►
From YouTube: Boulder City Council Study Session 10-9-18
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).
B
C
D
So,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
This
evening,
I
am
joined
behind
me
with
several
staff
members
from
Public
Works
utilities,
as
well
as
open
space,
mountain
parks
and
director
of
planning
and
sustainability.
Jim
Robertson
to
my
right.
We
have
some
guests
with
us
this
evening
from
the
University
of
Colorado
Boulder.
Lv
Henson
is
directly
to
my
right
legal
counsel
for
the
university,
followed
by
Francis
Draper
and
please
correct
me.
Chancellor
of
strategic
relations.
D
Relations
and
Derek
Silva,
director
of
real
estate
and
and
so
as
proposed
at
CAC.
We
would
like
to
recommend
that
we
begin
with
kind
of
a
brief
background
kind
of
T
up
to
presentation
from
staff
followed
by
an
opportunity
for
the
university
to
address
counsel,
and
then
we
would
kind
of
get
in
and
getting
into
the
topics
for
tonight's
discussion.
The
overall
intent
of
tonight's
discussion
is
really
to
facilitate
a
conversation
among
City
Council
members,
as
well
as
university
officials
around
potential
next
steps
for
annexation
of
the
university's
south
campus
known
as
Cu
South.
D
Conducting
some
maintenance
and
improvements
on
the
trails
and
so
you'll
if
you
were
out
there
and
this
this
area
LAN
image
on
the
slide,
also
shows
some
of
those
informal
trails
that
traverse
the
side
and
kind
of
go
around.
The
perimeter
as
well
you'll
see
the
tennis
courts
and
the
maintenance
buildings
highlighted
there
and
then.
Finally,
the
university
is
interested
in
making
some
near-term
investments
in
the
recreational
facilities,
restrooms
enhancing
the
locker
rooms
of
the
tennis
facilities,
etc.
D
The
CAC
did
ask
for
a
one
slide
on
annexations
in
general,
and
so
just
a
few
notes
on
annexations,
and
that
would
be,
as
you
know,
it's
a
legislative
process
and
land
can
be
considered
for
annexation
if
it
complies
with
the
Colorado
annexation
statutes
and
is
consistent
with
the
policies
of
the
Boulder,
Valley,
Comprehensive,
Plan,
and
so
there's
generally
three
ways
to
initiate
an
annexation
process.
One
would
be
the
landowner
petition,
and
so
in
this
case,
that's
what
we
would
likely
be
anticipating
as
to
use
the
property
owner
for
the
site.
D
Once
an
application
is
submitted,
we
do
look
at
things
like
eligibility
requirements
and
so
at
a
state
level,
most
commonly
referred
to
as
the
contiguity
requirement
of
1/6
of
the
perimeter
being
along
the
city
boundary.
But
more
frequently
we
hear
about
our
local
framework
for
annexations,
and
so
in
Boulder
we
have
a
long
tradition
of
established
of
an
established
service
area
concept
for
how
we
grow
in
the
Boulder
Valley
and
that's
done
through
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
D
And
so
the
map
to
the
right
shows
the
city
of
Boulder
as
area,
one
and
they're
areas
that
currently
have
urban
dove
level
development
area
to
being
sites
that
are
close
to
the
city
and
are
eligible
for
annexation.
And
when
we
do
our
master
plans
for
the
city
or
utility
plans,
etc,
we
plan
to
serve
those
areas
at
some
point
in
the
future.
D
So
the
comprehensive
plan
does
have
a
policy
and
I'm
pulling
it
up
right
now.
Policy,
1.16
and
I
actually
have
a
copy
of
that.
If
council
would
be
interested
in
seeing
that
this
evening,
that
does
talk
about
community
benefits,
though
it's
a
bit
broader
and
less
specific,
especially
considering
the
recent
conversations
around
community
benefits,
with
height
and
and
density
and
so
on.
But
generally
speaking,
we
annex
properties
with
a
lot
of
development
potential
only
if
they
can
bring
significant
community
benefits
to
the
city
of
Boulder
and
so
with
community
benefits.
D
G
D
D
It
went
from
a
largely
low-density,
residential
and
then
refined
in
77
to
be
largely
open
space
and
Mountain
open
space
and
parks
with
some
medium
density,
residential
and
northern,
on
the
northern
part
of
the
site
and
low-density
residential,
as
kind
of
an
extension
of
that
single-family
neighborhood
to
the
southwest
and
that's
sort
of
how
it
remained
on
the
ride
up
until
last
year,
and
so
in
1996.
After
the
university
purchased
the
site.
There
were
several
requests
to
the
city
to
look
at
these
land
use
designations
and
think
about
changing
them.
D
The
public
to
match
the
university's
intent
for
the
site
as
well
as
consider
annexation,
and
so
really,
since
the
90s.
We
during
those
request,
deferred
those
conversations
until
we
had
a
plan
in
place
for
the
South
Boulder
Creek
flooding
issues.
So
in
2015,
when
that
plan
was
accepted,
that
prompted
staff
to
initiate
the
process
through
the
comp
plan
of
looking
at
the
land
use
designations
and,
ultimately
the
guiding
principles,
and
so
that's
what
sort
of
initiated
that
process
back
in
2015
and
2016
and
so
really
dating
back
to
the
90s
flood
mitigation
going
forward.
D
Flood
mitigation
has
really
been
a
central
theme
and
protecting
life
and
property
through
that
process.
You
might
also
recall
that,
through
the
comp
plan,
there
was
some
hesitation
around
changing
the
land
use
designations
without
a
better
idea
of
what
might
happen
on
the
site
and
for
that
reason,
the
city
and
county
partnered
to
create
the
guiding
principles
that
were
established
in
the
comp
plan
so
and
it
took
a
map
based
approach
in
trying
to
identify
what
happens
in
specific
areas
of
the
site,
and
so
that's
how
we've
been.
D
We've
been
looking
at
these
sorts
of
this
presentation
and
the
materials
through
the
lens
of
those
guiding
principles
and
my
last
my
final
slide
in
the
background
section
of
this
presentation.
Before
handing
over
to
see,
you
would
be
just
a
note
on
a
high-level
timeline
moving
forward,
and
so
the
the
box
to
the
left
is
really
just
to
illustrate
that
we're
able
to
build
this
process
off
of
a
library
of
information
that
we
have
now,
including
the
South
Boulder
Creek
flood
mitigation
master
plan.
D
The
guiding
principles
and
the
concept
evaluation
approved
by
council
last
are
selected
by
Council
last
month.
The
high
level
timeline
just
shows
on
the
top,
some
of
the
key
milestones
for
the
flood
mitigation
process
and
on
the
bottom,
the
annexation
process,
and
so
what
I'd
like
to
highlight
here
is
that
in
that
blue
section
over
the
next
year,
we
anticipate
the
preliminary
design,
including
those
conversations
and
approvals
through
the
regulatory
bodies
as
well
as
starting
to
reach
those
landowner
agreements
taking
about
a
year.
D
What
we're
proposing
and
we'll
get
in
more
into
this
in
more
detail
later
is
within
that
year.
Timeframe
would
be
when
we
would
have
the
discussions
around
the
annexation
process
through
that
process
and
ultimately
come
to
terms
on
an
annex
with
an
annexation
agreement,
and,
ultimately
those
things
would
come
together
through
public
hearings
in
about
a
year.
If
annexed,
we
would
anticipate
the
final
design
for
the
flood
mitigation
project
taking
a
year
with
a
two-year
construction
period.
D
E
And
thank
you
very
much
Phil.
So,
first
of
all,
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
very
much
for
inviting
us
to
join
you
in
this
study
session
tonight.
We
really
appreciate
and
I
think
week
say
we
represent
the
university,
the
Chancellor
in
the
regions,
and
that
we
appreciate
the
partnership
from
the
city
and
being
willing
to
continue
to
discuss
this
in
a
way
that
will
meet
the
fiduciary
requirements
for
both
of
our
organizations.
So
that's
really
huge
and
I
think
we're
a
good
demonstration
for
many
other
communities.
E
Actually
in
recognition
of
the
urgency
of
your
deliberations,
around
selection
of
a
flood
mitigation
project,
we
did
work
very
quickly
to
get
through
our
process.
We're
not
exactly
the
speediest
crowd
over
there
and
see
you,
but
we
did
try
to
work
through
this
so
that
we
could
provide
you
with
some
answers
about
what
are
some
of
our
requirements
might
be
and
also
really
provide
you
a
list
of
what
the
benefits
are
were
bringing
to
the
community.
