.
I
A
Thank
you
ashlynn.
I
know
that
your
time
is
up,
but
if
you'd
like
to
email
us
your
the
rest
of
your
comments,
you
can
email
us
at
council,
boulder
colorado.gov
and
with
that
the
next
three
speakers
are
riley.
Mancuso,
kevin
tang
and
kathy
joyner
ryan
has
rightly
mancuso
shown
up.
Okay.
In
that
case,
we
will
go
on
to
kevin
tang.
J
Good
evening
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
this
council
earlier
this
calendar
year,
the
council
approved
a
number
of
initiatives,
ostensibly
aimed
at
ameliorating
issues
stemming
from
homelessness,
housing,
insecurity
and
consequences
from
the
camping
ban.
My
intent
here
is
not
to
focus
on
whether
or
not
these
initiatives
should
have
been
adopted.
They
already
have
been
adopted
at
an
approximate
price
tag
of
2.7
million
dollars
over
18
months.
J
Will
the
performance
of
these
individuals
be
assessed
not
just
based
on
public
safety
criteria,
but
also
on
environmental
ones,
among
others
and
then
last
but
not
least,
to
the
extent
this
overlaps
with
the
boulder
creek
management
plan?
You
know
what
does
the
strategic
planning
process
for
that
policy
look
like
in
light
of
these
programs
and
what
benchmarks
are
being
considered.
J
I
think,
more
fundamentally,
and
here
I'm
echoing
settlements,
that
a
number
of
you
have
already
voiced,
given
that
this
is
not
an
insignificant
deployment
of
resources.
I
feel
that
the
public
should
have
access
to
rail
data
in
order
to
follow
along
and
track
in
assessing
outcomes
and
determining
whether
or
not
these
programs
ultimately
do
anything
to
address
the
issues
which
led
to
their
adoption
and
I'll
stop
there.
Thank
you
very
much
again
for
your
time.
C
Thank
you
mayor
good
evening,
council
members,
I'm
here
to
make
a
last
request
that
council
approved
the
cu
south
annexation
agreement
after
years
of
work
by
staff,
boards
and
council
and
a
robust
and
productive
community
engagement
process.
This
agreement
will
above
all
else,
allow
flood
protection
to
move
forward
expeditiously.
C
If
you
approve
this
agreement
tonight,
you
will
be
fulfilling
one
of
the
local
government's
most
fundamental
responsibilities:
the
protection
of
the
health
and
safety
of
its
citizens.
If
approved
this
flood
protection
undertaking,
will
ensure
life
safety
of
2
300
residents,
who
are
currently
at
significant
risk,
as
this
project
will
be
years
in
the
making,
even
if
all
goes
as
planned,
we
don't
have
another
year
to
lose,
given
the
increased
frequency
of
climate.
C
Extreme
events
assurances
to
regulatory
agencies
that
the
city
has
management
authority
over
lands
for
which
it
is
requesting
permits
will
ensure
that
required
permitting
is
not
delayed
for
an
unknown
period
of
time.
On
a
final
note,
I
feel
a
need
to
recognize
the
passion
and
commitment
of
all
who
have
worked
on
this
project,
regardless
of
positions,
irrespective
of
your
decision
tonight.
You
know
that
you
will
not
be
able
to
please
everyone.
Still.
Your
efforts
are
important
and
appreciated
once
more
to
council
staff
and
boards.
C
C
A
K
You
can
hear
me
you
can
well
good
evening.
Council
members,
my
name
is
jim
mcmillan,
I'm
a
31-year
resident
of
boulder.
I
appreciate
your
service
to
our
community,
but
I'm
extremely
disappointed
that
you're
seriously
considering
passing
the
highly
flawed
ill-considered
annexation
agreement
associated
with
the
cu
south
land
parcel.
K
K
K
Many
residents
of
boulder,
like
me,
moved
here
and
willingly
pay
higher
taxes
because
of
boulder's
green
values,
which
will
be
thrown
under
the
bus
by
this
annexation,
which
is
highly
risky
to
the
critical
endangered
habitat,
the
state
natural
protected
area
near
the
site-
and
I
just
emphasize
once
wetlands
are
gone,
they're
gone
permanently
and
once
critical
habitat
is
destroyed,
it
can't
be
brought
back
again.
Consider
your
legacy
council.
Do
you
really
want
to
be
known
as
the
council
that
destroyed
boulders
about
green
credentials?
K
Is
it's
anti-democratic
to
get
in
front
of
this
of
the
citizens
initiative?
That's
initiative,
302
on
the
november
ballot.
Please
wait
until
after
that
to
consider
this
this
annexation
agreement.
Thank
you.
L
Good
evening
council,
it's
me
riley
mancuso,
and
I
am
calling
in
to
urge
you
to
call
up
the
2504,
spruce
street
project
for
council
review
the
push
the
current
push
from
the
planning
board
to
include
just
14,
large
and
expensive
units,
and
only
two
permanently
affordable
units.
L
When
other
proposals
support
many
more
apartments
on
the
site
in
the
900
to
600
square
foot
range,
we
really
need
to
make
sure
that
this
spot,
which
is
in
a
very
central
location
in
boulder,
close
to
major
transportation
hubs
and
major
commercial
centers,
is
used
to
provide
effective,
affordable
housing
for
our
community.
L
If
there
is
any
place
in
boulder
where
denser
housing
makes
sense,
it
is
near
28th
street.
It
is
near
pearl
street.
It
is
near
the
major
thoroughfares
where
people
can
get
by
without
cars
and
get
to
the
retail
and
dining
and
child
care,
and
medical
and
administrative
and
all
sorts
of
offices
where
lower
income
workers
need
to
get
to
work,
and
so
this
is
just
a
really
excellent
opportunity
for
you
all
to
walk
the
walk
on
how
much
you
talk
about
investing
in
affordable
housing
really
boulder.
L
Has
this
this
decades-long
deficit
of
anti-growth
down
zoning
that
has
created
years
of
deficits
of
housing,
construction
have
created
a
debt
and
now
boulder
just
really
needs
to
aggressively
pursue
new
housing
construction
and
when
it
and
the
compromise
with
that
for
the
people
who
say
that
new
construction
is
bad,
is
that
whatever
new
construction
there
is
should
be
housing.
The
maximum
number
of
people
and
the
maximum
number
of
low-income
workers
who.
A
Are
not
thank
you.
Thank
you,
riley.
Your
your
time
is
up
and
I
will
also
let
you
know
that
the
call
up
for
2504
spruce
has
been
moved
to
september
28th.
So
we
got
your
input
you'd
like
us
to
call
it
up
and
that
action
will
be
taken
or
not
at
the
meeting
on
september
28th.
If
you
would
like
to
attend
that
and
with
that
I'll
bring
open
comment
to
a
close
and
turn
it
back
to
you,
alicia.
A
Oh,
I'm
sorry
I
apologize.
I
have
failed
to
do
my
duty,
which
is
turn
to
staff
and
council
and
see
if
there's
any
response
to
what
we've
heard
so
I'll
start
with
you
nuria
in
your
response
to
open
comment.
M
Just
thanks
again,
we
take
every
comment
that
comes
our
way,
and
particularly
those
today
that
were
about
waste
efforts
and
and
homelessness,
know
that
we
will
be
discussing
those
with
staff
and
we'll
be
certainly
taking
those
into
consideration.
But
thank
you.
A
D
Thanks
sam,
I
wanted
to
speak,
I
think,
to
the
same
community
member
that
that
nuria
was
thanking
ashlynn.
I
believe
her
name
was
who
is
undertaking
cleanup
efforts
along
boulder
creek.
So
I
wanted
to
say
first
thank
you
for
doing
that
and
second,
I
don't
know
what
the
protocol
would
be,
but
it
is
something
that
I
raised
in
the
past.
Why
why
we
don't
have
more
receptacles
there,
so
it
sounds
like
nuria,
you're
gonna.
Maybe
investigate
that
and
see
if
it
would
help
happy
to
do
so.
E
Yeah
I
wanted
to
respond
or
address
mr
tang's
comment
about
the
the
programs
that
we
approved
this
summer
and
some
of
which
I
know
that
are
still
being
put
in
place.
So
it
may
be
a
little
bit
early
to
have
a
report,
but
I'm
wondering
nuria.
Do
you
think
that
you
and
your
team
will
be
in
a
position
to
issue
a
report
either
at
a
study
session
or
in
writing
sometime?
This
fall
on
some
of
the
changes
we
need
made
around
police
staffing,
ranger
ambassadors,
clean
up
crews,
those
types
of
things.
M
M
We
are
talking
about
and
have
incorporated
other
people,
including
our
innovation
and
technology,
folks,
to
see
how
we
measure
our
progress
and
how
we
measure
our
activities,
and
so
we
I
will
go
back
and
talk
about
when
we
can
provide
a
substantive
update
to
what
that
looks
like
I
know
we
were
going
to
do
one
or
I
believe
we
were
going
to
do
one
before
the
end
of
the
year,
but
I
can
certainly
get
back
to
council
and
please
know
that
we
are
actively
talking
about
all
these
measures
and
how
to
move
our
work
forward.
A
B
A
All
right
super
council
looks
like
this
is
a
show
of
hands.
So
do
we
have
any
questions,
feedback
or
emotion
on
the
consent
agenda?
I
move.
C
A
All
right,
very
good
aaron.
I
see
you
have
your
hand
up
yeah.
N
No,
I
have
no
desire
to
call
this
up.
I
just
want
to
speak
to
it
briefly.
I'm
really
happy
to
see
this
coming
forward.
It's
going
to
fill
in
some
critical
gaps
in
a
multi-use
path
system
on
east
arapaho,
which
has
been
much
needed
for
many
years,
and
we
did
get
a
fair
amount
of
federal
funding
for
this
project
through
the
grant
from
the
denver
regional
council
of
governments
so
really
great
to
see
us
leveraging
our
transportation
dollars
and
getting
this
project
done.
So,
thanks
to
everyone
on
staff
for
moving
this
forward.
A
I'll
just
comment
that
I
agree
with
everything
aaron
said,
and
we
should
thank
aaron
as
our
representative
to
dr
cog
for
getting
some
of
that
funding
for
us.
So
thank
you.
Aaron
counsel,
any
desire
to
call
this
up.
A
All
right,
very
good
and
with
that
alicia
back
to
you
to
tee
up
the
next
item,
please.
B
All
right,
sir.
Next,
we
have
item
number
five
on
public
hearings.
Five,
a
is
the
continued
public
hearing
and
consideration
of
the
following
items
related
to
a
petition
to
annex
a
308.15,
acre
parcel
generally
known
as
cu
south
at
4886
and
5278
table
mesa,
drive,
718
marshall,
road,
zero,
highway,
36,
two
parcels
and
4745
west
moorhead,
an
initial
zoning
designation
of
public
related
to
lur
2019-0010.
B
Amending
the
zoning
district
map
forming
a
part
of
said
charter
to
include
the
property
in
the
above
mentioned.
Zoning
district
and
setting
for
related
details
or
the
continued
second
reading
and
consideration
of
a
motion
to
adopt
by
emergency
measure,
ordinance
8483
annexing
to
the
city
of
boulder,
approximately
308.15
acres
of
land,
generally
known
as
cu
south
located
at
48.86
and
5278
table
mesa,
drive
zero
highway,
36
two
parcels,
718
marshall,
road
and
4745
west
moorhead,
with
an
initial
zoning
classification
of
public,
as
described
in
chapter
9-5
modular
zone
systems
of
the
brc
1981.
B
Amending
the
zoning
district
map
forming
a
part
of
said
chapter
to
include
the
property
in
the
above
mentioned.
Zoning
district
and
setting
forth
related
details.
Thank
you,
alicia
and
before
we
move
on,
I
will
turn
now
to
bob
thanks,
sam
and
for
reasons
previously
stated.
I'm
going
to
recuse
myself
from
the
matters
that
alicia
just
announced,
I'm
going
to
depart
the
meeting,
and
I
wish
you
all
a
good
evening.
B
Thank
you,
bob
okay,
very
good,
and
I
have
a
couple
more
items
here.
Give
me
a
moment
so
just
a
reminder.
B
We
have
heard
councilmember
yates
recuse
himself,
just
a
reminder
that
council
member
joseph
has
also
recused
herself,
our
city
attorney
sandra
yanez,
explained
last
week
the
the
reason
for
those
recusals,
so
these
are
continued
refusals
because
the
hearing
has
been
continued
and
then
finally,
I
would
turn
to
council
member
nagel
and
ask
council
member,
because
you
were
absent
last
week,
have
you
had
a
chance
to
review
the
recording
of
the
september
14th
meeting?
B
Yes,
thank
you,
sam.
I'm
all
caught
up,
okay,
very
good,
and
with
that
I
I
will
remind
everyone
that
this
is
a
continued
second
reading
hearing.
We
have
taken
the
public
testimony
on
this
item
and
we
are
turning
now
to
counsel
for
deliberations,
discussion
and
any
motion
or
motions
on
these
items,
and
I
think
the
first
thing
that
we
probably
need
to
do
as
a
council
is
make
sure
that
we
agree
on
how
we
want
to
structure
our
discussion
going
forward.
B
So
with
that
I
will
see
if
sandra,
do
you
have
a
slide?
I
do
if
somebody
could
bring
up
the
I
see
the
slide
deck
on
the
screen.
It
just
needs
to
move
to
the
next
slide:
perfect.
Okay,
so
yesterday
I
put
out
on
hotline
just
a
concept
for
how
we
could
structure
these
discussions.
B
I
only
received
one
bit
of
feedback
that
was
from
mary,
which
she
posted
then
on
hotline.
So
we've
all
seen
that,
and
I
would
just
turn
now
to
counsel
and
say
the
the
structure
I'm
going
to
propose
for
discussions.
I
guess
I'll
start
by
saying
we
would
normally
have
handled
this
at
cac,
but
at
cec
this
week
two
of
the
members
are
the
recused
members
tonight.
So
I
thought
I
should
just
bring
this
directly
to
the
those
of
us
who
will
be
hearing
this
item.
B
I
would
recommend
that
we
start
by
hearing
from
staff
on
a
couple
of
things.
First
of
all,
what
we
need
to
do
tonight
and,
second,
what
changes
there
might
have
been
to
the
annexation
agreement
since
last
week
and
then,
after
we've
heard
from
staff,
I
would
move
to
council
for
questions
the
questions
that
I
the
way
I
would
structure.
B
Those
is
questions
on
last
week's
public
hearing
what
we
heard
at
the
public
hearing
and
then
any
clarifying
questions
on
the
changes
to
the
annexation
agreement
that
have
occurred
since
last
week
and
then,
finally,
any
questions
council
might
have
before
we
go
into
discussions
of
of
staff
or
the
applicant.
I
believe
that
we
have
the
university
here
as
the
applicant
and
they
are
ready
to
answer
questions
after
questions.
B
I
would
suggest,
then,
that
we
turn
to
our
discussion
and
I
propose
six
different
items
that
we
could
have
as
topic
areas
so
that
we
can
organize
our
discussion
after
that
then
motion,
if
any
on
the
resolution
motions
if
any
on
the
annexation,
ordinances
in
front
of
us
and
then
finally
check
with
the
city
attorney
that
this
has
all
been
completed
and
done
properly
and
then
final
closing
comments
from
cu
and
council.
B
So
that
is
my
proposal
that
I
would
turn
to
council
for
any
comments,
questions
feedback
and,
at
the
very
least,
I'll
need
some
thumbs
up.
If
you
agree
that
this
is
a
way
for
us
to
move
forward,
I'm
seeing
three
four
five
six
thumbs
up:
okay,
so
great!
Well,
thank
you.
That
was
super
easy
and
it
looks
like
this
will
be
our
agenda
for
this
item
tonight
and
with
that
I
will
turn
to
staff.