E
We
would
not
have
gone
to
this
process
just
yet,
as
you
know,
if,
because
we
do,
we
are
starting
the
long
process
of
our
campus
master
plan
and
we
would
not
have
brought
forward
an
annexation
petition,
probably
until
after
that
was
complete,
and
we
had
more
definitive
plans
about
the
site,
but
we're
happy
to
bring
these
forward
because
of
the
urgency
of
the
situation
of
really
getting
something
moving
here.
I
just
want
to
mention
that
the
campus
master
planning
process
is
a
multi-year
process.
E
We've
just
hired
a
consultant
to
help
us
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
do
is
we
meet
with
all
of
the
colleges,
the
schools,
the
Institute's,
the
labs,
the
operational
units
to
find
out
what
they
see
in
the
future
and,
as
Sydney
can
tell
you,
she's
been
through
this
process.
That's
very
laborious,
but
we
really
need
to
ask
them
all
to
see
how
they
think
education
might
be
changing
over
the
long
term
and
therefore
what
their
needs
might
be.
E
E
So
it's
really
a
big
process
and
we
want
to
engage
the
city
and
the
community
in
that
process,
which
we
did
in
2011
and
I
think
that
process
itself
offers
an
opportunity
for
us
to
sit
down
and
talk
about
what
would
be
an
acceptable
process
from
the
city's
point
of
view
to
get
that
engagement
and
input
from
the
community
in
the
city
as
to
what
we
should
be
thinking
about
as
we
develop
that.
So
that's
one
key
thing
once
that's
done,
then
20/21
figure
towards
the
end
of
2021.
E
So,
while
we're
not
able
to
provide
a
site
plan
or
what
those
buildings
are
today,
we
want
to
provide
you
clarity
on
our
requirements
for
the
ization
and
how
what
we
expect
to
do
and
then
offer
that
process
for
your
input
when
we
do
get
to
that
stage.
That
mirrors
what
we've
already
agreed
to
for
the
conference
center.
E
So
we
realized
hey,
we've
already
done
this,
we've
come
to
terms
on
this
and
we're
giving
fairly
detailed
plans
at
that
time
to
get
city
comment,
and
so
literally
we
took
that
provision
that
we've
all
agreed
to
and
just
change
the
name
from
conference
center
to
the
South
Boulder
campus,
and
we
think
that
provides
us
a
good
entryway
to
ensure
that
down
the
road.
There
is
input
from
the
city
on
those
buildings
as
we
plan
them.
E
So
we
see
ourselves
as
a
partner
in
this
process
and
achieving
the
construction
of
the
flood
mitigation
project,
which
we
agree.
We
have
an
ardent
interest
in
getting
that
done
and
making
sure
that
the
safety
of
the
community
comes
first,
and
we
strongly
believe
there's
a
lot
of
common
ground
here
and
that
we
can
meet
the
goals
of
I,
think
the
city
and
the
University
as
two
separate
governmental
entities,
we've
done
it
before
and
I
think
we
can
do
it
again.
So
thank
you.
H
Francis,
thank
you
so
much
for
that
and
for
everybody
being
here
tonight,
I
when
I
read
your
letter
and
or
and
went
through
all
of
the
different
boards
and
the
legislature
and
the
read
how
I
was
just
wondered
is:
are
those
are
being
done
in
parallel
with
each
other
or
are
they
sequential?
How
what's
the
timeframe
we're
talking
about.
E
So
generally
they
are
sequential,
so
they
don't
operate
in
parallel.
So
we
would
want
to
go
to
our
own
Design
Review
Board
first,
for
instance,
if
they
really
take
exception
to
the
way
we've
designed
something
and
don't
feel
it's
consistent
with
the
universities,
image
they'll,
let
us
know-
and
so
we
need
to
go
to
that
process,
certainly
our
region's
through
subcommittee
and
regular
and
then
through
the
state
to
make
sure
that
we
get
approval
at
the
various
boards
and
legislature
and.
H
E
Know
I,
don't
know
the
details
and
Derrick
might
have
more
information,
but
what
they
do
is
provide
guidance
and
input
if
they
see
that
there's
something
that
they
think
is
materially
in
question
and
a
for
instance
might
be.
If
the
state
architect
is
aware
that
the
legislature
is
concerned
about
buildings
on
campuses
in
general
that
have
aspect
to
them.
He
may
raise
that
or
she
may
raise
that,
but
or
if
there
is
some
major
issue
they
see
with
the
design
that
they
would
recommend
against
or
that
kind
of
thing,
but
we
it's
a
hoop.
I
F
E
I
B
D
Thank
You
mayor,
so
this
was
a
you
know.
It
was
it's
a
if
there's
a
lot
of
topics
here
and
there's
opportunities
to
go
and
I
think
a
lot
of
different
directions.
With
this
discussion,
what
we
have
done,
given
the
timing
of
the
memo
for
this
meeting,
the
memo
actually
went
out
before
we
received
the
letter,
and
so
it
talks
about
the
anticipated
letter
and
so
since
receiving
it
on
Monday.
D
Is
you
know,
and
I'll
come
back
to
this
in
just
a
second
but
they're,
basically
yellow
red,
I'm,
sorry,
green,
yellow
or
red
and
so
green?
Being
we
think
at
a
high
level,
we
have
some
pretty.
We
have
some
alignment,
given
our
existing
policies,
not
aligned
or
things
that
we
kind
of
want
to
bring
to
your
attention.
We
may
need
to
come
back
to
you
in
the
near
future
and
then
kind
of
a
different
shade
of
yellow
being
what
do
we
need?
D
The
goal
tonight
would
be
really
more
about
process
and
less
about
the
content
and
whether
or
not
we
wanted
counsel
takes
a
particular
position
on
one
of
these
issues,
but
in
looking
at
the
different
topics,
the
things
that
we
are
suggesting
that
we
we
try
to
get
through
tonight
would
be
on
the
left,
and
that
would
be
the
level
of
application
detail.
So
that's
been
something
that's
been
discussed
about,
having
a
site
plan
or
not
the
review
process.
That
Cu
has
proposed
flood
mitigation,
levee
removal
in
an
open
space.
But
again
we
can.
D
D
B
I
guess
I,
don't
know
what
people
think
to
me.
There
are
some
certain
things
that
were
listed
right
at
the
beginning,
like
129
acres
and
30
acres
here
and
just
kind
of
a
hey.
Are
we
in
to
look
at
a
map
ago?
Okay,
how
many
acres
are
here
and
I
mean
I,
just
get
a
sense
of
of
that,
as
a
starting
point
would
be
useful
to
me.
You
guys
just
just
see
how
close
we
were
on
some
of
those
basics.
H
Of
50%
of
the
land
50%
of
the
land,
it's
154
acre
site
I
just
have
some
basic
questions
about
the
numbers
that
were
talking
about,
because
in
that
letter
it
becomes
pretty
firm
about
the
the
numbers
when,
in
fact
my
understanding
was.
These
were
kind
of
estimates,
engineer
estimates
of
how
we
move
things
around
so
so
I'd
like
some
discussion.
None
is.
D
Numbers,
the
diagrams
you
see
here
the
figures.
This
is
just
the
the
variant
that
was
that
was
presented
at
the
meeting
last
month
and
so
on.
The
right
you
see
that
overlaid,
the
flood
mitigation
area
overlaid
with
the
land
uses,
and
so
what
was
approved
through
the
Comprehensive
Plan
process
was
129
acres
of
land
being
public
109,
teen
acres
of
land
as
open
space
other
and
then
the
remaining
I
believe
it's
65
acres
of
land
as
parks,
urban
other
can.
D
H
D
The
number
referenced
in
this.
Thank
you
letter,
the
parks
urban
other
which
is
large
portion,
is
really
the
flood
mitigation
structure
is
65
acres
and
then
open
space,
other
the
remainder
of
that
being
119
acres
and
so
how
we
got
those
shapes
during
the
comp
plan
was
the
open
space.
Other
generally
aligns
with
the
what's
called
a
what's
called
a
area
protected
by
the
levee.
That's
on
the
site
right
now.
D
H
D
H
D
F
D
So
in
looking
at
what
was
selected
by
council
last
month,
it
generally
does
follow
those
lines
pretty
pretty
closely
and
I.
Think
that
this
is,
you
know
not
the
final
boundary
of
that,
but
it
does
not
include
that
area
to
the
north
of
the
V
Lee
channel
up
in
the
north,
and
so
that's
probably
the
biggest
difference
that-
and
this
is
a
topic
for
just
for
to
notify
council
tonight
again
and
circle
back
around
is
the
area
of
excavation
and
the
open
space.
Other
is
also
a
change.
F
B
B
D
Did
yes,
and
so
for
a
portion
of
that
relating
to
the
flood
mitigation,
and
this
could
be
the
first
thing
that
I
could
perhaps
bring
up
to
council
is.
Is
this
the
area
that
this
was
the
area
that
was
discussed
at
length
during
the
recent
hearing
with
or
the
recent
agenda
item
of
council?
And
this
is
one
of
those
areas
where
we?
We
don't
feel
that
there's
necessarily
alignment
with
right
now,
and
this
relates
to
what
I
think
was
called
Little
Italy
during
the
meeting,
councilmember
Moore's,
L
and
I.
D
Don't
know
if
this
is
the
point
that
you
were.
They
were
speaking
of
or
not
with
the
acreages.
But
in
this
you
know
our
our
team
has
done
the
analysis
and
has
done
as
much
excavation
as
possible
and
that
parks,
urban
other
area
and
there's
still
six
acres
left
of
land.
That
needs
to
be
excavated
that
land
council's
direction
was
to
don't
impact
the
tennis
courts
and
don't
impact
open
space
other.
E
Yeah
I
just
add
a
little
clarification
to
pass.
Please
it
was
not
that
the
public
129
needed
to
be
retained.
It
was
that
129
acres
of
developable
land
needed
to
be
offered
wherever
you
end
up
wanting
to
put
it.
So,
if
you
decided
you
wanted
to
use
the
entire
public
area
but
turn
in
the
oso
area
into
the
area
we
could
develop,
we
can
discuss
that
we're
just
saying:
129
acres
doesn't
have
to
be
within
those
perfect
lines,
and
so.
H
I
B
E
I
H
E
Six
and
five
I
can
answer
that.
So
when
we
went
originally
speaking
about
this
well,
you
were
you
had
approved
option
D,
and
that
was
what
was
on
the
table:
an
option
D
we
were
estimating
at
the
time
required
about
give
or
take
80
acres,
so
we
decided
80
acres
was
roughly
what
we
would
contribute.
We
went
to
everybody
and
said:
let's
offer
to
do
that,
and
so
now
another
one
is
on
the
table.
That
might
require
less
acreage.
But
what
we're
saying
is
again,
you
pick
the
site
and
where
you
think
is
most
appropriate.
E
B
B
E
Be
able
to
maybe
in
last
point,
but
what
we've
said
is
based
on
what
we
had
known
previously
and
in
order
to
stop
washing
around
the
tub
so
to
speak
in
terms
of
we
were
asked.
What
is
the
university
looking
for?
We
were
trying
to
be
definitive
and
saying:
we've
got
80
acres
for
you
and
you
can
use
those
for
flood
mitigation
now,
if
you
know
I've
seen
some
other
scenarios
put
forward
where
it
was
the
whole
park
Syria
and
the
Oso.
E
B
E
K
K
D
Was
generally
that's
the
general
location
of
that
area
on
the
FEMA
map,
that's
protected
by
the
levee
and
so
I
can
show
you
one
example.
This
is
the
the
FEMA
map
here
you
see
how
it
kind
of
jogs
up
that
gray
area
in
the
middle
kind
of
jogs
up
and
cuts
to
the
site.
That's
generally
the
location
used
for
that
Oso,
and
so
we
would
anticipate
in
the
future
that
that
would
likely
if
the
levy
was
removed
would
likely
be
converted
to
a
like
a
500-year.
D
B
H
E
E
B
B
So
far,
I'm
just
gonna.
You
guys
interrupt
a
few
of
questions
so
so
far.
We
know
that
we
have
six
acres
to
talk
about
in
terms
of
excavation,
and
so
are
we
just
identifying
these
things?
That's
that's.
The
point
of
tonight
is
to
go
yep.
We
got
a
those
things,
don't
align.
We
got
to
discuss
exactly
okay,
everybody
agree
with
that
must
be
discussed.
Okay,.
D
B
D
H
And
you
don't
even
have
a
concept
plan
at
this
point
right,
but
I
guess
I
am
somewhat
curious
in
terms
of
the
density
on
129
acres.
You
know
the
permeability
all
of
that
stuff.
It's
not
like
I'm
complaining
about
your
campus
now,
because
it's
a
beautiful
campus
but
I'm
just
curious
in
terms
of
you
know.
What
would
we
would
all
hundred
and
twenty
nine
acres
be
100%
covered
I
doubt
it
you
know,
and
so
what
not.
E
E
What
we
really
should
talk
about
is
the
process
you
would
like
to
see
to
have
input
to
our
campus
master
plan
as
we
go
through
that
and
then
knowing
we
will
come
back
to
you
with
the
process
we've
already
agreed
to
for
the
conference
center
and
we'll
do
the
same
thing
on
these
buildings.
So
as
they
get
planned,
you
have
an
opportunity
to
review
them.
Give
us
input
feed
it
all
back.
If
you
want
to
have
public
sessions,
have
public
sessions
but
constantly
going
back
to
say,
what's
it
going
to
look
like
we're?
E
L
B
I
guess
my
question
is,
but
what
about
something
in
between
a
bubble
diagram,
a
that
gets
towards
a
concept
review,
or
you
know
like
something
that
lays
out
likely
ish.
Even
if
it's
in
vague
terms,
when
you
add
up
all
those
things
you
said
you
would
do,
what
does
it
leave
us
with
I
meant
just
because
it's
really
hard
for
the
public
and
us,
knowing
that
this
is
the
time
with
greatest
leverage
to
just
say,
you
know,
trust
us.
B
M
I
I
thought
on
that
is
so
I
appreciate.
The
commitments
that
you
all
have
already
made
is
I
think
the
important
thing
we'll
be
writing
an
annexation
agreement
that
includes
those
in
some
kind
of
follow
a
bull,
bindable
kind
of
way
right.
So,
like
the
village
style,
for
example.
Well,
you
probably
needs
to
be
quantified
a
little
bit.
You
know
what
does
what
does
that
mean?
E
I
think
we
can
some
things
in
about
that
input
process
to
the
master
plan
to
having
that
give-and-take.
On
to
the
process
that
we've
proposed
as
Appendix
A.
In
the
letter
we
sent
the
difficulty
is
we
still
need
to
actually
survey
our
faculty
and
staff
again
to
say:
what's
your
interest
and
depending
on
the
product,
so
my
interest
in
one
product
may
be
zero,
but
in
another
product
might
be
laughs.
E
I
Using
that,
as
an
example,
you've
said
the
village
style
right.
So
what
does
that
mean
right
and
so
that
just
by
itself
is
probably
too
indefinite?
You
know
so
totally
get
that
you
not
sure
if
it
would
be
stacked,
flats
or
townhouses
or
what
and
that
to
me.
That's
fine,
but
I
think
that
I
think
we
would
probably
be
looking
for
some
kind
of
definition
written
into
the
agreement
that
we
can
all
kind
of
point
to
as
we
go
forward
and.
M
N
I
just
wanted
to
remind
us
sitting
here
that
the
university
was
in
formation
before
Colorado
became
a
state
by
the
University
I
mean
cu-boulder,
and
so
it's
old
and
it
I
don't
think
they're
hedging
or
fudging
when
they
say
they
don't
know,
and
it's,
and
we
also
don't
know
what
education
is
going
to
look
like
in
future.
So
it
may
be
more
remotely
achieved.
They
may
not
need
as
much
housing
down
there
or
they
may
not
need
as
many
faculty
buildings.
N
Although
that's
difficult
to
imagine
but
I,
to
my
mind
the
things
that
are
really
crucial
to
our
community
like
transportation,
how
are
we
going
to
deal
with
transportation?
What
levels
of
service
are
we
going
to
maintain
going
forward
on
this
particular
site
that
we
want
to
work
with
the
university
with
early
on
and
have
a
public
process
about
so
that
people
and
get
something
that
we
feel
that
we
can
agree
on
so
that
people
feel
that
they
have
been
heard
on
this?
So
just.