B
B
In
particular,
I
want
to
share
my
gratitude
to
aaron
poe,
kathy
haddock,
luis
toro,
hella
panawig,
rio,
ward,
desiree,
aguirres,
julia
chase
and
a
huge
thanks
to
our
outside
advisors,
jeff,
wilson,
jerry
dahl
and
david
gear,
and
with
that
I
think
we
can
move
into
the
more
procedural
aspects
of
tonight's
hearing
next
slide.
Please.
B
B
The
purpose
of
resolution
1289
was
to
make
preliminary
findings
required
by
the
annexation
statute
and
to
set
the
date
of
the
public
hearing.
The
second
resolution
resolution
1295
is
part
of
the
second
reading
of
the
annexation
ordinance.
The
purpose
of
this
resolution
is
to
make
final
findings
of
fact
determined
from
matters
presented
at
the
public
hearing.
Those
findings
by
resolution
are
required
by
the
annexation
statute
prior
to
approval
of
the
ordinance.
B
B
B
B
And,
as
you
can
see,
the
charter
section
17
calls
for
a
requirement
of
a
showing
of
preservation
of
the
public
peace,
health
or
property,
and
it
also
requires
a
two-thirds
vote
of
any
members
that
are
present
in
order
to
pass
by
emergency.
B
B
There
was
a
question
asked,
or
perhaps
a
statement
made
at
the
last
hearing
regarding
special
privilege
and
an
allegation
or
contention
that
emergency
orders
couldn't
be
passed
for
a
franchise
or
a
special
privilege,
and
that
the
annexation
is
a
special
privilege.
B
B
So
this
is
just
a
suggested.
Some
suggested
motion
language
for
council
if
they
do
decide
to
adopt
the
ordinance,
because
we
have
some
changes
to
the
agreement
that
have
been
made
subsequent
to
the
the
september
14th
meeting.
We've
added
in
the
highlighted
areas,
some
additional
language
to
address
that.
So
that's
something
that,
if
needed,
we
can
come
back
to
later
on,
and
I
just
want
to
say
with
respect
to
this.
This
slide
that
staff's
recommendation
is
that
the
annexation
be
approved
on
an
emergency
basis.
B
There
are
compelling
life
safety
issues
during
last
week's
presentation,
staff
showed
photos
of
flood
waters,
rushing
down
a
city
street,
just
north
of
us
36,
and
the
public
testimony
last
week
included
numerous
accounts
of
2013
flood
and
near
misses
experienced
by
members
of
our
community,
and
that's
some
of
the
testimony
and
and
information
that
you
heard
last
week
in
the
presentation
and
as
well
as
from
community
members
and
for
those
reasons,
staff
is
recommending
that
council
move
forward
on
an
emergency
basis.
B
The
first
change
has
been
to
paragraph
14a.
Language
has
been
added
regarding
the
iga
for
a
baseline
study
of
light
and
noise
impacts
on
the
state
natural
area.
In
addition
to
establishing
a
baseline,
the
study
will
also
define
adverse
material
impacts
to
the
state
natural
area
and
provide
guidance
on
how
to
minimize
any
impact.
B
The
third
change
was
to
paragraph
20..
In
the
introductory
section
about
the
development
zones
permitted
and
prohibited
uses
intent,
language
was
added
to
clarify
that
the
university
will
develop
the
area
consistent
with
15-minute
neighborhoods,
as
envisioned
by
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
intent.
Language
was
also
added
regarding
the
university's
goal
to
maximize
energy
efficiency
and
achieve
a
hundred
percent
emissions
reduction
by
2050..
B
B
Yes,
that's
correct!
Thank
you,
okay,
super
and
per
what
we
just
decided.
It
is
now
time
for
council
questions,
and
so
I
I
think
the
initial
council
questions
that
we
want
to
focus
on
are
any
questions
that
we
have
based
on
what
we
heard
at
last
week's
public
hearing
so
I'll
turn.
First,
mary
young
mary,
did
you
have
any
questions
that
you
wanted
to
ask
about
last
week?
B
Yes,
I
do.
I
asked
four
of
them
on
hotline
and
I
was
wondering
if
we
could
just
go
over
those
for
the
benefit
of
those
folks
who
may
be
watching
and
do
not
have
the
hotline
and
the
questions
were.
B
Second
question
was:
under
what
circumstances
could
future
amendments
slash,
changes
to
the
annexation
agreement
occur
and
what
would
the
process
look
like,
and
my
third
question
was:
how
do
environmental
impact
statements
and
other
required
analyses
of
endangered
and
threatened
species
fit
into
proposed
flood
mitigation
and
is
the
city
violating
any
rules?
So
those
were
the
three
questions
that
I
asked
on
the
hotline.
I
have
others,
but
if
we
could
start
by
addressing
those
I'd
appreciate
it.
B
B
I
think
I'm
the
first
one
phil
is
probably
the
the
second
and
me
or
the
open
space
staff
are
the
third,
but
before
I
start,
I
just
want
to
introduce
myself
I'm
joe
tattiucci,
I'm
the
director
of
of
utilities.
Our
department
is
responsible
for
the
flood
mitigation
project
that
coincides
with
this
annexation
agreement.
The
property
that's
potentially
being
annexed
is
needed
for
our
flood
project.
B
So
the
the
first
question
about
the
plans
for
warning
system
and
evacuation
plans
and
how
they
relate
to
to
flood
mitigation.
We
do
have
warning
systems
and
emergency
plans
in
place
in
the
city
of
boulder.
We,
the
the
national
weather
service,
the
mile
high
flood
district
and
our
boulder
city
and
county
office
of
emergency
management,
all
coordinate
on
those
things
and
ours.
B
You,
city
utilities,
staff,
have
a
supporting
role
in
those
situations
and
we
frequently
provide
technical
support
when
there's
a
a
situation
like
a
flood
or
a
fire,
and
many
of
us
end
up
spending
time
at
the
emergency
operations
center
when
one
of
those
events
occur
and
we've
had
quite
a
bit
of
staff
transition
since
the
2013
flood
in
in
our
utilities
and
stormwater
and
flood
utility
for
me
and
brandon
coleman,
our
project
manager,
we,
we
really
came
into
the
scene
in
2019
and
as
we
were
going
through
the
process
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
we
heard
from
community
members
some
specific
concerns
about
what
occurred
with
us,
36
overtopping
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
and
I
I
hadn't
heard
that
detail
previously,
and
so
there
seemed
to
be
some
real
valid
concerns
there,
and
so
we
assigned
a
staff
lead
to
coordinate
and
project
manage
efforts
around
that
we
met
with
representatives
from
oem
and
the
mile
high
flood
district
to
explore
opportunities
for
future
enhancements.
B
We
held
community
meetings
with
the
people
who
were
most
impacted
by
the
2013
flood
and
the
over
topping
of
us
36
and
have
established
plans
to
install
a
camera
by
the
end
of
the
year,
and
I
appreciate
the
discounts
this
question
being
asked
on
the
hotline,
because
I
think
one
of
the
narratives
that
we
heard
in
public
comment
last
week
was
that
we
really
ought
to
be
focusing
our
efforts
on
early
warning
systems
and
evacuation
plans,
and
things
like
that
that
there
is
a
concentrated
effort
already
in
place
in
those
areas.
B
As
I
as
I
described
earlier
here,
and
this
has
been
a
studied
by
a
few
generations
of
staff
on
this
project,
and
there
is
one
consistent
message
that
I've
heard
and
that
is
that
the
warning
systems
and
evacuation
plans-
and
things
like
that,
are
not
a
substitute
for
the
flood
mitigation.
So
that
happy
to
happy
to
say
more
about
that.
B
We
have
a
website
that
that
people
can
go
to
and
get
information
for,
flood
preparedness
and
and
get
plugged
into
how
you
can
sign
up
for
cell
phone
alerts
and
and
things
like
that,
and
we
do
try
to
put
things
in
our
utility
bill,
inserts
and
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
B
So
phil,
maybe
you
want
to
address
the
second
question,
which
is
a
totally
different
subject:
absolutely
bill
chrysler
planner
with
planning
and
development
services.
Thank
you
for
your
time
this
evening.
B
The
second
question
regarding
amendments
to
the
annexation
agreement,
paragraph
59
in
the
agreement-
does
anticipate
that
the
parties
could
amend
the
agreement
to
do
so.
Is
this
process
similar
to
what
we're
going
through
now
the
recommendation
by
the
planning
board
and
ultimately
approval
by
city
council,
so
that
that
paragraph,
though,
is
just
kind
of
clarifying
this
and
that
the
parties
can
choose
to
amend
the
agreement,
though
it
does
require
a
motion
by
council.
B
Thank
you
phil
and
then
the
third
question
has
to
do
with
permitting
and
I'm
certainly
not
the
city's
expert
on
permitting
brandon
coleman
knows
it
inside
and
out,
as
does
our
as
do
our
open
space
staff.
But
I
think
the
threshold
question
that
was
there
on
hotline
was:
does
the
proposed
flood
mitigation
violate
any
any
permitting
rules
and,
and
how
are
things
like
environmental
impact
statements
and
those
sorts
of
things
impacted
and
so
to
the
threshold
question?
B
Our
project
is
being
designed
and
planned
with
the
intention
of
being
fully
compliant
with
all
permitting
requirements
as
we
go
forward
and
the,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
hotline
post
with
help
from
our
open
space
staff
nepa
would
not
be
triggered
because
there's
not
a
federal
agency.
That's
construction,
constructing
or
funding
the
project
and
the
core
of
engineers
would
be
the
lead
federal
agency
that
would
be
looking
at
this
and
and
reviewing
it
with
respect
to
compliance
with
the
endangered
species
act.
So
I
will
leave
my
comments
to
that.
B
Good
evening,
council
john
potter
resource
and
stewardship
manager
at
open
space
and
mountain
parks,
department
and
joe,
I
think
that
you
you
got
most
of
that.
The
only
thing
that
I
would
add
is
to
the
question
of
what
types
of
assessments
might
be
necessary
for
the
project
to
proceed,
and
that
would
be
possibly
a
biological
assessment
that
the
u.s
fish
and
wildlife
service
would
call
for
to
look
at
the
two
threatened
species
in
the
area.
B
The
you,
ladies
dresses
orchid
and
the
prebles
meadow
jumping
mouse,
and
they
would
be
then
determining
whether
a
biological
opinion
would
be
necessary
and
whether
the
project
as
the
utilities
department
proposes
it,
would
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
a
listed
species
or
have
impact
to
critical
habitat.
B
Thank
you,
john
and
joe,
and
so
that
addresses
the
the
questions
that
I
posted
on
hotline.
I
have
some
additional
questions
and,
while
joe
is
on
the
line,
I
was
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question
that
well
I
it
just
keeps
coming
up
with
re
respect
to
what
the
constraints
are
that
make
the
500-year
design
infeasible.
B
However,
this
afternoon
I
received
an
email
from
a
a
community
member
that
shared
with
me
a
response
from
you,
joe,
regarding
a
coro
request,
and
the
response
was
basically,
we
don't
have
any
document
that
says
that
the
500-year
design
is
infeasible
and
if
you
could
just
elaborate
on
that
I'd
appreciate.
It
sure-
and
I
appreciate
the
question
the
the
topic
of
why
we're
doing
100
year,
design
or
500
year
design.
I
agree.
Mary
keeps
keeps
coming
up
and
in
terms
of
the
technical
feasibility,
the
criteria
we
need
to
meet
with
our
project
is.
B
And
so
it's
given
me
the
opportunity
to
talk
to
some
of
the
the
people
involved
that
normally
a
department
director
would
not
be
so
deep
in
the
details.
Part
of
this
coincides
with
my
background
and
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
I've
I've
met
with
representatives
from
the
mile
high
flood
district
and
our
project
lead.
There.
I've
talked
to
my
counterpart
at
cdot
and
they're
their
technical,
lead
and
reviewed
everything.
B
And
so,
when
I
talked
to
our
design
consultants
this
past
friday,
that
the
statement
that
they
made
to
me
is
that
we
feel
even
more
strongly
now
that
the
500-year
flood
is
not
feasible
and
we're
not
able
to
match
those
existing
conditions
and
balance.
All
the
technical
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
to
not
make
things
better
in
one
area
and
worse
in
another.
B
There
are
other
issues
and
other
considerations
that
it's
not
just
that
alone,
but,
as
I
came
into
the
project
with
brandon
and
I've,
looked
at
all
of
the
factors,
my
own
independent
opinion.
Having
done
this
work
and
spent
my
whole
career
in
water
resources,
area
and
dams,
and
projects
like
this
and
permitting
and
agency
approvals
and
looking
at
all
the
constraints
as
a
package,
I
just
do
not
see
a
way
to
bring
the
500-year
project
to
something
that
is
feasible
and
actually
gets
constructed.
B
B
Mary
would
would
it
be
okay
if
I
colloquy
on
this,
please
do
so
joe.
I
appreciate
that
description
from
a
technical
standpoint.
It
jumps
with
everything
that
you
and
I
have
talked
about
over
the
last
year
or
so
about
this
project.
Another
question
there
are
other
drainages
in
the
boulder
area
that
we
need
to
watch
out
for
flood
hazards
on
and
I
was
curious.
Have
we
ever
done
a
500-year
flood
level
mitigation
project
on
any
of
our
other
drainages?
B
We
have
some
drainages
like
gregory
creek,
for
example
we're
designing
and
we're
buying
property
and
getting
it
out
of
the
floodplain
there's
an
imminent
project
there
that
the
best
we
can
do
is
is
10-year
flood
protection,
and
so
the
south
boulder
creek,
is
really
the
only
one
where
it's
feasible
for
that
to
even
be
in
the
conversation
500
year.
B
B
No,
that's
super
helpful,
so
it
says
that
we
have
not
done
anything
more
than
a
hundred
year
in
our
other
drainages
and
then
the
last
question
that
I've
got
is
you
know
the
rjh
report
from
2000
indicated
that
it
would
be
some
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
more
to
do
the
500
year
flood
project
and
if,
if
we
were
to
be
able
to
do
it,
which
is
sounds
like
not
possible,
but
if
we
were
and
if
we
spent
those
extra
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
to
get
to
the
500-year
flood
protection
level
in
this
drainage.
B
Well,
if,
if
you
consider
that
there's
probably
a
limit
to
I
mean
we
can
always
increase
rates
as
much
as
we
want
to
to
to
fund
additional
projects,
but
practically
and
realistically,
there's
a
limit
to
the
pressure
that
we
can
put
on
our
utility
customers
at
any
one
time
to
fund
these.
So
in
my
opinion,
it
would
delay
work
in
other
areas
if
we
pursued
that
great
and
and
from
the
well
I'll
just
leave
it
there
and
I'll
turn
to
mark
mark,
I
see
your
hands
up
yeah.
B
You
know
I've
been
immersed
in
this
for
so
long
with
such
detail.
I
may
be
entirely
misremembering
things,
but
was
it
also
not
a
factor
that
the
landowner
was
resistant
to
a
500
year
flood
scheme,
or
is
that
I
just
making
that
up?
B
I
I
think
phil
might
be
able
to
to
fill
in
the
details
on
the
history
of
that.
I
do
believe.
At
one
point
there
there
was
a
discussion
with
cu
before
brandon
and
I
came
into
the
project.
B
B
B
There
was
a
letter
and
I
don't
know
the
exact
date
sent
by
the
university
to
council
indicating
their
that
the
university
was
not
the
design
of
which
a
500-year
flood
design
was
not
acceptable
due
to
the
impacts
to
the
development
zone,
and
so
when
joe
talked
about
cost
that
was
relating
to
phil
and
and
and
providing
the
development
area
that
we
had
previously
agreed
to
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
B
B
Thank
you
yeah,
so
I
I
I
guess
I
have
a
follow
a
colloquy
to
my
own
question.