B
I
Could
I
just
offer
one
addendum
to
what
I
said
before
is
that
yeah
I
could
imagine
the
annexation
agreement
having
you
know
what
if
scenarios
say
well,
if
it's
going
to
be
housing
it,
it
would
need
to
be
going
to
these
constraints.
If
it's
going
to
be
academic
writing
to
be
a
commitment
that
we
will
do
these
things
but
say
well,
if
we're
going
in
this
direction,
it
would
have
these
criteria
placed
on
it.
I
G
H
E
H
I
guess
one
of
the
questions
you
know
that
would
be
very
important
to
me
and
I
agree
with
Cindy.
We
probably
in
that
first
list
Philip
that
we'd
probably
want
to
bring
transportation
over
to
the
left
side.
I
guess
uses
are
really
important,
at
least
from
my
perspective.
What
goes
on
there
and
I
know
it's
really
premature
or
early
in
this
process.
To
figure
out.
Is
it
going
to
be?
What
percentage
is
going
to
be
housing?
H
What
percentage
is
going
to
be
academic
uses
what
other
uses
and
each
one
of
these
have
different
issues
and
I
and
I
know
a
lot
of
people
in
the
community
and
me
for
one,
you
know
would
really
like
to
see
more
housing
there
and
academic
uses
more
on
the
main
campus.
But
again
you
have
to
do
your
survey
to
figure
out
whether
than
what
you
need
and
I
think
there's
a
lot
in
flux
right
now.
How
do
you
teach-
and
you
know,
who's
gonna
be
the
next.
H
So,
no,
no,
no
anyway
I,
guess
I'm.
When
my
question
is,
would
there
be
a
way
in
this
process
of
us
being
able
to
get
a
better
sense
of
what
kind
of
housing
we're
talking
about
and
what
kind
of
academic-
and
maybe
maybe
it's
too
premature,
pre
or
too
early
I,
don't
know
and
I
actually
was
going
to
come
here
tonight
and
say:
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
after
reading
your
letter,
there's
I
have
a
several
points
that
I
want
to
go
into
and
I
think
we'll
get
into
them.
H
But
I
want
this
to
be
a
constructive
discussion
and
there
are
some
points
in
there.
I
think
there's
no
way
the
city
can
do
it
and
you
can't.
We
can't
be
held
accountable
for
those
and
I
don't
want
to
get
into
a
back
and
forth
back
and
forth,
but
I
guess
I
would
like
to
know.
You
know
how
much
academic
is
gonna
go
there
and
how
much
housing
and
okay
things
like
that.
Something.
B
K
Yep
I,
just
I'm
gonna
jump
on
I
agree
with
Cindy
I.
Think
it's
premature
for
us
to
set
any
thing
that
you
guys
should
be
doing
everything
changes
I
think
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
were
the
ones
who
came
to
you
you.
This
is
premature
for
your
planning
process
and
you
know:
I
know
that
we
like
to
micromanage
development
and
Boulder,
but
I
think
the
university
has
done
a
lot
better
job
than
the
city
of
Boulder.
It
has
in
terms
of
their
development
I.
K
A
So
I
guess
I'll
kind
of
jump
on
with
Aaron
a
little
bit,
but
then
also
Cindy,
I
think
they're
for
staff.
There
needs
to
be
something
that
we
need
to
bring
into
guiding
you
with
or
if
we
go
in
this
direction
or
if
we
go
in
this
direction.
What
are
we
gonna
do
and
maybe
have
some
very
rough
open-ended?
A
Well,
not
maybe
open
it
rough
rough
guidelines,
because
again
we
talk
about
things
where
even
just
the
playing
fields
and
not
building
large-scale
stadiums
but
large
scales.
What
because
6,000
is
still
pretty
large
to
me
so
yeah
it
might
not
be
20,000,
but
maybe
you
noticed
some
from
very
gentle
guidelines
there,
but
then
I
would
agree
with
Joe
that
yeah
you
have
the
most
beautiful
buildings
and
I
wish.
All
of
our
buildings
looks
like
that.
A
F
B
J
B
D
At
this
point,
this
was
a
kind.
This
was
such
a
big
kind
of
go
no-go
if
you're
comfortable
moving
forward
with
knowing
that
we're
not
going
to
have
the
traditional
site
plan,
but
we
will
have
more
performance-based
standards
like
you're
talking
about
where
some
of
the
principles
need
to
be
further
defined
and
flushed
out
and
more
analysis
needs
to
happen
in
order
to
get
to
a
level
of
detail
that
compensates.
D
B
B
Little
bit
on
just
and
then
we
can
move
on
is
we
know
you
as
neat
housing
and
that's
not
gonna
change
and
so
I.
Guess
this
whole.
What
we
don't
know
what
we'll
need?
Yes,
we
do.
We're
gonna
need
housing.
You
guys
need
housing,
we
all
know
we
need
housing.
So
I
think
that
that
is
not
going
away
and
that
being
able
for
this,
the
the
university
to
commit
to
a
substantial
amount
of
housing
is
not
an
unreasonable
request.
So.
E
L
B
D
This
is
something
that's
probably
a
quicker
discussion,
and
so,
while
the
comp
plan
didn't
actually
identify
a
review
process
of
establishing
one
for
the
future,
it
is
a
topic
of
interest
and,
as
the
university
mentioned,
we've
kind
of
already
have
discussed
this
and
to
some
extent
during
this
meeting.
But
in
generally
speaking,
the
university's
letter
proposes
throughout
their
process
prior
to
construction,
submitting
a
number
of
documents
to
the
city.
D
The
city
would
then
have
an
obligation,
an
opportunity
to
include
council
planning
board
and
the
community
in
a
process
and
within
a
set
number
of
days,
provide
comments
back
to
the
University.
We
view
this
as
needing
a
little
bit
more
analysis
through
the
process
really
to
understand
councils
and
the
community's
preference
and
comfort
level
with
the
approach
and
to
determine
whether
or
not
we
need
to
refine
it
at
all
to
to
be
responsive
to
counsel's
interest
in
a
future
process.
B
You
asked
two
questions.
Let
me
have
the
whole
one
is:
we've
talked
a
little
bit
and
I
think
it
might
be
useful
to
remind
the
public
and
maybe
some
of
us,
the
conference
center
process.
That's
being
alluded
to
could
maybe
somebody
just
sort
of
remind
us
of
what
that
is
and
then
and
then
another
question
for
you
guys.
Well
maybe
we'll
start
there.
Okay.
F
E
The
more
importantly,
it's
in
the
heart
of
the
city
and
it's
on
your
main
thoroughfare
and
it
will
be
a
defining
building
for
the
sitting
city
in
terms
of
what
we
look
like
as
a
community.
So
I
think
we
spend
a
fair
amount
of
time
coming
up
with
this
process
at
the
time,
because
of
exactly
that
to
have
a
little
more
input
and
influence
and
time
to
provide
that
input.
E
So
all
we
did
in
this
process
is
we
currently
have
this
agreement
executed
between
the
city
and
the
university
that
we
simply
change
the
names
to
reflects
you
south.
So
then,
as
we
bring
forward
our
plans,
it
would
be
things
such
as
excuse
me
prior
to
construction
of
any
facilities,
oncea
boulders,
south
property,
the
university
will
submit
to
the
Planning,
Director
or
designee
for
review
and
comment
sets
of
each
of
the
following
one:
estimated
construction
timelines.
E
Two
building
plans
and
specifications,
three
site
plans
for
grading
plans,
five,
water
wastewater,
stormwater
management
and
flood
control
plans,
six
landscape
plans,
seven
shadow
analyses,
eight
energy
and
lighting
analyses,
nine
emergency
vehicle
access
plans
and
ten
site
circulation,
transportation
and
street
plans.
So
it's
fairly
comprehensive
down
to
you,
know,
sort
of
the
size
of
the
underwear
kind
of
thing.
O
They
basically
took
that
out
of
the
conference
center
mou
and
you
know
it
basically
says:
here's
here's
how
you
get
to
interject
into
a
review
process
and
it
or
or
less
defines
whose
codes
they're
going
to
use
when
they
build
things
so
they're
not
going
to
use
our
building
code
they're,
going
to
use
the
state
building
code
on
and
on
and
on
on,
all
of
their
development
standards.
Okay,.
B
O
And
I
would
assume
that
it
will
need
to
be
refined
as
we
move
forward
in
our
talks
with
the
university.
You
know
this.
This
was
designed
for
a
certain
kind
of
urban
problem.
You
know
very
well-defined
urban
project.