So
sam
brought
up
the
rjh
report
and
I
spent
some
time
yesterday
reviewing
that
report
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
read
in
there
was
about
how
the
army
corps
of
engineers
will
not
approve
a
project
alternative
when
there
is
an
alternative
available
that
would
have
less
of
an
impact.
B
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
is
it
seems
that,
within
that
report
there
were
several
criteria
that
were
addressed
and
it
wasn't
just
about
the
ability
to
make
the
500-year
design
come
to
fruition
and
to
what
extent
did
staff
consider
in
the
recommendation
there's
another
matrix
in
there?
B
I
believe
it's
table
7.1
that
talks
about
it
basically
lays
out
all
the
options,
and
it's
the
the
one
that
I
remember
seeing
in
the
memo
when
we
when
we
gave
direction
to
go
with
the
100
and
so
to
what
extent
is
there
at
what
point?
Do
you
step
back
and
say?
Okay,
there's
more
than
just
whether
or
not
we
can
do
the
100
year
500
year,
there's
other
factors
and
and
which,
which
were
the
biggest
factors
and
to
what
extent
do
they
influence
the
recommendation.
B
B
The
design
is,
is
really
one
of
the
primary
things
is
focused
on
matching
the
a
lot
farther
into
the
sensitive
habitat
that
we're
concerned
about,
and
it
makes
the
it
makes
the
geometry
of
the
multi-use
path
and
trying
to
reconfigure
that
to
to
deal
with
our
flood
wall,
there's
not
really
a
practical
option
for
that.
So
I'll.
B
Let
john
add
to
the
environmental
considerations,
but
those
were
all
the
things
that
we
were
looking
at
and
and
considering,
as
we
were
talking
about
feasibility
and
making
recommendations
to
council
as
well
as
the
cost
that
sam
mentioned
yes
and
the
cost.
Thank
you,
john
yeah.
B
I
would
just
add
for
council
that
I
believe
at
the
time
the
open
space
board
of
trustees
recommended
that
the
100
year
would
likely
have
less
impact
in
the
500
year
on
critical
habitat
for
the
preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse,
and
that
was
a
concern
from
the
open
space
standpoint
to
favor
the
year
project
over
the
500
year.
B
I
think
that
is
all
on
that
question,
but
I
think
some
of
these
points
kind
of
lead
into
my
next
question,
which
is
another
item
that
keeps
coming
up.
There
has
been
some
claims
out
there
that
no
master
plan
was
followed
and
and
questions
about
why
south
boulder
creek
was
prioritized
over
other
drainages
and
and
why
didn't
we
go
on
cost
benefit
when
there
are
other
drainages
that
saw
more
cost
based
on
the
damage
experienced
in
2013..
B
So
if
you
could
address
that,
I'd
appreciate
it
sure
and
we
actually
coincidenta
to
this
project.
B
So
if
there's
a,
if
there's
a
perception
that
that
wasn't
done
or
we
hadn't
completed
that
step
for
this
drainage,
that's
not
the
case
and
then
the
the
question
of
benefit
cost
ratio.
And
if
it's,
okay
with
you,
I
might
just
proactively
address
another
thing
related
to
a
memo
we
produced
in
2014
and
damages.
And
there
some
people
have
looked
at
that
and
said:
wait
a
minute.
Only
30
of
the
or
something
like
that
of
the
damage
on
that
occurred
in
the
south.
B
Boulder
creek
drainage
was
from
the
main
major
drainage
way,
and
I
I
can
see
how
people
are
looking
at
the
memo
and
drawing
that
conclusion,
but
that's
incorrect
and
phil.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
pull
up
slide,
66
really
quickly,
while
I'm
talking
here
but
in
that
memo,
there's
a
table
that
shows
all
of
the
drainages
and
it
attributes
damages
based
on
surveys
that
community
members
filled
out
and
splits
them
up
between
different
things.
B
But
there's
a-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can,
you
can
see
it,
but
there
is
a
a
footnote
that
there
were
some
outliers
individual
large
damage
items
that
were
excluded
from
this
and
there
was
one
on
the
south
boulder
creek.
B
That's
the
first
list
below
the
table,
there's
a
10
million
dollar
outlier
that
was
excluded
from
these
damages
numbers
and,
if
you
add,
and
that
actually
is
the
fraser
meadows
area,
that's
what
that
10
10
million
dollars
represents-
and
that
was
one
of
the
hardest
hit
parts
of
the
community
after
the
2013
flood.
B
If
you
add
that
back
in
that,
that
would
make
south
boulder
creek
the
second
highest
of
the
city's
16
drainages
in
the
city,
and
we
actually
have
an
faq
on
that
on
our
website,
because
it
has
a
better
point
of
confusion
and
there's
a
lot
more
about
benefit,
cost
ratio
and
and
things
that
we're
considering
as
we
do,
our
master
plan
that
historically,
everything
was
focused
on
benefit
cost
ratio
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
really
bring
equity
and
racial
equity
into
the
equation,
and
that
approach
would
kind
of,
if
you
think
about
damages
and
the
most
the
highest
property
value
areas.
B
That
would
point
our
flood
projects
to
the
most
affluent
areas
of
the
city.
So
there
are
lots
of
considerations
around
that
that
I
have
also
covered
in
an
faq,
and
I
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
I
I
captured
the
response
that
you
were
looking
for
mary,
but
that
that's
kind
of
what
I
had
in
mind
in
that
topic.
B
I
think
I,
if
rachel
doesn't
want
to
ask
a
question
of
joe.
I
can
move
on
to
my
next
series
of
questions
which
would
probably
be
for
sandra
and
I
see
rachel's
hand
up
so
rachel.
Do
you
want
to
ask
joe
a
question
before
joe
gets
off
yeah
if
we're
going
to
just
keep
joe
in
the
hot
seat
and
we'll
ask
a
couple
of
questions
here,
thanks
mary
for
the
invite
so
just
responding
or
trying
to
get
clarification
around
some
things
we
heard
in
public
hearing
last
week.
B
First
did
cu,
do
something
with
the
property,
maybe
by
shoring
up
the
berm
that
that
caused
the
2013
flood
or
somehow?
Is
there
something
about
cu's
history
with
sea
south
that
that
made
that
flood
happen
or
puts
us
in
worse
position
for
flooding?
B
B
Both
ways
with
the
with
the
cu
berm
in
place
and
and
with
it
removed
and
the
results
of
that
modeling
have
shown
it
makes
no
difference.
So
we
would
not
agree
with
those
statements,
so
so,
if
I
could
jump
in
briefly
rachel's
sorry
to
interrupt
joe,
you
said
that
cu
had
put
the
levy
in.
B
I
think
it's
probably
worth
just
being
clear
and
crisp
on
this,
that
I
believe
that
levy
was
built
to
protect
the
gravel
mining
operation
and
then,
when
cu
bought
the
property,
they
shored
it
up
a
little
bit
and
had
it
certified
by
fema.
Does
that
sound
right
yep?
I
believe
that's
right
and
when
phil
has
showed
the
land
use
maps
on
the
on
kind
of
the
east
and
northern
end
of
cu's
property,
it's
it's
almost
like
there's
a
backwards
r
shape,
and
that
is
if
you've
been
out
there.
B
That
is
the
and
you've
seen
that
embankment.
That's
the
levy,
the
flood
levy
that
we're
talking
about
back
to
you,
rachel
thanks
sam
thanks
joe
I
I
walk
my
dogs.
I
think,
on
the
levee
pretty
regularly.
Is
that
right?
That's
a
heightened
plane
that
we
walk
on.
Okay,
the
only
other
question
I
have
for
you
is:
we've
gotten
some
some
questions
around.
B
What's
the
rush
here
like
if
we're
not
really
going
to
be
able
to
put,
you
know,
shovels
into
the
ground
for
another
three
to
five
years?
Why
are
we
annexing
today,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you:
if
we
didn't
annex
would
there
be
an
impact
on
the
flood
mitigation
process?
Would
there
be
delays?
B
It's
a
fair
question
and
phil.
If
I
could
ask
for
help
one
more
time,
if
you
could
pull
up
the
slide
20
from
our,
which
was
one
of
yours
from
last
week,
it
kind
of
that's
the
one
that
shows
sort
of
the
whole
property
and
the
different
land
use.
B
So
looking
at
the
you
can
ignore
the
table
and
the
acreages,
but
looking
at
the
property
map,
what
you're
seeing
here
is
the
the
cu
property
and
the
development.
What
the
development
plans
that
the
university
has
on
the
property
relative
to
the
components
of
our
flood
mitigation
project,
and
why
why
it's
important
for
this
annexation
agreement
to
get
finalized
at
this
point
in
time,
as
we
move
into
the
the
permitting
approach
and
our
our
final
design?
B
Is
the
the
annexation
agreement
really
pins
down
the
interaction
between
cu's
property
and
our
in
our
flood
components,
for
example
the
the
inundation
area
that
will
occur
when
we
flood
and
the
earth
and
fill
we
have
to
know
where
the
university
is
going
to
develop,
to
be
able
to
know
where
to
place
that
a
big
part
of
the
negotiations
with
the
university
was
around
what
types
of
recreation
facilities
could
go
within
the
inundated
area
and
it's
it's
fairly
common
in
land
use
planning
to
have
certain
types
of
like
soccer
fields,
and
things
like
that
in
areas
that
you
know
are
gonna,
get
flooded
and
so
working
with
them
to
to
sort
that
out
and
then
a
big
component
was
and
something
that
the
city
team
worked
really
hard
at
was
getting
an
agreement
with
the
university
to
obtain
all
119
acres
of
oso
to
become
city,
open
space
and
the
water
rights
that
that
go
with
that
property.
B
All
right
so
my
next
question,
so
one
of
the
the
requirements
of
the
ability
to
be
able
to
pass
by
emergency
is
that
is
the
findings
of
fact,
and
I'm
wondering
sandra
if
you
could
just
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
exactly
what
constitutes
a
finding
of
fact.
B
Sure.
Thank
you,
mary
for
the
question.
So
a
finding
is
really
found
in
the
evidence
in
the
record
and
so
that
evidence
can
take
the
form
of
testimony
documents,
any
sort
of
things
that
are
presented
at
the
hearing
itself,
and
so
those
findings
are
then
considered
by
by
council
in
terms
of
their
ultimate
decision
and
in
addition
to
that,
those
findings
are
found
in
your
resolution
and
in
the
annex
station
ordinance
as
well.
B
Thank
you
sandra.
My
next
question
is,
I'm
not
sure
if
it
is
for
you
or
not,
but
another
two
other
things
that
keep
coming
up
is
that
that
very
little
consideration
was
given
to
the
land
swap
idea
and
then
the
other
one
that
keeps
coming
up
is
that
the
city
didn't
even
explore
condemnation.
B
B
So
this
was
before
my
time,
but
my
understanding
is
that
there
was
some
legal
research
into
the
issue
of
condemnation
and
we
even
reached
out
to
a
condemnation
expert
attorney
to
see
if
it
would
be
possible
for
the
city
to
move
forward
on
some
condemnation
with
respect
to
state-owned
property.
B
The
response
that
we
got
back
it
was
that
it
was
a
basically
a
case
of
first
impression
so
in
terms
of
the
ability
for
the
k
for
the
city
to
move
forward
on
something
like
that,
we
would
be
on
really
some
unknown
legal
grounds
and
because
of
that
uncertainty,
it
wasn't
pursued,
and
that's
that
is
my
understanding,
as
I
mentioned
before.
That
was
before
my
time,
but
that's
pretty
much
all
I
can
add
to
that.
B
Thank
you
sandra.
Can
I
call
queen
that
please
do
because
I
I've
comments
have
been
sent
to
me
to
the
extent
that
that
condemnation
might
be
possible
on
the
basis
of
life,
health
and
safety
considerations,
and
would
that
impact
our
analysis
at
all
here
or
would
it
I
mean?
Would
it
change
the
result
or
I
I
wasn't
privy
to
that
analysis,
but
I'm
sure
that
that
was
probably
an
issue
that
was
raised
when
we
reached
out
to
that
expert,
particularly
knowing
the
circumstances
that
we're
in?
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mary
mary.
I
can
probably
take
the
land
swap
question,
so
the
the
question
that
we've
heard
that
this
is
referring
to
is
whether
or
not
there's
been
analysis
done.
That
would
allow
the
city
to
exchange
land
it
owns
in,
what's
called
the
area.
3
planning
reserve
in
north
boulder
for
cu
south
so
essentially
relocate
see
you
south
to
the
north
part
of
the
city
and
make
the
cu
north
for
those
tuning
in
the
planning
reserve
is
roughly
500
acres
in
north
boulder.
B
It's
an
interim
classification
in
our
comprehensive
plan
called
area,
three
planning
reserve-
and
it's
interim
in
that
there's
a
very
detailed
and
thorough
process
by
which
the
city
and
the
county
undergo
to
determine
whether
or
not
that
area
becomes
part
of
the
city
and
so
there's
several
steps
involved
with
that.
It's
lengthy
on
purpose,
because
it's
a
large
area,
there's
limited
development
constraints
and
it's
one
of
the
kind
of
last
remaining
areas
where
we'll
grow
with
greenfield
development
as
a
city.
B
So,
as
I
mentioned,
roughly
500
acres
in
that
area,
the
city
owns
around
240
250
acres,
that
it
purchased
with
parks
and
rec
funding
in
the
1990s,
and
it
was
at
that
time
purchased
with
the
understanding
that
it's
kind
of
on
reserve
for
a
regional
park
and
then
there's
also
30
acres
in
that
area,
managed
by
our
housing
department,
and
so
just
want
to
note
that
we
did
have
a
study
session
with
council
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago
in
earl
february
of
2020,
where
council
discussed
this
and
staff
provided
a
memo.
B
We
talked
about
the
steps
in
the
process
and
the
necessary
delays.
It
would
cause
in
the
flood
mitigation
project
and
the
unknowns
with
a
number
of
things,
including
the
disposal
process
for
parks
land
that
we
own
there.
So
the
disposal
process
is
somewhat
similar
to
what
we
would
how
we
would
dispose
of
open
space,
and
so
due
to
the
uncertainties
and
the
time
timing
constraints.
There
wasn't
much
interest
with
council
to
move
forward
with
that.
B
If
council
so
chooses
to
look
at
that
area
of
the
planning
reserve,
and
so
through
that
process,
it's
most
likely
2027
or
so
when,
when
it
it
may
become
eligible
transportation.
B
I
actually
have
two.
I
didn't
get
to
the
previous
question
fast
enough
before
phil
started.
Answering
I
didn't
want
to
interrupt
himself.
Do
we
have
any
approximation
of
when
we
went
to
outside
counsel
about
condemning
condemnation?
B
Has
has
anyone
here
been
around
long
enough
to
know
that
hold
on
a
second
I'm
gonna
see
if
I
can
find
an
answer
for
you,
okay
feel
free
to
come
back
with
the
answer
when
you
have
it
I'll
move
on
to
my
second
colloquy.
As
far
as
land
swaps
are
concerned,
if
cu
you
know
hasn't
developed
any
of
the
land
at
cu
south.
B
If
this
were
to
pass
and
the
annexation
agreement
goes
forward,
is
there
opportunity
for
a
land
swap
if
the
north
property
is
annexed,
and
is
that
still
a
potential
in
the
future
phil?
B
I
suppose
anything
is
a
potential,
the
university's
position
and
they
are
present
tonight
if
they
have
any
interest
or
or
need
to
also
comment
was
that
in
order
to
entertain
those
discussions,
the
land
and
the
in
the
planning
reserve
would
need
to
be
eligible
for
annexation.
B
So
in
area
two-
and
that's
when
that's
all
those
different
steps
that
we
that
I
kind
of
mentioned
just
overall,
that
would
likely
last
until
20,
20
27,
and
so
the
timing
is
kind
of
I
I
don't
know
I
it
possibly
could
be
open,
but
it's
not
something
that
seemed
like
a
viable
option
in
2021.
B
Yeah
thanks
for
the
answer,
so
maybe
we
can
ask
that
question
directly
of
cu
when
we
get
to
that
part
of
the
discussion,
but
so
in
all
technicality
it
is
still
a
possibility
in
the
parties
yeah.
If
the
parties
can
agree
to
an
arrangement,
then
it
certainly
is
a
possibility.
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
moving
parts
and
a
lot
of
robust
plant
community
planning
that
needs
to
happen
in
north
boulder
too.
In
order
to
to
have
that
conversation,
thank
you
and
adam.
B
If
you
would
like,
I
believe,
the
university's
here
if
you'd
like
to
direct
the
question
to
the
applicant
about
that,
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
do
it
now.
Okay,
I
just
didn't
want
to
get
out
of
line
with.
I
know
you're
you're,
fine,
because
you're
colloquing
and
I
see
cus
up
here
so
if
we
want
to
get
them
to
unmute,
I
guess
really.
B
The
question
see
you
folks
is
if
we
ended
up
annexing
the
planning
reserve
or
part
of
the
planning
reserve
into
the
city,
and
it
were
an
annex
property,
would
it
be
something
that
you
would
consider
engaging
in
discussions
about
a
potential
swap?
B
So,
thank
you,
mayor
weaver.
This
is
pat
o'rourke,
I'm
here
with
the
chancellor,
abby
benson
and
derek
silva,
just
so
that
everybody
knows
we
are
in
the
chancellor's
conference
room
as
part
of
our
fully
vaccinated
facility,
so
we're
not
mass
but
we're
in
compliance
with
local
public
health
ordinances.
B
Just
so
you
know-
and
I
think
the
answer
to
the
question
is
that
if
the
parcel
of
land
was
annexed-
and
we
were
talking
about
both
having
fully
annexed
properties,
we
don't
want
to
be
in
a
position
where
we
would
say
we
are
unwilling
to
talk
about
that,
but
that
we
would
really
need
the
to
be
talking
about
annexed
parcels
of
property.
In
order
for
this
to
be
a
comparable
conversation.
B
Thank
you
adam.
Do
you
have
any
follow
up
with
that?
No,
I
totally
understand
that
legally
right
now,
they're,
not
interchangeable,
so
just
want
to
see
if
there's
even
a
potential
avenue
there.
So
thank
you.
B
I
I
just
wanted
to
add
that-
and
I
think
actually
phil
may
have
already
raised
this,
but
just
to
point
out
that
with
parks
property,
there
is
a
dual
approval
process
that
requires
prab
and
council
approval,
and
then
there
would
still
be
the
issue
of
paying
back
the
parks
money
if
the
property
was
disposed
and
then
also
to
follow
up
on
your
question
adam
with
respect
to
how
much
time
has
passed
since
we
sought
out
opinion
on
condemnation
that
was
within
the
past
two
years.
B
Great.
Thank
you
sandra
and
mark.
Is
this
colloquy
in
effect?
Yes,
I
am.
I
don't
know
whether
to
direct
it
actually
to
you,
sam
or
phil.
I
assume.
If
we
wanted
to
rearrange
our
work
plan
in
the
next
council,
we
could
create
a
higher
priority
for
the
urban
services
study
and
and
moving
forward
on
that.
If,
if
that
were
the
rule
of
council
I'll
say,
I
believe
you
absolutely
could
and
I'll
turn
to
phil
and
sandra
to
see.
If
there's
other
considerations,
we
we
could
do
that
at
any
time.
B
However,
the
subsequent
steps
in
looking
at
the
planning
reserve
have
to
happen
at
certain
times,
and
the
next
step
would
be
that
major
update
to
the
comprehensive
plan.
Those
steps
were
memorialized
in
our
intergovernmental
agreement,
with
boulder
county
that
we
adopt
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
so
if
we
wanted
to
change
the
timing
of
those,
we
would
probably
need
to
approach
boulder
county
and
to
see
if
they
would
be
open
to
those
ships
in
the
agreement,
but
that
that
could
that
approach
could
be
made
and
those
inquiries
could
be
conducted.
B
Am
I
am
I
missing
anything
I
I
don't
think
so
mark
there
had
been
talk
of
kicking
that
off
with
this
council,
but
covid
kind
of
put
the
kibosh
on
that
with
what
happened
to
the
requirements
for
planning
staff
and
the
loss
of
of
staff.
So
it
had
been
considered
in
the
subject
of
kind
of
speculation
that
we
might
come
to
this
in
2021,
but
it
did
not
happen
because
of
staff
constraints.
B
B
I
believe
we're
back
to
you,
mary,
okay.
Well,
thank
you
all
for
those
in-depth
responses,
and
I
appreciate
the
colloquies.
B
B
B
B
B
So
I
hope
that
addresses
your
question.
Yes,
it
does,
and
I
guess
I
have
just
a
follow-up
question
regarding
this-
was
a
contract
negotiation.
Is
that
correct?
B
B
B
B
It's
kind
of
it's
kind
of
loose
here,
weren't
questions,
but
any
council
member
can
ask
any
question
at
any
time.
So
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
ask
one
question
at
this
point,
because
mary
was
very
thorough.
Thank
you,
mary
for
those
great
questions.
B
So
there
was
a
question
raised
last
week
about
why
the
contract
did
not
include
standards
that
would
apply
in
the
situation
where
the
property
is
purchased
by
a
private
developer,
around
green
build
standards,
so
cu
has
committed
to
some
some
goals
and
and
maybe
not
standards,
but
at
least
some
goals
around
what
its
environmental
standards
would
be
for
the
buildings
at
cu
south.
Is
there
a
concern
that
we
don't
have
something
in
the
contract
that
would
apply
to
private
developers?
B
Not
only
would
they
have
to
comply
with
all
city
regulations,
including
building
codes,
but
also
our
net
zero
standards
at
that
time,
which
will
be
stricter
than
they
are
now
awesome
so
just
to
to
make
sure
I
heard
that
correctly
there
will
be
standards
that
apply
to
private
developers
if
it
if
it
goes,
that
route
would
change
31
at
the
earliest,
at
which
point
we'll
have
net
zero
standards
in
place.
Yes,
okay,
thanks
so
much
okay,
super
and
then
I've
got
adam
and
mark
adam
yeah.
I
wasn't
ready
to
move
on
quite
yet
either.
B
Sorry,
sam
no
problem,
so
my
question
is
regarding
something
we
heard
in
the
presentation
last
week
actually
and
that's
about
who
is
eligible
to
annex
the
property
into
city
services
and
what
the
timelines
are
for
those
different
eligibilities.
So
I
understand
that
I
don't
know
the
exact
number
of
years.
I
think
it's
about
10.
We
have
the
exclusive
ability
to
annex
the
property,
and
I
just
wanted
another
explanation
on
that
and
how
that
would
play
out
in
the
future.
B
B
Sorry
I'm
talking
about
the
opportunity
for
a
city
like
superior
to
provide
city
services
to
the
property
yeah
there's
I
can
get
the
exact
date,
but
there
is
an
intergovernmental
agreement
between
boulder
and
superior
and,
I
believe,
louisville
along
u.s
36.
That
agreement
includes
kind
of
areas
of
influence
where
the
parties
have
agreed
that
we're
not
going
to
provide
urban
services
to
the
other
city's
area
of
interest
and
cu
south
is
in
the
city
of
boulder's
area
of
interest.
B
That
agreement,
I
believe,
expires
at
the
end
of
I
think
in
2030,
and
so,
if
not
renewed,
then
that
protection
would
not
be
there
and,
technically
speaking,
a
city
could
possibly
provide
urban
services
to
cu
south.
However,
you
know
that's,
that's
that's
all
we
know
now
oftentimes
the
county
does
approach
those
parties
of
an
agreement
like
that
to
extend
renegotiate
and
so
on.
B
Yeah.
Thanks
for
that
phil
and
do
we
know
what
that
process
that
iga
process
looks
like
it's
just
county
run,
and
is
it
pretty
normal
for
it
to
you
know,
be
re-upped
each
time
or
are
there
changes
made
pretty
regularly?
What's
what
are
the
sort
of
you
don't
have
to
give
me
exact
probabilities,
but
you
know
what
what's
the
possibility?
B
I
I
suppose
it
would
deter
depend
on
the
parties
and
and
what
is
happening
in
in
several
years
from
now
overall
along
the
corridor.
I
will,
I
would
say
I
point
to
the
history
of
boulder
county
and
they've,
provided
a
lot
of
leadership
in
this
regional,
intergovernmental
collaboration
with
different
intergovernmental
agreements,
around
growth
and
development
and
other
things
throughout
the
county
and
so
they're
pretty
good
at
it.
I
would
I
would
say,
and
overall
I
would
say,
boulder
and
boulder
county.
Our
relationship
is
strong.
B
We've
been
doing
this
collaborative
planning
for
a
half
century,
and
I
know
we
would
certainly
be
working
together
closely
when
that
time
came
too.
B
All
right,
thanks,
phil
mark
sam,
provide
me
with
a
little
structure
here.
This
is
an
appropriate
or
an
inappropriate
time
to
ask
questions
about
the
emergency
versus
non-emergency,
any
anything
you'd
like
to
at
this
point.
Okay,
and
then
this
goes
back
to
legal.
I
guess
first,
how
common
is
the
use
of
emergency
standards
of
passing
ordinances?
I
mean.
Is
it
something
we
do
with
any
frequency
it?
It
is
something
that
we
do
with
some
definite
frequency.
B
I
don't
know
the
exact
numbers,
but
I
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
it's
you
know
in
double
digits.
B
Okay,
all
right
in
terms
of
finding
a
fact
does
there
have
to
be
any
temporal
nexus
between
the
conditions,
we're
trying
to
address
and
the
use
of
the
emergency
provision.
You
know
we're
trying
to
prevent
flood.
You
know
threats
to
health,
life
and
safety,
but
those
are
at
a
very
indeterminate
time
in
the
future.
So
do
you
need
any
any
relationship
between
those
conditions
and
the
use
of
the
emergency
procedure
or
not?
B
The
cases
are
a
fine
deference
to
the
legislative
bodies
that
find
emergency
findings,
they're
not
going
to
re-weigh
all
of
the
evidence,
and
they
will
in
most
cases,
defer
to
the
legislative
body's
decision
on
those
questions.
So
it's
a
relatively
low
threshold
and
I
guess
my
last
question
with
respect
to
that
is:
we
know
there
is.
There
is
some
practical
benefit
to
passing
this
by
emergency
and
that
it
allows
us
to
continue
to
design
and
permit,
even
during
the
tendency
of
a
referendum
should
that
occur?
B
B
There
could
be
some
procedural
considerations
taken
as
well,
because,
certainly
if
the
measure
is
allowed
to
move
forward
and
to
address
the
emergency
based
on
some
procedural
elements,
then
those
could
be
taken
into
consideration
as
well,
but
really
as
a
threshold
matter.
It's
the
former
and
same
may.
I
ask
one
unrelated
question:
absolutely
okay,
I
I
know
there
has
been
a
land
change
with
respect
to
making
the
agreement
subject
to
disposal
of
the
land
that
we
require
by
osbt.
B
B
So
I'm
happy
to
go
that
route,
but
there's
a
second
part
of
that
which
is
there
are
provisions
that
actually
permit
another
referendum
if
an
if
a
disposal
takes
place,
and
so
my
question
is
why
don't
we
at
least
get
a
recognition
that
that's
a
factor
as
we
move
forward,
because
I
really
do
not
want
to
end
up
in
a
situation
where
the
disposal
itself
is
subject
to
a
referendum
and
for
whatever
reason
that
passes,
and
now
we
have
no
disposal.
B
We
have
no
flood
mitigation
project
and
we're
fully
engaged
with
a
fully
vested
cu.
South
project
see
you
have
a
position
on
just
the
second
half
of
it.
I
don't
mind
so
much
about
osbt,
because
I'm
willing
to
take
my
chances
there,
but
a
referendum
is
a
referendum
and,
if
they're
subject
to
an
existing
referendum,
why
not
subject
to
that
as
well,
so
I'll?
I
can
try
and
answer
that
question
for
you
mark.
Thank
you.
B
B
The
university
has
not
supported
adding
the
failure
of
disposal
in
the
annexation
agreement,
because
it's
a
decision,
that's
in
the
control
of
the
city.
This
is
not
the
case
with
all
of
the
other
regulatory
agencies
that
are
listed
in
the
agreement.
B
However,
if
so
directed
the
city
could
pursue
other
approaches
to
pursuing
the
project,
including
the
consideration
of
litigation
options
or
even
amending
the
city's
code
and
charter.
So
these
are
issues
that
would
be
addressed
as
they
come
up,
and
I
hope
that
answers
some
of
your
questions.
Well,
no,
it
does
not
because
we're
subject
to
a
charter
approved
referendum
on
our
action
tonight,
and
so
my
question
is:
why
are
we
not
subject
to
a
referendum
on
the
disposal?
Again,
I'm
not
worried
so
much
about
the
actions
of
osbt.
B
I
think
they'll
behave
in
a
professional
and
rational
way.
You
know
I'm
not
worried
about
litigations
and
charter
amendments.
I'm
simply
saying
that.
There's
the
possibility
that
a
referendum
of
the
voters
declines
to
approve
that
disposal
and
then
we
are
in
a
situation
where
we
have
a
signed
annexation
agreement.
We
cannot
get
the
primary
benefit
that
we
are
seeking,
which
is
flood
mitigation
and
we
are
kind
of
left
with
a
bag
of
air
so
so
mark.
B
May
I
ask:
is
there
a
question
in
here
because
it
sounds
like
some
of
this
is
a
discussion
between
council
members,
but
what's
the
question
for
staff,
my
question
is:
is
there
a
principal
difference
between
two
different
charter
provisions
calling
for
referenda
that
we
should
be
subject
to
one
and
not
subject
to
the
other?
B
I
I
can
answer
that
question
mark,
so
you
you're
right.
We
are
subject
to
both
of
those
referendums
if
a
disposal
is
required
for
ospt
or
osmp,
that
disposal
would
be
subject
to
a
referendum.
You
are
correct
in
that
regard.
B
What
isn't
what
we
don't
know
right
now,
because
it's
too
far
into
the
future
is
whether
that
would
be
approved
or
not
and
there's
lots
of
different
factors
that
could
be
that
could
occur
between
now
and
then
that
could
require
or
allow
for
a
disposal
to
happen,
and
I
see
joe's
turn
on
his
video.
I
don't
know
if
he
had
anything
else
to
add,
or
somebody
else
did.
B
Joe
yeah,
I
did,
I
didn't,
have
anything
to
add
on
topic,
so
I've
got
a
couple
of
other
hands
mark,
but
I
also
think
that,
to
the
extent
that
we
get
answers
from
staff,
I
think
this
is
a
important
subject
to
discuss
with
the
full
council
as
well.
So
I
see
rachel
and
then
mary
yep
just
a
follow-up
question
for
sandra.
B
While
we
are
on
emergency
and
I'm
sorry
if
this
was
answered
earlier,
I
have
four
dogs
in
my
room
and
there
were
a
couple
times
when
they
were
barking
like
just
all
the
time,
so
I
may
have
missed
it,
but
if
we
pass
by
emergency,
does
that
somehow
inhibit
or
limit
direct
democracy
or
the
right
for
people
to
referendum?
The
annexation?
B
Absolutely
not
and-
and
I
think
actually
sam's
diagram
that
he
put
out
on
hotline
is
a
good
representation
of
that
it
does
include,
does
not
include
the
legal
risks
or
any
of
the
other
nuances,
but
I
think
what
it
clearly
shows
is
that
in
each
circumstance
the
voters
would
be
entitled
to
exercise
the
road
vote,
the
right
to
vote
in
either
circumstance.