Of
course,
this
we're
moving
into
something
that
is
greenfield
and
suburban.
It's
we're
probably
going
to
want
to
look
at
it
a
little
bit
differently
than
we
did
the
conference
center.
F
And
I
think
just
a
you
know
consider
that
the
129
is
32
times
bigger
than
three
acres,
so
I
think
that
that
will
have
a
different
kind
of
impact
I'd.
You
know,
I
agree
that
that
that
area
where
the
conference
in
hotel
are
going
to
be
are
pretty
impactful,
but
this
is
also
pretty
impactful
and
by
its
sheer
size,
I
think
it
will
merit
some
revisiting
and.
E
I
would
just
point
out
that
this
agreement
is
for
the
facilities
as
they
become
planned
and
designed.
So
you
would
look
at
them
as
they
come
forward.
It
wouldn't
be
a
one
quick,
look
at
the
site
at
a
high
level.
It's
looking
in
fairly
detailed
specification
at
each
building
as
it
is
designed.
That's.
E
So
part
of
that
is
gonna,
be
that
master
plan
input
process
and
then,
as
we
begin
to
get
more
firm
on
the
plans,
I
think
that
the
planning
department
would
keep
and
advised
and
I
think
we
can
talk
about.
You
know
if
we
have
a
whole
site
plan,
that's
been
put
together,
we
can
sit
down
and
do
that
same
sort
of
review
of
the
city
and
then
go
to
the
buildings
as
they
come
online.
So
that's
the
kind
of
thing
I.
N
O
I
would
want
to
defer
a
little
bit
to
our
technical
staff
to
start
with,
but
second
I
do
think
that
that
we
can
use
the
conference
center
MOU
as
a
template
for
going
forward.
But
this
is
a
different
project
and
I
think
that
to
assume
that
we're
going
to
use
it
exactly
as
is
presented
in
the
in
the
conference
center
MOU
is
probably
not
realistic.
O
Just
given
that
it's
a
much
different
type
of
development,
that's
going
to
be
occurring
and
there
will
probably
be
issues
associated
with
how
we
engage
our
community
and,
with
you
know,
with
a
45-day
review
period
that
that
may
work
with
a
three
acre
site.
That
is
intended
to
be
more
of
a
staff
level
review.
O
H
I
guess
my
question:
has
this
along
those
lines
in
that
this
site
has
it's
much
larger
than
the
conference
site,
but
it
also
could
entail
different
boards
with
different
expertise.
So
we
have
our
Planning
Board
our
water
resources,
our
open
space,
our
parks,
I,
don't
know
if
it
all
would
have
to
go
to
every
single
one
of
these
boards.
H
I
think
it
would
depend
on
where
we
are
in
or
where
Cu
is
in
its
development
and
so
I'm
just
curious
in
terms
of
the
turnaround
time
so
that
those
boards,
whatever
boards
those,
are,
have
an
opportunity
to
apply
their
expertise,
give
us
their
advice
and
then
we
can
I,
don't
I
might
I
just
don't
know
how
that
would
work.
So.
E
This
is
where
I
give
you
a
gentle
reminder
that
the
university
does
not
view
itself
to
be
subject
to
all
of
those
bright
bright.
So
if
that
is
something
that
the
city
in
its
45
day
period
wishes
to
consult
with
absolutely
no
problem,
that
would
be
something
you
would
give
us
all
those
feedback
along
with
public
comment.
But
we
are
not
subject
to
that
process.
We're
offering
to
compromise
and
provide
an
opportunity
to
do
that,
but
not
to
set
cycles
where
we
go
to
many
boards
and
we're
subject
those
things
no.
H
I
understand
that
and
that's
in
part,
my
question
is
to
our
staff.
You
know
what
does
it?
What
does
it
take
for
our
boards
to
look
at
these
different
aspects
of
whatever
part
of
their
plan
and
see
you
isn't
subject
to
that?
I
recognize
that
but
you're
asking
for
our
the
City
Council's
the
input
and
we
have
I,
don't
know
18
21
boards
that
we
depend
upon
for
their
advice.
H
So
I
guess
the
question
is-
and
this
is
more
for
City
what
would
be
the
turnaround
time
to
get
the
adequate
input
we
need
from
our
various
technical
boards
so
that
they
could
tell
us
so
that
we're
saying
yeah
we're
on
board
with
this
or
we
might
want
to
look
at
this
a
little
more
seriously.
So
that's
our
staff
question
well,.
O
I
so,
first
of
all,
there's
two
things:
there's
matters
of
regulation,
which
I
would
agree
with
Francis
that
see.
You
probably
has
some
ability
to
avoid
city
regulations,
but
there's
also
matters
of
contract,
which
is
what
an
annexation
is
all
about,
and
what
we're
looking
at
is
a
contractual
arrangement
and,
as
a
matter
of
contract,
I
think
that
we
can
probably
make
requests
that
are
consistent
with
whatever
we
think
whatever
the
city
thinks
is
in
the
best
interest
of
this.
O
The
city
with
that
said,
even
in
a
review
and
comment
context,
you
know,
45
days
is
probably
something
that
is
more
in
line
with
a
staff
level
review
and
there's
probably
not
enough
time
to
do,
get
something
to
a
board
or
Commission.
I.
Think
that
you
know
if
we
wanted
to
have
a
board
and
Commission
to
provide
comments
on
something
and
I
will
ask
our
Planning
Director
to
correct
me
if
I'm,
miss
speaking
but
I.
Think
you're,
probably
looking
more
at
60
to
90
days
to
do
any
that
type
of
review.
O
G
P
It
helps
us
if
we
can
know
in
advance
we're
gonna
receive
the
submission
on
a
certain
date.
Therefore,
you
need
to
preserve
time.
You
know
a
significant
portion
of
your
time
in
the
following
two
weeks
or
something
like
that.
So
I
do
agree
with
David
his
rough
timeframes
and
looking
more
towards
sixty
to
ninety
days.
If
you're
talking
about
board
and
Commission
review
or
a
significant
public
review,
one
of
the
ways
we
could
streamline
that
or
at
least
make
sure
we
hit
those
deadlines
would
be
the
advance
notice
as
well.
I
So
yes,
some
additional
thoughts.
I
mean
I,
appreciate
the
willingness
to
share
the
level
of
detail
here,
but
I
note,
speaking
from
my
experience
on
planning
board
that
when
that's
like
for
us
a
site,
review
level
of
detail-
and
you
certainly
can
put
conditions
on
it
and
change
it,
but
things
are
really
fully
baked
at
that
point,
and
so
you
you
know
we
could
offer
some
technical
comments.
You'd
probably
be
receptive
to
some
level
of
it.
But
if
we
said
oh
gosh,
you
know
actually
from
a
solar
shading
perspective
or
something
like
this.
I
I
Taury,
non-binding
totally
get
that
you're
not
subject
to
our
regulations
are
required
to
do
what
we
mentioned,
but
if,
if
maybe
you
can
lay
out
a
couple
of
tiers
of
public
engagement
where
it
sounds
like
you're
gonna
have
public
interaction
around
the
master
planning
process
and
that's
great.
Maybe
we
can
mention
that
somehow,
but
that
when
it
gets
more
down
to
the
the
details
of
this
site,
but
before
it's
about
designing
a
building
to
every
detail,
that
there'd
be
an
opportunity
for
public
and
city
input.
I
B
I
N
The
issues
that
are
our
flash
points
in
the
community
rather
than
whether
or
not,
and
not
to
use
this
Erin
critically,
but
the
University
is
very
conscious
about
energy
and
has
become
more
so
with
each
passing
year.
So
there's
a
random
example.
They
pay
attention
to
these
things.
They
design
these
buildings
they're
safe
through
this,
through
that
you
did
cetera.
So
what
I
wouldn't
like
to
see
is
to
get
mired
down
in
detail
to
the
point
that
it
halts
the
process
right.
B
F
Abort
boards
that
are
down
what's
that
called
a
coal
meeting
with
like,
say
three
different
boards,
or
something
and-
and
there
was
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
come,
provide
feedback
in
something
like
that.
You
know
what
might
the
timeframe
look
like
and
maybe
provide
some
options
as
to
how
that
input
could
look
like
and
how
those
different
scenarios
of
input
provision
would
impact
that
45
days
give
or
take
or
probably
give
or
take
I'm,
not
sure,
but
how
much
that
would
have
to
vary.