B
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
ask
for
that
clarification
because
there's
been,
I
think,
some
intimation,
that
the
emergency
vote
would
somehow
stamp
out
direct
democracy.
So
it's
staff's
opinion
that
that's
not
the
case
correct.
Thank
you
and
mary.
B
Thanks
sam,
I,
this
is
a
question
I
believe
for
sandra,
and
this
is
another
question
in
the
category
of
things
that
keep
coming
up,
and
so
what
keeps
coming
up
is
why
can't
we
vote
on
this?
We
voted
for
excel.
B
So
if
you
could
just
explain
what
the
difference
is
between
why
we
voted
on
the
excel
contract
and
why
this
didn't
get
put
up
to
a
vote
of
the
people.
B
Well,
we're
dealing
with
an
annexation
ordinance,
and
so
that
takes
a
legislative
process
according
to
our
charter.
The
the
idea
that
it
would
be
required
to
go
to
a
vote
was
attempted.
I
I
think
several
years
ago
I
don't
recall
now
that
the
actual
year
when
that
happened,
but
but
it
failed,
and
so
the
voters
had
an
opportunity
to
put
something
in
the
charter
that
would
require
a
vote
for
any
any
annexation
and
that
just
didn't
fall
through
or
that
fell
through.
B
So
it's
not
something
that
is
required
under
our
charter
and
in
our
home
rural
city
and
just
to
follow
up,
but
a
franchise
is
required
to
go
to
a
vote.
Is
that
correct?
That
is
correct?
Yes,
and
the
the
muni
question
was
based
around
the
franchise
correct?
B
Yes,
okay,
all
right,
mary
back
to
you
thank
you
sandra
and
that
that
was
a
initiative
ballot
item
and
the
year
was
2006.
B
and
mary.
If
I
recall,
sounds
like
you've
got
that
up,
didn't
that
fail
like
60
to
40,
or
something
like
that.
Yes
correct,
so
the
voters
had
an
opportunity
to
put
in
our
charter
a
requirement
that
we
would
vote
on
annexations,
I
believe
it
said
larger
than
five
acres
and
that
provision
failed.
So
it's
not
in
our
charter,
because
people
did
vote
on.
That
is
that
the
way
you
read
that?
Yes,
that's
correct,
that's
that's
how
I
read
it.
B
And
that's
all
yeah,
that's
all
I
have
that's.
That
was
the
only
other
question
I
had.
Thank
you,
okay
and
mark.
I
just
had
one
quick
note
in
your
questions
about
adoption
by
emergency.
I
had
taylor
ryman.
Thank
you.
Taylor
have
a
look
at
this
council.
We
have
passed
17
measures
by
emergency.
B
Some
of
them
are
the
supplements
which
we
normally
do
by
emergency.
Some
of
them
were
coveted
related,
but
let
me
tell
you
a
few
that
we
adopted
by
emergency
that
we're
not
the
tents
and
propane
tanks.
Measure
that
we
did
this
summer
was
adopted
on
emergency
fees,
on
scooters
were
adopted
by
emergency
dockless
bike
share
was
adopted
by
emergency
and
the
moratorium
on
on
the
scooters
was
also
done
by
emergency.
B
So
I
guess
we
have
a
history
of
this
council
having
been
able
to
do
that
without
significant
concern
so
and
tailored
to
the
rescue
yeah.
Okay,
any
other
questions
council,
so
any
of
any
kind.
I
I
specifically
wanted
to
call
out
any
questions
on
those
four
small
changes
to
the
annexation
agreement
or
anything
else.
This
is
the
time
to
ask
any
questions
of
staff.
You
might
have
sandra,
so
I
just
have
a
clarification
to
make
regarding
the
iga
that
we
had
discussed
earlier
and
the
the
expiration
date
was
actually
incorrect.
B
I
believe
it
was
I'll
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
my
notes.
B
I'm
not
finding
it
now
2023.,
so
it
wasn't,
it
doesn't
expire
in
2030.
It's
in
2023
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
correct
information
was
out
there
thanks
super
and
I
I
think
there
are
a
couple
there's
a
super
iga
and
there's
another
one
with
lafayette
and
I
think
there's
the
one
with
lafayette
is
like
to
2030
and
and
the
super
iga
was
2023.
B
B
B
So
just
thank
you
for
that
to
the
negotiating
team.
B
That's
all.
I
have
all
right
super
okay
with
that,
then,
if
we're
done
with
questions,
I
had
proposed
six
different
topic
areas
for
us
to
talk
about,
and
these
were
really
just
kind
of
free
form,
discuss
and
any
feedback,
and
then,
if,
if
we
don't
have
any
specifics
on
those,
we
can
go
to
each
council
member
and
talk
about
kind
of
our
perspectives
on
this.
So
the
first
one
that
I
had
teed
up
was
about
the
structure
of
the
agreement.
Specifically,
it
provides
the
annexation
terms.
B
B
B
I
believe,
that's
the
case,
but
phil.
If
you
can
just
confirm
that
okay
and
phil,
could
you
just
give
a
small
rationale
for
each
of
those
land
uses?
Why
we
think
or
why
planning
thinks
the
public
is
appropriate
for
those
absolutely.
B
I
have
a
couple
of
notes,
but
so
just
bear
with
me
the
this,
as
mentioned
last
week
and
in
the
memo
staff
did
find
that
the
initial
zoning
of
public
was
consistent
with
the
three
land
use
designations
on
the
property,
and
so
the
big
question
that
council
must
answer
is
whether
or
not
zoning
of
the
annexed
land
is
consistent
with
the
goals
and
the
land
use
designations
of
the
comp
plan
of
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
and,
as
summarized
last
week,
the
most
clearly
articulated
goals
of
the
comp
plan
is
through
the
cu
south
guiding
principles
which
talk
about
what
happens
in
different
areas
of
the
site
that
aligns
with
the
three
land
use
designations
on
the
property.
B
We
found
that
that
was
consistent
with
the
initial
zoning
of
public,
because
the
definition
of
a
public
land
use
specifically
anticipates
the
university,
and
it's
also
consistent
with
how
the
other
cu
boulder
campuses
are
zoned
in
the
city
and
and
the
consistent
with
the
land
uses
found
on
other
campuses.
B
The
other
helena's
designation
as
park,
urban
and
other
represents
60
acres
of
the
property,
and
the
agreement
in
this
case
does
allow
flood
mitigation,
flood
control
and
recreational
purposes
which
are
bolts
specifically
mentioned
in
the
definition
of
the
park
urban
other
area
and
then
the
third
land
use
designation
on
the
property
is
open
space
other
and
that's
119
acres
of
the
property.
B
There
is
no
complementary
zoning
district
for
the
open
space,
other
land
use
category,
but
in
our
analysis,
we
did
find
that
it's
consistent
with
the
public
zoning
district,
because
the
agreement
will
regulate
the
land
that
portion
of
the
property
in
a
way
that's
consistent
with
the
open
space.
Other
definition.
B
All
right
super
the
the
few
other
topic
areas.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
council
members
had
a
chance
to
speak
to
or
weigh
in
on,
if
you
have
any
specific
concerns
or
or
thoughts
on
conditions
for
development
on
the
property.
So
the
annexation
agreement
has
a
lot
of
focus
on
conditions
required
for
development.
Things
like
the
height
plane,
setbacks,
phasing
of
different
types
of
uses
and
the
uses
themselves
which
are
permitted
any
desire.
B
Questions
comment
adam
yeah,
during
one
of
our
discussions
a
while
ago,
I
asked
a
question
about
phasing
and
the
traffic
studies,
or
just
you
know.
I
know
that
the
cu
campus
is
supposed
to
be
built
in
phases
and
obviously
would
only
make
sense
that,
with
each
phase
a
proportional
amount
of
traffic
would
go
into
each
phase,
so
you're
not
counting
sort
of
the
full
amount
that
is
allotted
for
the
entire
property
for
each
individual
phase.
Where
did
we
land
with
that
phil?
B
It
was
something
that
the
negotiating
team
did
bring
up,
but
we
were
not
able
to
reach
an
agreement
for
incorporating
that
into
the
proposed
annexation
agreement.
We
were
able
to
reach
agreement
around
phasing.
The
property
from
north
to
the
south
and
specific
points
of
measurement
prior
to
development
in
between
phases
of
development,
but
we
were
not
able
to
reach
agreement
on
doing
kind
of
proportional
trip
trip
budgets,
trip
caps
as
development
progresses.
B
B
Just
a
question
about
there:
there's
a
limit
of
2
000
square
feet
maximum
size
for
a
dwelling
unit.
Is
that
correct
not
not
entirely?
There
was
concern
in
our
public
process
about
the
university
building.
There's
a
two
to
one
ratio
of
residential
to
non-residential,
and
so
two
square
feet
of
residential
can
be
constructed
for
every
one
square
foot
of
non-residential.
B
That
would
then
allow
for
a
lot
of
non-residential
development,
and
so
what
we
added
into
the
agreement
is
just
through
the
public
process,
where
we
learned
this
and
heard
this
was
that
in
that
ratio,
the
residential
side,
no
matter
how
big
the
structure
is,
the
unit
you
can
only
count
2
000
square
feet
of
it,
and
so,
if
the
university
built
a
3,
000
square
foot
home
only
2
000
square
feet
of
that
would
count
towards
that
ratio
of
residential
to
non-residential.
B
B
B
Mary,
so
just
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
we've
gotten
emails
about
is:
why
isn't
there
in
the
agreement,
a
requirement
to
use
real-time
monitoring.
B
We
heard
that
that
was
in
the
planning
board's
recommendation
too,
and
so
we
did
add
a
term
around
that
the
university
will
consider
real-time
traffic
monitoring,
but
it
doesn't
require
it.
I
think
the
I
I
would
let
the
university
speak
to
their
approach,
but
overall,
I
think
there
was
some
concern
with
becoming
too
prescriptive
because
but
still
putting
the
statement
in
to
the
agreement
so
that
when
we
do
get
to
that
stage,
there
is
an
expectation
that
that's
considered
and-
and
so
it's
not
a
requirement,
though.
B
Right
super,
and
for
for
this
point
I
I
would
turn
to
the
university
and
see
if
the
university
would
like
to
talk
about
their
intention
as
far
as
real
traffic
monitoring
goes,
because
that
has
been
something
that's
come
up
multiple
times
and
it's
a
intent
in
our
agreement,
but
it's
not
a
requirement.
So
would
you
please
speak
to
university
your
thoughts
on?
B
Can
I
can
I
just
call
it
quite
too
and
invite
the
university
to
to
address
why
they
didn't
want
to
say
yes
to
the
phasing
trent
trip
caps
applying
to
phasing
as
well
adam's
question.
Super!
That's
two
questions
to
you
right.
You
start
with
real-time
monitoring
and
then
move
on
to.
Why
don't
the
trip
caps
scale
with
the
phasing.
B
Yeah
sure
so
derek
silva
assistant
vice
chancellor
for
business
strategy
here
at
the
university
and
with
regard
to
the
with
regard
to
phasing,
I'm
going
to
start
with
the
trip
cap,
one
first
with
regard
to
phasing
the
trip
cap-
it
it
just
didn't,
seem
practical
to
take
that
on
and
especially
to
because
it
could
absolutely
result
in
a
limiting
of
development
and
for
reasons
where
there
would
not
be
sufficient
traffic
to
have
an
impact
right.
B
The
traffic
study
identifies
different
points
of
impact,
the
traffic
for
the
the
traffic
anticipated
for
the
total
amount
of
development,
and
that's
what
we've
agreed
to
so
we're
not.
We
did
not
want
to
agree
to
any
phasing
of
that
trip
cap.
It
just
becomes
very,
very
burdensome
and
with
regard
to
the
other,
was
the
other
question.
It's
a
real-time
traffic
monitoring,
derek
so
yeah,
so
with
the
real-time
traffic
monitoring,
we're
open
to
whatever
technological
advances
that
would
make
the
most
sense
to
incorporate
to
be
able
to
monitor
that
traffic.
B
B
So
I
think
we're
open
in
the
future,
though
okay
mary
any
further
on
that
or
adam.
B
I
don't
have
anything
further
and
thank
you
all
for
the
responses.
Great.
Thank
you.
Okay,
with
that.
Our
next
subject
is
open
space,
environmental
conditions
and
I'll
include
disposal
in
this
and
so
mark.
I
wanted
to
to
have
an
exchange
with
you
on
this
point.
I
I
think,
when
I
think
about
process
generally
on
this
whole
annexation,
it
seems
to
me
like
if
we
pass
an
annexation
ordinance,
then
folks
have
the
ability
to
to
gather
signatures
and
cause
a
referendum,
and
if
that
referendum
is
certified,
then
there's
a
vote.
B
If
it
gets
past
that
gate,
then
the
voters
have
said
the
annexation
is
acceptable
as
an
annexation
agreement
and
if,
at
a
future
time,
osbt
chooses
not
to
dispose
or
there's
a
referendum
and
the
referendum
chooses
not
to
dispose
land
which
would
cause
a
problem
with
the
flood
project.
It
seems
like
there's
some
alternatives
there.
B
One
alternative
sandra
talked
about,
which
is
citizens,
group
or
council,
could
send
a
measure
to
the
voters
to
change
the
charter
to
dispose
those
four
acres
specifically,
and
so
people
in
boulder
would
have
a
chance
to
specifically
weigh
in
on
that
again.
If
they
wanted
to,
it
also
seems
like
the
flood
project
itself
could
be
potentially
changed
if
needed,
because
that
would
be
a
requirement
at
that
point.
If
the
people
voted
to
do
that,
but
it
seems
like
everything
about
that.
B
If,
at
that
time,
the
voters
choose
not
to
dispose,
because,
ultimately
the
voters
will
make
this
decision,
then
that
is
a
choice
that
is
made
in
light
of
perhaps
changed
information,
but
there
is
a
chance
in
the
next
year
for
voters
to
weigh
in
on
the
annexation
itself
and
then
in
the
future,
there's
a
chance
to
weigh
in
on
disposal.
B
So
to
me
that
seems
like
appropriate
process,
and
it
seems
like
there's
plenty
of
optionality,
and
I
wouldn't
see
that
anything
else
would
be
needed
in
the
agreement
to
cover
these
future
conditions,
which
we
may
not
know
now.
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
say
that
thought
and
happy
to
hear
any
responses
from
you,
but
well,
I
guess
my
first
one
is
the
staff.
You
mentioned
the
possibility
of
changing
the
contours
of
the
flood
mitigation
project,
as
that
is
the
the
core
benefit
that
we're
hoping
to
achieve.
B
Out
of
all
of
this,
I
I
guess
my
question
for
staff
is:
is
that
even
possible
if
such
a
disposal
would
be
were
to
be
contested
by
referendum
and
the
referendum
for
the
past?
Is
it
actually
one
of
our
alternatives
to
change
the
the
nature
of
the
flood
mitigation
project
and
work
around
that
rejected
disposal?
B
B
That
is
the
basis
of
our
design,
but
I
I
think
I'll
leave
it
on
at
that,
and
if
I,
if
I
have
further
thoughts,
I'll
I'll
raise
my
hand,
I
I
guess
my
question
joe
then,
would
be
assuming
that,
for
some
reason
the
voters
chose
not
to
overturn
the
annexation
but
chose
to
overturn
the
disposal.
B
Wouldn't
one
of
the
options
be
to
greatly
scale
back
the
flood
mitigation
project
to
something
that
was
less
than
the
hundred
year.
What
would
you
do
or
what
would
a
future
joe
do
in
the
case
where
all
of
a
sudden,
the
voters
have
let
the
annexation
happen
and
then
have
not
let
the
disposal
of
those
four
or
five
acres
occur.
What
would
what
would
the
utilities
department
do?
B
The
the
height
of
the
flood
wall
would
potentially
be
less
if
we
were
doing
a
a
lesser
level
of
design,
but
I
think
we
might
have
to
revisit
the
master
plan
process
and
and
maybe
start
from
scratch.
B
Let
me
get
at
this
another
way
in
anticipation
that
we
may
well
have
a
referendum
in
2022.
B
What
would
be
the
timing
of
the
disposal
request
so
that
if
there
is
a
referendum
on
that,
perhaps
we
can
combine
them
all
into
one
happy
contest
in
2022,
as
opposed
to
doing
them
in
series.
B
That's
probably
a
a
question
for
sandra
and-
and
I
know
that
the
disposal
process
does
have
an
element
that
allows
for
a
vote,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
how
that
that
all
works,
but
maybe
dan
and
sandra,
know
I'll
just
chime
in
by
it's.
The
disposal
process
does
not
neces
necessarily,
in
fact,
I'm
not
aware
of
one
in
which
it
ended
up
in
a
vote
by
the
the
electorate,
but
there
is
a
a
process
in
place
that
would
allow
for
it.
B
If,
after
the
affirmative
vote
by
both
ospt
and
council,
then
there
is
a
waiting
period
and
during
that
waiting
period,
if
there's
a
a
petition
that
is
signed
by
at
least
five
percent
of
the
electorate,
then
that
would
then
trigger
it
to
go
to
referendum.
So
a
disposal
in
and
of
itself
doesn't
sort
of
guarantee
that
there
will
be
a
vote
of
of
the
electorate
on
that
issue.
B
There
has
to
be
a
threshold
through
a
petition
period
that
would
have
to
be
sort
of
adhered
to
before
it
would
necessitate
that
a
vote
so
mark
the
idea
of
combining
it
with
a
november
ballot
at
such
and
such
a
time.
B
That
is
assuming
that
that
there
is
a
vote,
and
but
there
is
a
threshold
first
to
a
petition
period.
That
would
need
to
be
done.
I'm
really
asking
if
it's
something
we
plan
to
do
well
before
the
2022
election,
because,
as
I
said,
I
think
we
are
better
off
having
them
both
on.
If
there's
going
to
be
a
referendum
on
a
disposal,
I
think
we're
better
off
having
it
on
the
same
ballot.
B
I
suspect
they
will
both
pass
or
both
fail,
but
that
will
give
us
much
more
clarity
in
terms
of
how
we
proceed.
B
So
we
have
a
couple
other
hands
up
and
I
think
this
is.
Do
you
have
a
question
for
dan
before
I
move
on
to
other
information,
I
have
a
colloquy
okay,
go
ahead,
mary
yeah
so
mark
you
said
something
interesting
about
putting
both
of
them
on
the
ballot.
Should
there
be
a
certified
referendum
that
there
there
would
be
that
one,
and
then
why
not
put
these
two
on
the
ballot?
B
So
it
occurred
to
me
that
one
of
the
the
things
that
sam
mentioned
was
that
we
could
put
a
charter
amendment
up
for
a
vote
that
disposed
of
the
four
acres.
B
So
you
could
it's
a
possibility
that
you
could
just
go
ahead
and
put
that
charter
amendment
for
a
vote
next
year,
regardless
of
what's
going
on.
So
I
guess
that's
a
question
for
sandra.
B
And
I'm
sorry,
can
you
can
you
repeat
that
last
part,
it's
are
you
asking
about
whether
or
not
the
question
of
a
referendum
from
this
disposal
question
could
be
added
to
the
other
referendum.
No,
what
sam
mentioned
was
that
you
could.
You
could
just
essentially
have
a
charter
vote
on
the
disposal
of
the
four
acres
necessary
for
flood
mitigation,
and
that
could
be
a
ballot
item.
That's
placed
on
the
ballot
by
council.
B
B
I
guess
it's
a
slight
colloquy
just
that
I
think
a
lot
of
this
is
getting
into
territory
that
the
next
council
will
have
to
decide
and
I'm
just
worried
that
we're
drifting,
although
I
thought
it
was
a
great
idea,
mary,
like
the
the
notion
of
of
putting
it
to
the
voters
so
but
but
I
think
we
could
be
in
for
a
long
night,
as
is
so
just
want
to
encourage
us
to
stay
on
track.
Okay.
B
So
thanks
for
that
rachel
and
mark,
I
I
agree
with
you
that
this
is
an
issue
that
ultimately
will
have
to
get
dealt
with
by
hook
or
by
crook
in
one
way
or
another.
But
maybe
we
don't
know
enough
tonight
to
go
through
all
of
the
scenarios,
and
I
guess
the
pertinent
question
to
me
is:
does
it
affect
the
annexation
agreement
or
not?
B
It
does
sound
like
rachel
said
to
me,
like
this,
is
items
for
the
next
council
to
consider,
because
the
next
council
will
have
the
benefit
of
knowing
whether
a
referendum
occurred
and
the
next
council
will
have
a
benefit
of
input
from
utilities
and
open
space
about
when
the
appropriate
time
is
to
go
to
osb
and
ask
for
a
disposal:
okay,
fair
enough.
B
Okay.
That
brings
us
to
the
la
mary.
I
see
your
hand
before
I
move
on.
Oh
it's
an
old
hand,
okay
and
then
the
last
item
that
I
had
flagged
for
just
kind
of
free
specific
discussion
was
passage
by
emergency
measure
or
non-emergency
measure.
Should
we
choose
to
pass
it?
We've
had
a
bunch
of
questions
and
discussion
about
that.
So
far,
is
there
any
other
input,
questions,
feedback.
B
All
right,
I
see
none
so
in
what
we
said
as
far
as
organizing
this
goes
is
that
we
are
ready
really
to
begin
council,
discussion
and
debate.
So
it's
our
night,
and
this
is
the
last
item
so
before
we
start
that
I'll
ask,
does
anybody
want
a
break
or
should
we
just
power
through
raise
your
hand?
If
you
want
to
break,
I
see
adam's
hand
up
mark.
Do
you
want
a
break
all
right?
Let's
take
a
five
minute
break
and
we'll
come
back
and
we'll
start
with
discussions.
B
B
B
All
right:
well,
I
don't
see
nuri's
camera
on,
but
I
expect
she
will
join
us
shortly
last
chance
for
questions.
Otherwise,
if
it's
okay,
with
counsel
I'd
like
us
to
start
discussions
on
the
merits
of
the
annexation
agreement
and
move
towards
whatever
emotions,
we're
gonna
make
we're
going
good
with
that
super.
If
it's
okay,
I'm
going
to
take
a
prerogative
here
and
I'm
going
to
kick
us
off
on
discussions,
if
there's
no
objections,
all
right
see
none!
Thank
you.
B
So
it's
obvious
that
this
is
a
really
important
issue
to
our
community,
and
many
folks
are
very
passionate
about
it
and
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
for
that.
Of
course.
The
first
one
is
that
we
have
some
critical
values
and
boulder
around
open
space
and
land
use,
as
well
as
some
of
the
history
that
attends
to
this
property.
So
I'm
going
to
try
and
frame
up
some
of
the
history
and
walk
through
what
I
think
some
of
the
key
issues
are
and
how
I
come
down
on
those
personally.
B
So
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
this
particular
parcel
of
land
was
identified
in
the
1977
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan,
as
area
of
land
to
be
annexed
into
boulder
was
contiguous
with
it,
and
it
was
envisioned
at
that
time
to
be
a
subdivision.
B
But
I
guess
the
way
I
read
this
is
it's
been
intended
to
be
a
housing
focused
piece
of
land
development
for
45
years,
then
at
some
point,
the
flat
iron
company
came
in
turned
it
into
a
gravel
pit
mined.
It
put
up
the
levy,
and
then
there
was
a
controversy
about
reclamation
or
non-reclamation,
and
then
in
1996
the
university
purchased
that
property,
and
there
was
controversy
about
that.
How
much
it
was
paid
for
whether
the
city
should
have
been
able
to
buy
it
terms
of
the
purchase.
B
Whether
or
not
cu
was
going
to
reclaim
it
or
take
down
the
levy
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
But
all
of
that
history
is
old.
The
cu
purchase
is
25
years
ago
now,
and
we
must
move
on
from
the
history
dominating
the
conversation
about
this
property.
We
have
to
take
it
for
what
it
is:
a
piece
of
land
which
is
owned
by
the
university
in
which
we
have
interest
in
for
open
space
and
for
flood
mitigation
and
as
part
of
kind
of
turning
the
corner
and
moving
on
in
2009.
B
The
city
kicked
off
the
south
boulder
creek
flood
mitigation
study,
which
is
12
years
ago.
So
we
have
been
studying
talking
about
and
thinking
about,
flood
mitigation
on
this
property
for
12
years
formally,
and
for
some
time
before
that,
of
course,
and
then
we
all
know
what
happened
in
2013
and
in
2013,
we
got
to
see
with
our
eyes
what
a
100
year,
flood
event
in
this
drainage
looks
like
what
the
over
topping
looks
like
what
the
life
threat
is
like
and
so
on.
B
With
that
knowledge,
we
went
through
the
2015
comp
plan,
update
and
added
the
guiding
principles
around
this
property
to
the
comp
plan,
and
it
was
clear
to
everyone
I
think,
on
council
and
in
the
community
that
we
had
teed
up
the
foundation
for
an
annexation
discussion.
That's
the
way
it
was
framed
in
the
comp
plan
and
I
think
that's
the
way
that
we
all
understood
it.
So
to
me,
the
2017
comp
plan
adoption
for
the
2015
update
was
kind
of
us
saying
as
a
community.
B
The
first
element
of
thinking
about
anything
about
this
has
got
to
be
the
flood
issue,
and
we
know
that
it's
a
critical
life
safety
threat.
In
fact,
some
of
the
most
sudden
and
violent
flash
flooding
potential
in
the
entire
city
is
on
this
drainage
way
and
in
addition,
we
as
a
community
have
declared
that
we
are
in
a
climate
emergency
which
magnifies
the
risk
not
only
the
frequency
but
the
intensity
of
these
kinds
of
flooding,
events,
which
we
also
know
that
we
are
the
community
in
colorado,
with
the
single
highest
risk
of
flooding.
B
So
we
know
that
we're
first
in
line
for
big
floods.
We
know
that
the
climate
emergency
is
making
this
worse
and
we
have
a
recent
event
that
shows
us
how
dangerous
this
is
our
responsibility
as
council.
Obviously,
our
highest
priority
is
protecting
life,
health
and
property,
and
doing
so
in
a
way
which
is
equitable
to
everyone.
B
B
There
will
be
events
which
are
more
than
100-year
event,
but
a
100-year
project
will
have
many
positive
impacts,
the
first
of
which
is
that
it
will
delay
the
over-topping
significantly
a
100
year
plan
in
a
500
year.
Flood
event
will
detain
about
55
percent
of
the
water
that
would
ultimately
have
over
tops
us
36,
and
so
it
will
keep
us
36
open
for
longer.
B
The
annexation
of
this
property
is
the
most
clear
and
timely
pathway
to
flood
protection,
and
the
reason
why
at
the
top
line
for
me,
is
that
it's
the
most
comprehensive
and
it's
the
most
practical
way
to
balance
all
of
the
critical
values
on
the
property.
We
need
land
for
flood
protection
and
detention.
That's
the
direct
36
acres
we
need,
but
we
also
need
119
acres
for
habitat
protection
and
expansion
that
will
be
in
open
space.
We
have
to
get
that
land
and
water
rights
for
that
habitat.
B
I
will
also
emphasize
that,
as
part
of
this
project,
we
have
not
allowed
development
in
the
floodplain
on
this
property.
That
is
critical
because
we
have
said
that
we,
you
know
one
of
the
things
which
causes
flood
damage
is
putting
buildings
in
the
floodplain,
so
we
have
kept
all
development
out
of
even
the
500-year
floodplain,
which
is
not
regulatory,
but
that
was
part
of
the
agreement
we
made
in
the
guiding
principles.
Another
way
in
which
this
annexation
serves
flood
protection.
B
Then
I
think
the
other
thing
to
remember
about
annexation
and
flood
protection
is
this
annexation.
Comprehensive
agreement
brings
all
of
that
to
the
table,
and
so
we
have
a
flood
need.
We
have
a
flood
plan
and
this
annexation
is
the
critical
next
step
in
keeping
us
moving
forward
and
realizing
our
flood
plan.
B
It
also
allows
the
city
a
great
deal
of
control
of
development
through
the
annexation
agreement,
so
points
have
been
raised
that
we
do
not
have
approval
authority
of
the
development
which
is
going
to
occur
on
this
property
after
we
annex-
and
that
is
true,
however,
we'll
have
all
of
the
controls
which
are
built
into
the
agreement,
as
well
as
collaboration
I'll
call
them
opportunities,
but
really
they're,
almost
required
for
us
to
be
able
to
work
together
as
cu
develops
the
property
to
make
sure
that
things
like
light
and
noise,
don't
overly
impact
open
space
and
that
we
are
managing
the
traffic
situation
between
the
two
parties
in
a
way
that
is
good
for
for
both
parties.
B
The
other
thing
I'll
say
about
annexation
is:
if
we
don't,
then
what
can
occur
well,
there
could
potentially
be
10
mansions
out
here,
or
there
could
be
a
very
large
solar
farm
covering
the
area,
and
none
of
that
would
be
in
our
control
or
really
even
influence.
If
we
don't
do
this
annexation,
that
would
all
be
decided
between
the
county
and
the
university,
and
I
don't
think
we
want
that
to
happen.
B
Another
point
that
I
think
is
critical
here
is
that
all
of
our
open
space
values
are
well
served
by
this
project
and
they're
required,
as
I
said,
to
be
part
of
the
flood
project
mitigation.
So
we
get
119
acres.
This
is
the
best
riparian
habitat
in
the
footprint
of
this
land,
and
it's
it's
open
space
that
we
knew
for
a
long
time
that
we
wanted.
We
also
get
the
water.
That
was
a
significant
point
in
negotiation
with
the
university
and
it.
B
B
The
levy
will
be
removed.
That
levy
which
was
put
in
place
to
de-water
the
gravel
mining
has
always
been
something
I
thought
should
be
gone,
and
not
only
will
it
be
removed,
we'll
reuse,
the
earth
and
the
earth
and
dam
of
the
flood
project
which
is
classic
boulder
recycling
and
then
again,
no
development
in
the
floodplain
is
all
part
of
this
open
space
transfer
and
then
an
additional
piece.
That's
come
in
near
the
end.
That,
I
think,
is
very
important.
B
Is
we
have
restrictions
on
light
and
noise
impact
in
the
state
natural
area
and
on
our
open
space,
and
that
has
been
something
that
I
think
was
really
critical
to
being
able
to
bring
everyone
on
board
around
the
natural
values
in
this
area.
B
Development
on
this
property
is
much
needed
in
the
sense
that
we
need
housing.
We
have
a
housing
crisis
in
boulder
because
there's
not
enough
affordable
housing
and
we
often
ask
the
university.
Would
you
please
build
more
housing
for
your
students
and
in
this
case
it's
intended
for
students,
faculty
and
staff?
B
B
The
two
acres
which
could
be
used
for
a
public
safety
facility
will
not
necessarily
displace
any
existing
fire
stations
or
any
existing
police
posts.
So
I
think
it
should
be
realized
that,
even
though
there's
the
possibility
that
we'll
have
an
additional
public
safety
facility
there,
it
does
not
imply
that
we
will
necessarily
close
or
remove
any
others.
We
control
the
height
of
the
buildings
on
this
site.