D
We
actually
see
quite
a
bit
of
alignment
with
on
the
topic
of
flood
mitigation
and
so
just
to
kind
of
run
through
these.
Those
two
topics
we
just
covered
are
probably
some
of
the
more
meteor
ones,
and
so
we
can
probably
get
through
this
one
a
little
faster
there's.
You
know,
there's
general
alignment
that
you
know.
D
One
of
those
points
would
be
around
the
location
of
project
wetland
and
habitat
mitigation,
and
so
the
city
will
have
to
secure
all
the
necessary
environmental
permits
to
mitigate
for
the
projects,
direct
environmental
impacts
in
sea
use
letter.
They
did
state
that
the
city
will
be
responsible
for
mitigating
the
impacts
to
any
jurisdictional
jurisdictional
wetlands
that
are
damaged
or
displaced
result
of
the
flood
mitigation,
including
the
permits
and
mitigate
the
loss
of
wetlands
with
a
wetland,
Bank
credits
or
land
or
land,
the
city
otherwise
owns.
D
And
so
in
this
case,
when
we
looked
at
that
particular
item,
we
thought
that
clarification
was
needed
to
determine
whether
the
university
would
end
up
agreeing
with
allowing
the
city
to
purchase
any
of
the
land
designated
open
space
other
for
flood
mitigation,
wetland,
habitat
mitigation
purposes-
and
you
know
if
we
have
to
mitigate
there,
may
not
be
room
on.
For
example,
if
we
had
to
mitigate
for
the
pebbles
Mouse
habitat,
should
there
be
any
need
to
do
that,
it'll
be
difficult
to
find
land
outside
of
the
Cu
South
property?
D
You
know
the
guiding
principles
are
in
alignment
that
we'll
explore
that
the
letter
does
request
at
least
30
appropriately
graded
acres
available
for
construction
that
provides
sufficient
drainage,
and
so
what
we
need
to
do
is
further
analysis.
The
determine
if
30
acres
will
fit
into
that
detention
area
and
further
discussion
will
be
needed
to
determine
if
other
locations
are
needed,
if
it
if
it
won't
fit.
D
So
these
are
some
of
the
areas
that
we've
identified
from
their
letter
and
from
what
we
know
now,
as
we're
gonna
have
to
to
do
a
little
bit
more
work
and
I
guess
what
we
would
ask
is
that
just
counsel,
you
know
agree
with
this
and
other
other
flood
related
items
that
we
haven't
discussed
thus
far,
that
you
think
should
rise
to
the
level
of
future
discussions.
Okay,.
B
E
This
was
our
estimate
based
on
our
prior
conversations
about
creating
recreational
fields
in
the
detention
area,
maybe
clobber,
lacrosse
or
soccer
or
whatever.
It
is
that's
enough.
So
no,
it
did
not
include
the
tennis
acres
acreage
okay,
so
this
was
a
best
estimate
that
we
had
at
the
time
since
we
were
hurrying
through
our
process.
I
think
we
could
spend
some
time
with
staff
be
finding
that
a
little
more.
F
F
Q
Yeah,
we
will
have
to
consider
the
drain
time
from
a
major
flood
to
ensure
that
we
don't
run
into
water
rights
issues.
I
think
the
interest
was
more.
Can
we
design
these
things
so
that
it
won't
be
regularly
out
of
use?
That
will
probably
be
more
challenging
now
that
we're
doing
more
excavation
than
with
the
earlier
concepts,
we
probably
had
a
little
more
flexibility
to
stage
things
in
tear
things
when
we
were
working
with
this
smaller
volume.
Q
F
H
Would
I
would
just
add
to
that?
This
is
a
floodplain.
It
was
mined
and
we're
going
to
excavate
it
even
more.
So
that
was
one
of
the
points
that
I
made
it
some
time
back
about.
I.
Think
that
I'm
not
an
engineer
but
I,
don't
know
if
we
can
guarantee
that
I
mean
I
know
you
have
expectations,
but
it's
a
floodplain
and
it's
been
mined
and
so
there's
when
the
groundwater
is
really
shallow.
So
it's
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
reason,
if
that's
reasonable,
that's
how
ponding.
B
That
those
are
all
reasonable
things
for
staff
to
discuss
further
and
I'll
note
that
I
believe
your
letter
said
in
the
fields
would
be
available
for
public
use
so
that
in
some
ways
community
benefit.
Thank
you
very
much
so
yeah
any
more
on
this
one.
Then
there
are
other
flood
things
that
we
haven't
I
feel
like
we've
covered
flood
pretty
thoroughly
the
last
few
meetings
and.
D
D
Other
one
that
we
saw
some
general
alignment
as
well
as
some
other
some
other
things
to
consider
would
be
the
removal
of
removal
of
the
levee
system.
You
know
that
was
discussed
a
lot
in
the
comp
plan.
There's
a
lot
of
interest
in
it
and
there's
alignment
on
both
sides
that
it
should
be
that
we
can
look
at
removing
the
existing
Cu
levee.
There's
also
the
provision
in
the
letter
around
future
claims
and
damages
that
we
won't
go
into,
but
the
cities.
D
You
know
staff
are
in
alignment
with
that
as
well
the
clarifications
and
then
the
the
non-alignment
piece
just
to
go
over
impacts
to
the
floodplain
designations
on
CU,
south,
and
so
the
CEOs
letter
does
have
a
point
in
there
around
as
a
that.
The
floodplains
won't
increase
on
the
site
due
to
the
flood
mitigation,
infrastructure
or
removal
of
the
levee
system,
and
so
that
was
something
that
will
have
to
that
will
be
analyzed
as
we
move
forward
in
the
process.
D
What
we
know
right
now
is
that
the
map
on
the
right
is
the
FEMA
flood
plain
map
lines
on
that
map
that
show
the
boundaries
of
the
100-year
floodplain
the
area
protected
by
the
levee.
Those
are
not
anticipated
to
change
as
we
move
forward
in
design
of
a
floodplain
mitigation
structure
as
well
as
removal
of
removal
of
the
levee,
though
the
designations
within
those
areas
likely
will
change,
for
example,
that
levee
area
protected
by
the
levee
will
change
to
a
different
designation,
likely
the
500-year
floodplain.
D
H
B
Q
Would
be
just
public
impacts
associated
with
construction
if
we're
able
to
move
fill
on
the
site?
That
means
we
won't
be
driving
trucks
in
and
out
so
I
think
it
would.
It
would
be
in
our
interest
to
work
with
the
University
and
try
to
not
be
bringing
material
in
and
out
of
the
site.
So
it's
just
a
topic.
We're
gonna
have
to
do.
B
Q
E
H
H
I
Know
just
agree
with
Lisa
and
just
encourage
you
if
we
can
work
together
to
see
like
what
are
the
the
needs
to
you
know,
build
this
thing
with
and
could
we
use
the
soil
on-site
and
then
can?
Is
that
like
a
third
of
the
levee
film
and
you
guys
get
all
the
rest
of
it
or
something?
So
maybe
we
could
do
more
engineering
figure
out
how
it
might
work
and
then
and
then
talk
more
about
it-
is.
E
Possible
but
since
we
don't
have
any
plans,
that's
why
we
held
that
in
reserve,
because
maybe
we
want
to
use
it
to
build
up
some
of
the
land
to
make
sure
we
stay
out
of
the
floodplains
or
if
we
end
up,
you
know
we
decided
with
the
plan
that
you
selected,
we
need
to
use
some
of
the
Oso
area.
Maybe
we
need
to
put
some
fill
that
who
knows
well.
B
E
B
J
B
D
That's
that
blue
area
and
then
finally,
the
purple
area
support
through
the
annexation,
conveyance
and
permanent
protection
of
the
remaining
open
space
area
and
in
their
letter
the
CU
did
state
that
any
additional
land
requested
for
open
space
or
other
uses
would
need
to
be
purchased
by
the
city
with
the
university's
agreement
and
so
we'll
need
some
clarification
around
to
determine
whether
or
not
in
to
what
extent
the
university
would
be
willing
to
entertain
any
of
those
discussions
to
implement
the
board
of
trustees.
Recommendation
to
you.
D
Lastly,
the
analysis
needed
around
the
relocation,
realignment
and
potential
water
rights
for
the
dry
creek,
ditch
number
two.
The
OS
bt
did
recommend,
realigning
the
ditch
and
that's
very
conceptual
through
the
middle
there,
almost
as
a
demarcation
line
of
that
open
space
other,
and
that's
not
an
official
placement
of
that
by
any
means.
D
In
the
letter
the
university
did
say
if
they
agreed
the
the
city
could,
at
its
sole
cost,
realign
the
ditch
and
acquire
or
lease
the
university's
rights,
and
so
we'll
have
to
have
some
clarification
and
some
analysis
around
the
objectives
of
where
that
would
go
and
the
feasibility
of
that
configuration
moving
forward.
And
so
these
are
some
of
the
issues
that
we've
identified
with
open
space
in.
B
E
H
Just
as
this
one,
where
you
have
two
bullets,
if
the
university
agrees,
the
city
may
at
its
own
cost,
realign
dry,
creek,
dry,
creek,
ditch
number
two
and
then
your
second
bullet
is.
If
the
university
agrees,
the
city
may
acquire
or
lease
the
university's
water
rights
in
dry
creek
number
two.
So
my
question
is:
how
would
those
discussions
occur
and
when
do
you
see
those
occurring
I
mean
we
would
probably
like
to
have
our
staff
estimate?
E
I
think
we
could
have
more
definitive
discussions
with
staff
around
that
and
what
it
looks
like
you
know.
One
of
the
questions
we've
got
to
ask
for
the
long
term.
Use
of
the
water
rights
are
those
something
that
we
need
to
help
manage
the
property
and
the
water
usage
on
the
property.
Once
it's
developed
and
therefore
said
something
new,
at
least
now,
as
opposed
to
sell
and
then
take
this
on
entirely
back
to
our
Regents
I.
Think.
H
When
we
were,
you
know
in
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
discussion,
I
think
they
were
also
talking
about
making
sure
that
the
special
species
there
had
water
in
perpetuity
you
know
so
that
they
could
reclaim
some
of
the
land
there
and
not
reclaim
it,
but
restore
you
know
a
key
ecologically,
and
so
that
could
be
that
any
way.
I
see
this
as
really
a
critical
point,
two
points
so.
E
H
L
L
So
it's
not
something
that
we
can
certainly
agree
to
today
and
as
far
as
the
the
realignment
as
opposed
it
just
matters,
what
the
path
of
the
realignment
is
mmm-hmm,
that's
the
main
thing
I
can
see
there
and
if,
if
we
are
retaining
some
use
of
that
pink
area,
is
it
crossing
and
then
interfering
with
that
use?
Those
are
just
a
couple
of
examples
of
considerations.
D
F
L
E
Q
Just
to
provide
a
little
more
detail,
what
we
do
with
cu
properties
in
general
is
we
master
meter
at
the
perimeter
of
the
property,
and
so
even
though
there
might
be
multiple
buildings
on
the
site,
we
treat
it
as
one
customer.
They
have
one
water
budget,
they
acquire
an
investment
fee
to
serve
it
as
a
whole,
and
so
as
they
do
individual
things
on
the
site
or
not,
then
they
they
own
and
maintain
the
utility
infrastructure
within
the
site
as
well.
Q
Q
And
we'll
have
to
look
at
the
details
and
actually
the
the
water
rights
issue.
We
just
talked
about
probably
fits
in
that
same
conversation,
because,
typically
through
an
annexation,
the
city
would
be
acquiring
any
water
rights.
The
annex
and
property
had
in
exchange
for
providing
our
own
water
rights
to
deliver
potable
water
to
the
site.
So
we
would
be
probably
looking
at
at
that
as
a
whole
in
terms
of
what
CEO
is
seeking
from
us
in
terms
of
provision
of
water
service
and
but
water
rights.
Q
Q
I
think
we
would
look
at
it
as
a
whole
and
again
we'd
have
to
as
we
move
forward,
we'll
get
a
better
understanding
of
of
what
the
likely
needs
are
within
the
property.
And
but
we
would
look
at
that
holistically
because
it
might
be
that
there
is
some
some
trading
that
makes
sense
and
is
in
everyone's
mutual
interest.
N
Lisa
touched
on
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
it's
very
important
for
open
space,
habitat
preservation
in
case
that
dam
at
the
highway
does
not
permit
water
passages,
and
that
was
the
thrust
of
the
realignment
of
Dry
Creek.
Ditch
too,
and
having
water
in
it.
So,
just
as
a
backup
for
to
be
sure
that
that
habitat
would
be
protected
in.
B
D
There
are
quite
a
few
points
of
alignment
that
we're
seeing
you
know
the
comprehensive
plan
talked
about
performance-based
standards,
and
so
the
university
did
indicate
and
in
their
letter
that
they're
interested
in
partnering
with
us
to
further
develop
those.
You
know,
we've
done
some
initial
research
around.
D
You
know
there
are
other
universities
that
have
done
similar
things
out
there,
that
we
could
start
looking
at
an
initial
study
throughout
the
comp
plan,
identified
a
potential
location
for
a
multimodal
hub
on
the
site
and
that's
something
that
we're
in
alignment
with,
as
well
as
a
connected
multimodal
system
connecting
to
our
system
as
well
as
not
having
a
bypass
through
the
site.
Some
of
the
things
that
we
think
we'll
probably
need
to
further
refine
is
the
impacts
to
the
neighborhood's
related
to
transportation,
and
so
a
lot
of
the
you
know.
D
On
that
and
there's
also,
we
heard
some
concerns
around-
you
know:
there's
a
school
nearby,
there's
some
neighborhoods
nearby
that
could
be
concerned
around
parking
spillage
and
so
on,
and
so
you
know
we'll
have
to
probably
look
at
some
more
fine-grain
approaches
to
managing
the
university's
trips
and
the
subsequent
impacts
to
the
to
the
neighborhood
in
our
transportation
system,
so
intro
city.
So.
N
It's
been
managed,
I
mean
we're
already
hearing
from
the
neighborhood's
have
been
hearing
for
decades
from
the
neighborhoods
about
the
level
of
service
of
transportation.
In
that
area,
I
mean
it's
poor
right
now,
and
people
have
a
difficult
time
just
coming
north
or
going
east.
So
I
would
hope
that
the
university
really
would
look
ahead
at
connecting
its
campuses
doing
something.
Maybe
the
Colorado
that
seed
out
right
away
would
be
a
place
where
some
small,
fixed
rail
could
go,
and
maybe
the
city
could
get
into
that
again.
N
Looking
ahead,
this
is
looking
ahead
that
we
should
explore.
Bob's
gondola
these
kinds
of
different
things
could
be
looked
at
that
really
might
start
to
move
people
and
goods
instead
of
just
putting
more
cars
on
the
roadway
because
they're
not
going
anywhere
soon
much
as
we
may
think
that
that
would
be
a
good
thing,
it's
not
going
to
happen
soon
unless
oil
dries
up.
I
You
agree
with
Cindy
there
and
because
obviously,
transit
is
gonna
need
to
be
a
huge
part
of
the
transportation
plan
here
and
I
really
hope
that
we
can
work
together
and
do
some
joint
transit
and
those
we've
got
the
table
mesa
park
and
ride
right
there,
and
there
are
so
many
people,
I'm
sure
who
could
use
some
additional
ways
to
get
from
there
into
downtown
or
to
the
Cu
campus,
or
things
like
that.
So
I'd
love
to
see
us
collaborate
on
circulator
routes
to
this
to
this
site.
I
So
hopefully
we
can
build
some
of
that
into
this
negotiation
process.
One
thing
I
mentioned
the
I,
absolutely
support
the
note
bypass.
We
don't
want
cars
going
through
there
and
over,
but
we
can.
We
consider
allowing
maybe
some
buses
to
go
through
I
mean
that
might
actually
be
a
good
mobility
option.
If
you
put
one
bus,
every
20,
15
minutes
from
side
to
side
that
wouldn't
violate
I,
think
the
spirit
of
the
no
bypass
role,
so
I'd
want
to
hear
from
the
public
about
that
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
do
that
unilaterally.
I
L
F
H
You
go
and
I
was
just
gonna
say
the
same
thing
that
Aaron
just
said
that
I
really
hope.
We
can
see
this
as
an
opportunity,
not
just
with
this
property
but
I.
Think
looking
into
the
future,
see
you
the
city,
Boulder
County.
We
need
to
do
something
about
transportation
and
I.
Don't
think
we
can
look
to
Denver
for
leadership
and
so
I'm
hoping
I
personally
think
we're
gonna
have
to
have
a
whole
lot
of
sidebar
conversations
and
I
really
hope.