B
I
think
some
of
the
other
deal
points
are
worth
noting
as
amazing
to
me
that
we've
been
able
to
get
here
but
very
pleased
that
if
this
annexation
goes
through
for
10
years,
cu
can't
sell
this
property
to
anyone,
but
the
city
and
we've
established
a
price
at
which
that
would
be
sold
to
the
city
after
those
10
years.
B
If
the
university
does
choose
to
sell-
which
I
think
is
an
unlikely
scenario-
we
have
a
right
of
first
offer
and
that
right
to
first
offer
is
meaningful,
because
it
gives
us
plenty
of
time
to
respond
to
notice
from
the
university
that
they're
intending
to
sell
some
or
all
of
the
land.
And
so
we
have
time
to
ask
our
council
and
then
our
community,
if
they're
willing
to
go
down
this
pathway
and
then
also
it's
worth
noting
that
cu.
B
If
this
annexation
goes
through
and
they
develop,
will
pay
the
full
connection,
fees
for
the
utility
service
that
will
be
provided
there,
and
so
that
was
another
point
that
it
wasn't
clear
how
that
was
going
to
land
and
it's
landed
in
a
way
that,
I
think,
is
good
for
both
parties.
Fundamentally,
we
have
to
act
now.
The
peace,
health
and
property
of
at
least
2300
people,
plus
any
visitors
or
growth
in
the
south,
boulder
creek
watershed
depend
on
us
getting
our
flood
protection
in
place,
and
I
don't
know
how
we
can
possibly
do
that.
B
Without
this
annexation,
we
need
to
protect
not
only
lives
and
property,
but
it
keeps
open
the
primary
evacuation
route
of
us,
36
and
emergency
responders
can
get
into
the
city
for
longer
than
they
would
without
the
flood
project.
I
believe
it's
worth
noting
that
highway
93
would
be
long
closed
by
the
time
us
36
would,
over
top,
if
there's
a
100
year,
flood
project
in
place,
and
so
when
93
closes.
That
means
us
36
is
the
main
entrance
and
exit
to
town
for
many
of
the
people.
B
B
I
believe
that
if
we
passed
this
by
emergency,
not
only
is
it
clearly
an
emergency
measure
because
of
the
peace,
health
and
property
protection,
but
it
also
allows
city
staff
to
proceed
with
expenditures
with
all
due
speed
and
at
whatever
level
is
needed
to
complete
the
design
and
the
permitting
application
process.
B
It
doesn't
change
the
process
they
go
through,
doesn't
change
the
timeline
and
it
doesn't
change
the
potential
outcomes
that
are
available
for
any
citizen
referendum
or
the
currently
pending
citizen
initiative.
So
I'll
just
close
up
by
saying,
I
think
that
this
is
a
very
good
deal.
I
think
it
is
very
fair.
I
think
it
enables
critical
flood
protection
to
occur
in
a
timely
fashion.
It's
a
climate
response
which
we
must
take
it's
protective
of
habitat
and
it
addresses
pressing
housing
needs.
B
B
This
is
terrific.
This
isn't
the
only
time
during
this
council
that
I'm
going
to
be
briefer
than
you,
sam
and
please.
For
me.
You
know
everything
starts
with
the
question
of
whether
you
believe
it's
important
and
necessary
to
provide
flood
mitigation
for
the
neighborhoods
affected
by
the
2013
flood.
B
B
Is
it
a
perfect
agreement
that
would
be
an
absurd
expectation?
It's
a
negotiated
commercial
contract
between
two
parties
in
any
such
situation.
The
only
way
one
gets
everything.
One
wants
is
if
one
of
the
contracting
parties
is
drunk
and
doesn't
have
a
lawyer,
but
it's
an
agreement
that
substantially
advances
key
interests
of
the
city,
and
I
think
our
negotiating
team
has
done
an
excellent
job.
B
I
do
want
to
address
some
of
the
the
comments
that
have
been
made
that
we
have
negotiated
this
deal
in
secret
behind
closed
doors.
B
As
I
said
in
my
earlier
hotline
post,
this
was
a
relatively
close
decision
for
me.
I
do
understand
the
positives
and
negatives
and
I
very
much
respect
those
who've
come
to
a
different
conclusion,
but
support
for
this
annexation
agreement
is
where
I
thought
the
evidence
led
me
and
I
will
vote
for
it
tonight.
Thank
you.
B
So
earlier
this
evening
I
mentioned
that
I
went
through
the
rjh
report
yesterday
and
I'm
going
to
read
a
a
phrase,
a
sentence
that
I
found
within
that
report
that
really
kind
of
hit
home
to
me
and
why
one
of
the
questions
I
kept
asking
myself
as
I
read
the
final
version
of
the
annexation
agreement
was
you
know?
Sam
talked
about
that?
It's
fair
the
question
I
ask
myself:
is
it
just
and
as
as
I
was
reading
through
this
document
yesterday,
I
came
across
this
sentence.
B
B
B
We
saw
in
the
testimony
last
week
and
and
we've
seen
it
at
previous
hearings,
where
people
came
and
showed
us
videos
of
what
was
going
on
in
the
streets,
the
the
photograph
that
we
saw
last
week,
people's
testimony
where
they
were
clearly
traumatized
near
tears,
they're
in
a
hazard
zone,
which
is
the
worst
place
that
you
can
be
during
a
flood,
and
I
live
adjacent
to
a
high
hazard
zone.
B
We
watched
it
in
2013
and
thankfully
we
had
little
negligible
damage,
but
I
walked
those
streets
in
2013
out
in
the
the
worst
hit
areas,
and
it
was,
it
was
devastating.
The
amount
of
debris
was
mountains
worth
so
you
know
to
the
to
the
to
the
point
of
passing
it
by
emergency.
B
It's
clearly
to
me:
it's
an
emergency
people
who
testified
last
week
were
clearly
traumatized
and
passing
it
by
emergency
would
provide
some
assurance
that
we
will
be
moving
forward
to
apply
for
the
permits
and
to
move
forward
to
establish
the
boundaries
for
what
that
flood
medication
looks
like
because
that's
what
the
sanitation
agreement
does,
and
it
will
provide
some
measure
of
comfort
that
things
are
clearly
moving
forward.
So
to
me
that
is
the
mental
health
part
of
it
and
and
clearly
a
reason
to
pass
it
by
emergency.
B
So
it's
it's.
It's
really
clear
to
me:
2
300
people
in
harm's
way,
some
of
whom,
many
of
whom
probably
aren't
even
aware
that
they
are
in
harm's
way.
So
so
so
that's
the
part
that
I
answered
just
yesterday
in
a
very
clear
manner
for
me
is
that
this
annexation
agreement,
as
just,
if
only
for
that
reason,
so
all
of
the
other
stuff
that
sam
mentioned
to
me,
I
was
continually
struck
as
we
went
through
the
process
of
negotiating.
B
B
Collaborative
it
was,
I
know
how
much
the
community
says
that
cu
is
taking
advantage
of
the
city
and
that
they're
not
playing
with
us,
and
I
disagree.
They
clearly
lift
up
to
the
second
guiding
principle.
The
first
guiding
principle
in
the
sea
of
guiding
principles
is
flood
mitigation
is
at
the
core
and
the
second
guiding
principle
is
collaboration,
and
I
think
that
all
parties
have
lived
up
to
that
expectation.
B
So
it's
been
a
collaborative
process
and
one
more
thing
I
would
just
want
to
add
to
what
the
many
comments
that
that
sam
made
and
and
what
mark
has
said,
is
that
in
in
the
the
two
council
members
that
participated
in
the
negotiation,
everything
that
mark
said
is
true.
B
Everything
was
was
run
by
the
full
council
and
the
community,
and
the
important
reason
to
have
had
rachel
and
sam
at
the
table
is
that
staff
can
only
take
it
so
far.
B
B
It
is
quite
likely
that
we
would
not
have
gotten
here.
So
that's
another
reason
that
that
I
think
that
that
their
participation
was
so
important
and
and
to
be
well
accused
of
secret
meetings
is
you
know,
I
think,
an
assault
on
all
of
our
integrity.
So
I
just
have
to
say
that.
B
I
think
that's
that's
all
I
have
right
now,
but
anyway,
I'll
be
voting
for
supporting
both
the
resolution
and
the
ordinance
resolution,
1295-8783
ordinance
on
an
emergency
basis.
So
that's
all
I
have
thank
you,
mary
rachel.
B
Thank
you
for
that
mary
and
for
also
noting
the
mental
health
aspects
of
of
this
emergency.
So
I
agree
with
basically
everything
that
sam
and
mark
and
mary
said
and
sam.
I
thank
you
for
laying
out
a
lot
of
the
the
background
and
and
the
issues
so
concretely
for
the
rest
of
us
to
to
follow
up
on.
So
I
will
try
not
to
to
repeat
points
or
extend
the
discussion
unnecessarily.
B
I
do
want
to
take
a
moment
and
just
think
sam
and
mary
in
particular.
I
think
you
both
have
worked
on
this
process
for
about
a
decade.
Maybe-
and
so
I
just
I
think
the
community
owes
you
a
debt
of
gratitude,
and
I
thank
you-
I
will
be
voting
yes
tonight
and
I'll
primarily
be
doing
that
for
flood
mitigation
and
to
protect
lives.
B
I
would
just
add
to
to
what's
been
said
that
in
terms
of
equity
and
who
is
protected,
almost
one-third
full
one-third
of
the
individuals
in
harm's
way
who
will
be
protected
from
what
has
been
described
tonight
as
violent
and
deadly
flash
flooding.
B
And
that
is
what
is
at
the
heart
of
this
discussion
about
a
third
of
these
individuals
live
in
affordable
housing,
and
that
includes
a
high
percentage
of
all
the
individuals
city-wide
who
have
been
unhoused
and
we
have
helped
out
of
homelessness
and
end
housing.
They
are
in
the
direct
path
of
these
floods
and
they
are
some
of
the
people
that
we
will
be
getting
out
of
harm's
way.
B
Those
in
harm's
way
also
include
a
high
number
of
older
folks
in
our
community.
I
have
personally
gotten
to
know
a
lot
of
fraser
meadows
residents
through
my
work
on
this
project
and
a
lot
of
people
who
survived
the
2013
floods
and
fought
for
flood
protections
and
fought
hard
so
that
no
one
else
would
suffer
for
what
they
went
through
have
passed
away
in
the
last
eight
years,
and
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
that
they
spent
their
last
years
advocating
for
what
we
are
voting
on
tonight,
and
I
thank
them.
B
I
will
I'm
going
to
cut
it
short
now
and
just
say
that
I
will
also
be
voting
for
emergency,
because
I
sincerely
believe
that
we
need
the
flood
protection
and
the
charter
says
that
we
can
vote
for
emergency
if
something
is
urgent
around
preserving
public
peace,
health
and
property,
and
we
are
already
eight
years
out
from
the
last
flood,
and
we
know
that
this
is
urgent
and
the
next
one
is
coming,
and
so
because
it
is
urgent
on
these
fronts,
I
will
be
voting
for
emergency
and
I
will
be
voting
yes
thanks.
B
Thank
you,
rachel
aaron
thanks.
Well,
I
I
will
also
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said,
so
I
appreciate
my
colleagues
for
being
so
articulate
and
laying
out
all
the
issues
sam
in
particular,
for
covering
all
the
all
the
bases
about
why
we're
here
and
the
history
that
led
up
to
it
and
why
we're
approaching
this
and-
and
it
is
fundamentally
it's
to
protect
the
life
safety
of
our
residents
right,
as
my
colleagues
have
have
been
speaking
about
movingly
and
including
those
those
folks
in
affordable
housing.
B
You
know
some
of
them
live
in
garden
level,
apartments
directly
in
the
floodplain
in
the
high
hazard
zone,
so
the
flash
flooding
is
entering.
You
know.
People
live
in
one
level,
partly
underground,
and
the
flood
waters
just
go
right
in
through
their
windows
and
their
doors,
and
we
didn't
see
these
pictures
last
week
in
the
testimony.
B
But
the
the
necessity
of
protecting
these
folks
from
the
next
flooding
event
is
just
is
just
critical
and
it's
why
we're
doing
this
project
and
I
think
the
we
asked
many
many
questions
of
staff
to
address
concerns
in
the
community
about
why
we're
doing
it
this
way
and
not
another
way
in
a
lot
of
different
areas,
and
I
think
we
have
good
answers
for
all
of
that.
We've
spent
over
a
decade
very
carefully
working
through
all
the
alternatives,
and
we
have
arrived
at
this
through
very
careful
consideration.
B
None
of
it
being
rushed
many
years
of
working
collaboratively
with
the
county
and
cu
and
years
of
negotiation
two
years
at
this
point,
so
we
we've
worked
really
hard
and
I
feel
very
good
about
where
we
are
right
now.
As
mark
said,
it's
not
perfect.
No
agreement
ever
is
but
the
flood
protection
that
we're
getting
for
our
community,
coupled
with
the
desperately
needed,
housing
and
and
the
open
space
protections,
are
significant
benefits
to
our
our
community.
B
Also,
the
I
think
the
transportation
caps
that
we
have
in
there
it's
an
innovative
approach.
Cu
always
has
a
very
high
alt
mode
chair
when
people
go
in
between
their
different
campuses.
So
there's
a
lot
to
like
here
and
the
potentially
problematic
aspects
have
all
been
mitigated
by
clauses
in
the
agreement,
so
I
think
we're
on
the
the
right
track
here.
B
Absolutely
I
do
want
to
really
thank
sam
and
rachel
from
council
for
the
many
many
many
hours
of
meetings
that
you
put
into
to
get
this
agreement
to
where
it
is
right
now
is
extremely
tough.
Thank
you
so
much
and
also
for
the
staff
team.
There
are
a
number
of
folks
from
city
staff
that
were
in
all
those
meetings
as
well
and
so
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
that
you
put
into
that
and
the
collaboration
from
from
cu
on
their
side
as
well
and
just
last
couple
points.
B
One
is
that
we,
we
are
not
there,
there's
a
lot
of
talk
and
emails
that
we're
getting
to
say
that
we're
subverting
a
democratic
process
by
passing
this
now,
but
as
as
sam
and
others
have
stated,
the
right
of
referendum
still
exists
and
if,
if
citizens
want
to
collect
signatures
on
this
and
put
it
to
a
vote
that
absolutely
is
still
allowable,
so
the
democratic
process
is
allowed
to
continue
on
on
unabated,
and
then
I
will
be
supporting
this
on
an
emergency
basis.
You
know
in
our
charter
section
17.
B
It
says
that
an
emergency
is
must
be
for
the
preservation
of
public
peace,
health
or
property,
and
the
public
peace
is
a
real
issue
from
the
mental
health
challenges
faced
by
those
in
harm's
way
of
the
worries.
They
have
every
time
that
it
rings
hard,
so
we're
assisting
with
that
people's
health
and
lives
are
at
risk
and,
of
course,
the
property
of
all
the
buildings
in
the
floodway.
So
I
think,
there's
at
every
case
for
doing
passing
this
by
emergency
and
I'll
be
supporting
this
tonight.
B
A
yes
vote
on
that
basis
thanks
everyone.
Thank
you
aaron.
So
with
that
I'll
turn
to
there
adam,
I
see
your
hand
and
then
nearby
I'll
be
asking
if
you
want
to
speak
after
adam
adam
go
for
it
yeah
thanks
tim.
This
has
been
definitely
a
struggle
to
come
to
a
finite
conclusion,
but
you
know
it's
our
duty
as
council
to
vote
yes
or
no
in
these
decisions.
B
Even
when
you
don't
agree
with
everything
that
you
know
comes
along
with
the
proposals,
so
real
quick.
Could
the
members
of
cu
turn
your
camera
on
as
well?
I'm
gonna
be
addressing
you
for
some
of
this
and
I
always
like
seeing
who
I'm
talking
to
so.
Thank
you
for
that.
B
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
everything
that
sam
laid
out.
There
are
a
lot
of
benefits
to
this
agreement
and
I
really
do
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
that
went
into
that
and
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
negotiation.
There
were
countless
hours
dedicated
to
this
moment
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
I've
learned
a
lot
along
the
way
about
you
know
our
city
about
cu
but
really
about
institutions
and
when
two
institutions
have
to
go
up
against
each
other.
B
In
a
contract
negotiation,
it's
it's
a
very,
very
unique
circumstance,
because
you
know
I
don't
think,
there's
any
council
that
would
have
agreed
to
annexing
this
property
if
flood
mitigation
weren't
necessary-
and
I
don't
think
cu-
would
ever
give
up
any
land
if
they
didn't
need
the
property
annexed.
B
So
we
came
to
the
only
possible
outcome
here
through
negotiation
for
both
sides
to
get
what
they
wanted
out
of
this,
and
you
know
that's
that's
extremely
tough,
especially
when
you're
a
council
member
who's
here
for
a
couple
years
against
an
institution
that
has
plans
out
well
past
when
all
will
all
be
dead
in
this
room.
B
So
that
was
a
very
unique
spot
and
I
think
you
know
that's
a
tough
spot
to
be
in
so
I
just
want
you
all
to
know
that,
while
we're
making
this
decision,
that
being
said,
I've
I've
come
up.
You
know
on
both
sides
of
this
argument,
the
things
that
I
would
implore
see
you
to
do
in
the
future,
since
it's
clear
that
at
this
point,
there's
gonna
be
passage
of
the
annexation
that
you
do
look
into
a
possible
land
swap
with
the
other
property.
B
If
that
is
indeed
something
you
know
that
that
you
would
be
agreeable
to
in
the
future,
I
think
it's
worth
future
councils
to
look
at
and
the
reason
why
I
think
that
is
because
I
just
fundamentally
disagree
with
building
next
to
a
property
that
is
going
to
be
used
for
flood
mitigation,
because
when
you
cover
land
with
cement
buildings,
anything
that
is
not
dirt
and
allows
for
you
know
additional
rain
water
to
fill
in.
There
you're
essentially
shoving
that
water
into
the
flood
mitigation.
B
So
I
just
think
if
the
city
and
cu
could
come
to
an
agreement
where
future
property
that's
going
to
be
developed
was
not
even
near
a
high
hazard
flood
zone.
That
would
be
so
beneficial
for
the
entire
community.
That's
that's
the
main
point.
I
really
wanted
to
get
out
there
and
I
appreciate
you
listening
to
that
cu.
B
I'm
also
going
to
vote
yes
to
annex
and
much
like
mark.
This
was
a
close
decision,
because
my
idealism
for
what
would
be
beneficial
to
the
community
has
gone.
You
know
butted
up
against
the
reality
of
what
we
need
in
flood
mitigation,
and
you
know
that
that
the
health
and
safety
components
just
went
out
in
that
scenario.
So
that's
where
I
landed,
and
it
certainly
was
one
of
the
hardest
decisions
in
these
two
years.
B
B
You
know
we
we
did
receive
thousands
of
emails
that
I
think
we
all
read
and
I
I'm
sure
we'll
continue
continue
to
receive
hundreds
more
after
this
and
know
that
as
a
community,
we
did
see
those
we
did
hear
you
and
it
looks
like
this
is
just
the
best
case
scenario
that
we
can
come
up
with
right
now
and
what
I
think
is
more
and
more
a
post-best
case
scenario
world
that
we're
living
in.
So
thanks.
B
Thank
you,
adam
and
nearby.
Would
you
like
to
say
anything
before
we
move
on
to
potential
motions
yeah?
I
guess
I
I
don't
have
much
to
say
other
than
I
do
appreciate
all
the
time
and
effort
that's
gone
into
this.
I
think
it's
quite
impressive
and
it
is
appreciated.
B
I
do
appreciate
all
the
communities
feedback,
the
countless
hours
that
everyone
has
spent
on
this
from
the
community
to
staff
to
council
members
that
does
not
go
unseen
and
well
probably
does
go
unseen
by
many,
but
for
those
of
us
who
do
know
what
this
entails,
we
do
appreciate
it.
I
will
not
be
supporting
this
tonight
for
my
own
reasons,
and
it's
a
lot
of
value
based,
I
understand
life
is
important.
Property
is
important.
B
I
know
that
more
than
most
being
a
volunteer
firefighter
for
10
years,
but
this
does
not
hit
my
ideals
or
my
values.
To
the
point
where
I
can
support
this
so
again,
I
do
that
does
not
decrease
my
appreciation
for
all
the
time
and
community
engagement
and
staff
and
counsel
that
have
put
into
this.
Though,
thank
you
bye
all
right.
B
Well,
I
I
have
one
colloquy,
which
is
to
adam's
point
and-
and
I
would
also
say
that
I
think
it's
worth
looking
at
a
land
swap
should
should
we
get
the
urban
services
study
done
and
all
the
conditions
that
would
make
it
acceptable
to
see
you
to
look
at.
B
So
I
would
encourage
the
university
to
keep
an
open
mind
about
that
as
we
move
forward,
we
do
have
to
go
through
the
process
of
annexing
that
property
in
before
that
could
even
be
a
possibility,
so
I
hope
that
staff
will
and
the
next
council.
I
guess
this
is
really
to
the
next
council.
I
hope
the
next
council
will
have
a
look
at
kicking
off
the
urban
surface
of
study,
because
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
to
do
that,
and
this
is
one
of
them.
B
B
So
I
think
there
are
two
things
in
front
of
us,
so
I'm
going
to
start
with
one
motion
on
the
resolution,
so
I
moved
that
we
adopt
resolution
1295
setting
for
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
regarding
the
annexation
of
approximately
308.15
acres
of
land,
generally
known
as
cu
south
and
located
at
4886
and
5278
table
mesa,
drive
zero
highway,
36
two
parcels,
718
marshall,
road
and
40
cent,
4745
west
moorhead.
B
B
B
Rachel
a
second-
and
I
just
have
a
question:
did
we
need
to
give
cu
any
opportunity
to
clarify
or
anything
before
we
had
this?
I
I
do
not
believe
so.
I
plan
to
turn
to
them
at
the
end,
but
I'll
turn
to
sandra
sandra.
Is
there
any
requirement
that
we
have
see?
You
speak
here?
No,
okay,
good
question,
though,
so
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
alicia.
Would
you
take
us
through
a
roll
call
vote?
Please?
B
No
sweat
nick,
yes,
wallet,
hi
and
weaver
hi
all
right,
sir
courtney's
84
83
is
hereby
adopted
by
emergency
by
vote
of
61..
Thank
you
very
much.
Alicia,
I'm
going
to
turn
now
to
you
sandra
and
see.
Could
you
let
us
know
if
we
have
done
everything
that
we
need
to
do
to
adopt
the
annexation
of
cu
south?
B
Yes,
I
believe
so
I
there
isn't
anything
else
that
needs
to
be
done
and
thank
you
for
a
really
clean
process
tonight
appreciate
everyone's
efforts.
Great
thank
you
sandra,
and
I
will
bring
this
back
to
us
and
I
think
those
of
us
who'd
like
to
speak,
should
speak
to
this.
I
would
like
to
start
by
turning
to
the
university,
the
applicant
in
this
case,
and
hear
any
final
thoughts
from
the
university
now
that
we
have
adopted
the
annexation
of
cu
south.
B
Yes,
mary
weaver
philly
stefano
chancellor
at
the
university
on
behalf
of
the
faculty
staff
and
students
here
at
the
university
of
colorado.
I
want
to
thank
city
council
for
this
collaboration
on
this
very
important
issue
and
also
to
discuss
that
you
know
we.
We
want
to
continue
this
partnership
with
you
throughout
this
this
year
and
in
the
future.
It's
a
wonderful
collaboration
between
the
city
and
the
university,
and
it's
a
partnership
that
I
do
want
to
continue.
So.
Thank
you
all
very
good.
Thank
you,
chancellor
distefano.
B
Thank
you
to
the
cu
team,
I'm
going
to
step
in
here
and
thank
a
lot
of
people,
so
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
all
of
council
for
all
the
work
that
you
have
done
over
the
years,
especially
mary
mary
has
been
working
on
this
for
longer
than
any
of
us.
Has
she
probably
saw
more
on
planning
board
than
I
even
saw,
and
so
thank
you
mary
for
the
input
and
work
you've
done
on
this.
Thank
you
to
all
of
council.
B
I
want
to
turn
to
staff,
and
I
want
to
call
out
phil
kleisler
in
particular,
for
thanks,
because
tomorrow
will
be
phil's.
Last
day
with
the
city,
but
I
can
say
that
without
phil's
work,
his
diligence,
his
calm
head,
unruffled
demeanor,
we
would
never
have
been
able
to
get
through
this
phil
kept
everyone
moving
in
the
right
direction.
He
always
had
helpful
suggestions
when
issues
came
up
and
he
kept
all
the
cats
herded
when
their
cats
were
all
trying
to
run
in
different
directions.
B
So
phil,
thank
you
for
the
work
you
did
leading
this.
Thank
you
mayor.
It
was
a
pleasure
and
joe
teddyuchi
utilities
director.
Without
you,
we
would
never
have
been
able
to
work
through
all
the
details
of
the
flood
project
and
your
predecessors
who
have
done
the
work,
all
the
people
who
work
for
you
who
haven't
testified
before
us.
I
know
how
much
work
you
have
done.
B
So
thank
you
also
to
dan
burke
and
john
potter,
especially
in
the
open
space
staff
who
have
helped
get
the
appropriate
concerns,
communicated
from
open
space
board
of
trustees
to
us
so
that
we
could
negotiate
them
into
the
agreement,
and
staff
could
continue
to
work
on
them.
Your
contributions
were
also
invaluable
and
they're.
Much
appreciated
it.
It's
hard
to
name
all
of
the
folks
who
should
be
thanked,
because
this
project
has
touched
many
many
people,
including
our
new
city
manager,
our
interim
city
attorney
aaron
poe.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
Aaron
was
the
city
attorney
who
stepped
in
after
david
gear
and
has
helped
us
do
all
the
last
hard
work
at
getting
the
the
legal
niceties
tidied
up,
because
when
aaron,
I
believe,
when
you
came
on,
we
didn't
really
have
much
of
a
working
version
of
a
legal
agreement.
It
was
just
a
term
sheet.
So
thank
you
very
much,
thank
you
and
to
the
university.
B
I
I
think
we
need
to
remember
francis
draper
at
this
moment
she
put
in
so
much
time
with
our
community
and
from
the
university
side
at
teeing
this
up
and
shaping
it
and
forming
it
through
the
guiding
principles
and
so
on,
and
then
to
derrick
and
abby.
Thank
you
very
much
for
all
the
work
that
you
put
in
and
pat
and
I'm
chancellor
destefano.
Thank
you
all
for
your
very
hard
work,
also
elvi
the
attorney
on
the
cu,
boulder
team.
B
B
The
history
has
contributed
to
a
lot
of
bad
feelings
which
have
persisted
the
flood,
scared,
frightened
and
traumatized
and
threatened
the
lives
of
many
people
in
2013,
highlighting
the
critical
importance
of
being
able
to
do
this.
There
have
been
people
in
our
community
who
have
been
enjoying
the
cu
south
property
for
walking
their
dogs
recreating
and
being
in
nature,
and
I
know
that
change
will
be
coming
to
this
property
as
a
result
of
that,
and
that
can't
be
easy
for
people
who
love
that
land.
B
So
thank
you
to
the
community.
Your
input
has
shaped
this
agreement
more
than
you
can
ever
know.
All
of
those
questions
that
mary
asked
at
the
beginning
of
this
hearing
came
from
the
community
and
they
were
part
of
the
dialogue
that
we
have
needed
to
go
through
in
order
to
do
a
fair
shaping
of
this
process
and
a
fair
hearing.
So,
thanks
to
all
of
you
who
have
been
part
of
this
project,
I
think
now
we
need
to
look
forward
now.
B
B
We
need
to
come
together
with
the
university
in
addition
to
this
project
and
all
the
other
projects
we
have,
we
need
to
shape
each
other.
We
need
to
talk
about
housing.
We
need
to
talk
about
growth.
We
need
to
talk
about
how
to
collaborate
as
the
cu
south
side
is
developed.
So
to
me,
this
is
the
beginning
of
an
opportunity
to
bring
the
disparate
parts
of
our
community
together
with
a
common
vision
and
a
common
goal
of
making
this
as
good
as
it
can
possibly
be.
B
So
all
of
you
who
work
so
hard
on
this
deserve
kudos.
Those
of
you
who
are
disappointed
by
this
decision.
I'm
sorry
for
that,
but
know
that
we
are
listening
to
you,
regardless
of
what
the
decision
has
been
and
with
that.
I
would
like
to
turn
to
counsel
for
any
other
final
comments
before
we
close
rachel.
B
You've
been
a
an
exemplary
leader
through
this
project
and
I
think
that
a
lot
of
people
even
on
council
probably
cannot
appreciate
the.
I
wouldn't
even
know
how
to
estimate
how
much
time
you
had
to
put
into
the
negotiations
and
and
shepherding
this
process,
and
it's
it's.
It's
been
a
hard
thing
to
step
into,
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
criticism,
so
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
leading
all
of
us
through
this
project
and
this
process
for
the
last
10
years,
and
especially
for
the
last
year.
B
Happens
at
least
once
a
meeting.
I
want
to
thank
start
by
thanking
the
community,
and
you
know,
and
echoing
what
sam
says
regarding
the
folks
that.
B
B
B
Sounded
like
a
train,
the
inside
of
a
train.
I
just
want
to
start
by
thanking
the
community
and
and,
as
sam
said,
I
know
that
there
are
many
people
out
there
that
are
disappointed,
but
your
input
shaped
this
agreement
and,
as
sam
said
more
than
you'll
know,
I
know
that
sam
and
rachel
both
tried
to
incorporate
as
many
of
the
items
that
were
brought
up
by
the
community.
I
know
I
worked
with
osbt
to
include
the
light
and
noise
piece
of
it.
B
B
So
thank
you
to
the
community,
thank
you
to
sam
and
rachel
and
and
all
of
staff
for
all
of
your
hard
work,
and
I
hope
that
we
continue
on
in
a
partnership
that
includes
the
community.
So
I
see
it
as
a
three-way
collaboration
with
the
community,
the
staff
with
cu
actually
four-way
and
council.
So
that's
really
all
I
have
to
say,
and
let's
move
forward
and
try
to
heal
from
this
process
and
put
those
divisions
behind
us
and
start
putting
one
foot
in
front
of
the
other.
B
B
Always
super
helpful,
answering
any
question
we
needed
and
you
know,
did
all
the
site
tours
with
us
everything
he
possibly
could
to
keep
us
the
best
informed
as
we
could
be,
as
just
lay
people
who
are
making
these
decisions.
So
can't.
Thank
you
phil
enough
for
helping
us
and
best
of
luck
going
forward.
B
Yeah
thank
you
mayor
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
real
quickly,
and
I
know
this
has
been
a
long
evening.
But
as
someone
who
just
arrived
to
this
community
I'll
say
it's
been
incredible
to
learn
about
the
history
of
this
project
and
the
passion
with
which
everyone
came
to
it,
and
so
I
joined
the
chorus
of
thank
yous
both
to
all
of
you
at
council
staff.
I
just
have
no
words
for
how
amazingly
diligent
they
have
been
both
staff
now
and
staff
that
started
this
decades
ago,
as
they
were
moving
forward
and
then
really
truly.
B
B
Very
good.
Thank
you,
nuria
and
I'll
say
again,
thank
you
to
everyone.
Thank
you
to
council
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
gavel
this
meeting
closed
at
9
25..
Everyone
have
a
good
night.
Thank
you.
Everyone.