We
can
have
a
very
fruitful
in
on
that.
D
That
was
the
second
question
to
council
the
purpose
statement.
The
city's
engagement
framework
does
suggest
clearly
defining
a
purpose
statement
early
on
in
a
process
or
a
project.
That's
really
intended
it's
kind
of
like
the
project's
mission
statement.
This
was
the
statement
that
was
included
in
the
staff
report.
I
also
did
want
to
note.
You
know.
Mary
and
Sam
did
provide
some
additional
language
which
I
have
on
another
slide.
B
D
And
so
this
is
just
a
reminder
that
we're
really
at
step
one
kind
of
defining
the
issue
before
embarking
on
this
process.
Following
the
input
tonight,
we'd
be
developing
and
further
refining.
You
know
our
understanding
of
the
affected
parties
and
engagement
plan
as
we
move
forward,
typically
in
a
conventional
annexation
process.
There
are
several
steps
that
take
place,
including
a
pre-application
meeting
with
the
applicant
and
staff,
sometimes
a
feasibility
study,
the
applications
submitted
and
written
comments.
D
Typically,
the
annexation
agreement
would
be
refined
during
that
process
and
once
it's
finalized
and
ready
for
primetime,
it
would
go
to
a
Planning,
Board
and
City
Council.
What
the
staff
report
suggests
considering
is
really
building
upon
the
guiding
principles
and
the
input
briefs
we
receive
at
tonight's
study
session.
We
would
be
holding
some
additional
meetings
with
the
university.
D
J
F
Order
the
items
after
written
comments
I
would
just
like
to
kind
of
get
a
feel
for
my
colleagues
about.
It
seems
to
me
that
we
might
want
to
get
board
engagement
ahead
of
our
study
session
and
what
I'm
getting
at
it'd
be
great
if
they
dove
in
more
deeply
to
that
and
then
provided
some
feedback
to
Council
that
a
study
session.
So
that's
just
a
suggestion.
I
have
and
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there.
F
S
Agree,
Mary,
I,
didn't
know,
you're
gonna
say
that
so
at
that
point,
question
for
you
feel
me
or
maybe
it's
for
Jeff
I'm.
What
extent
are
there
dependencies
between
this
annexation
process
and
the
engineering
the
plenary
design
work
that
you're
doing
are
there?
Are
there?
Are
there
any
points
where
one
is
gonna
affect
the
other,
or
do
they
work
completely
independently?
I.
Q
Am
hoping
that
that
film
might
have
a
slide
in
the
deck
that
just
shows
how
the
two
lap,
and,
if
you
do
not,
then
so
so,
basically
they
have
to
line
up
at
the
end
for
sure
we
we
don't
want
to
make
a
decision
on
annexation
or
or
flood
without
knowing
they
both
work.
I
think
the
plan
is
to
be
checking
in
with
Council
at
key
milestones
through
the
engineering
and
if
we
hit
something
that
is
gonna,
require
a
policy
decision
or
a
change
in
direction.
Q
There's
a
there's,
a
process
laid
out
on
one
we
would
see
updates
and
the
idea
was
I
think
to
try
to
integrate
those
best.
We
can,
but
it
really
there's
a
there's,
a
variety
of
different
critical
path
items
in
the
preliminary
engineering
and
if
we
hit
a
snag
with
any
of
those,
we
will
want
to
coming
back
and
regroup.
So
we
don't
get
ahead
of
ourselves
with
this.
So.
S
I
get
the
the
fact
that
these
half-day
and
at
the
same
time
and
sounds
like
you,
don't
know
if
there's
gonna
be
dependencies
between
the
two
other
than
the
facts
for
the
bumps
in
the
road
you
let
us
know
along
the
way,
I'm
I.
Think
at
one
point,
I'm
and
the
last
mother,
to
you
told
us
that
you
thought
the
preliminary
design
work
would
take
about
a
year.
That's.
Q
The
ballpark
kind
of
the
next
big
milestone
is
we're
expecting
in
December
to
have
the
consultant
to
have
brought
the
option
that
was
selected
by
Council
up
to
just
even
the
standards
of
the
previous
options.
You've
looked
at
so
that
will
hopefully
give
us
some
insight
if
any
fatal
flaws
have
been
identified
and.
S
K
B
It's
some
point:
we
need
to
have
something
with
some
specificity
for
both
the
public
in
the
boards
to
respond
to
you,
because
that's
when
the
rubber
hits
the
road
is
when
you
fill
in
the
details.
So
how
long
do
you
think
do
we
have
enough
details
for
people
to
respond
meaningfully
to
and
the
boards
to
respond?
And
that's
probably
as
soon
as
we
get
there?
That's
when
we
should
have
it
I
think
we.
D
Would
hope
that
we'd
have
some
options
for
that
first
council
study
session.
The
idea
would
have
been
if
there
are
friction
points
between
at
least
the
policies
we
have
this
at
the
city
and
the
university
that
were
able
to
identify
them
and
at
least
identify
some
specific
paths
forward,
and
that's
what
we
would
be
presenting
that
we
would
go
out
to
do
engagement
around
at
that
council
study
session.
That's.
D
I
I
think
that
that
makes
sense
that
there
could
be
a
joint
board
session
could
be
a
good
idea
before
we
have
our
next
study
session,
and
this
is
we
have
some
more
specifics
to
look
at
and
and
then
you
go
up
for
public
engagement
after
that
right.
So
then
we're
talking
about
like
open
houses,
with
the
public's
things
like
that
we'd.
I
Great,
which
is
I,
think
really
useful
and
then
and
then
I
think
we
should
consider
making
that
Second.
Council
study
session
of
public
hearing
I
put
that
out
there
like
I'm,
a
little
worried
about
getting
to
our
very
first
public
hearing
on
the
issue
when
we
actually
have
an
annexation
agreement
in
front
of
us
that
we're
about
to
consider
proving
it's
probably
a
little
late.
It
is
a
little
late,
so
loudly,
okay,
so
I
encourage
us
to
have
a
chance
to
hear
from
the
public
as
a
council
before
we
get
to
that
end
point.
G
D
B
Here's
the
thing
is,
it
depends
I,
think
if
we
hit
some
snag,
if
it's
about,
if
it's
a
technical
snag
and
there's
different
ways
to
solve
technical
stuff,
yes
and
it's
a
wrap,
but
if
it's
a
political
one
where
you
want
us
to
say
hey,
we
want
to
run
this
by
the
public.
That's
us
so
I
guess
depending
I'm
with
you,
but
it
depends
on
the
nature
of
the
options
that
you
want
to
float
by
us.
G
I
Where
Bob
was
going
in
terms
of
how
the
flood
planning
and
and
this
process
works
together,
just
very
much
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
unnecessarily
hold
up
the
flood
work,
so
I
mean
I,
can
imagine
a
scenario
where
flood
is
kind
of
working
along
and
they're
like.
Oh,
we
actually
aren't
quite
ready
for
this,
because
the
annexation
thing
isn't
quite
ready,
and
then
you
end
up
in
a
holding
pattern
for
two
months.
You
let
us
know
you
know
if
something
like
that
seems
like
it's
coming
down
the
pike.
I
Let's
see
if
we
can
work
to
avoid
that,
because
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
flood
engineering
work
doesn't
take
any
longer
than
it
has
to,
and
so
I
mean
we
have
to
work
through
the
annexation
problem
process.
We
have
to
do
a
good
job
with
that
in
a
thorough
process.
There
are
job
on
that,
but
to
the
extent
that
we
can
avoid
having
that
hold
up
the
flood
work
please
and
come
back
to
us
if
necessary,.
B
B
E
There
was,
oh
sorry,
yeah,
just
a
question,
so
we
have
applications
of
middle
and
maybe
Phil
you
can
answer
this.
We
get
written
common
back
about
where
we're
in
alignment
and
not
and
we
resubmit
if
it
then
goes
to
all
of
the
engagement
boards
and
then
city
council
study
session.
It
just
continues
on.
We
never.
D
M
O
Would
be
the
final
agreement,
but
typically
at
the
written
comments
stage
we
are
identifying
kind
of
what
the
conditions
of
annexation
are
gonna
be
and
where
there
is
alignment
with
the
city
staff
and
the
applicant.
So
that's
after
that
written
comments
stage
when
you
start
to
move
into
the
process,
that's
where
that
will
start
to
emerge,
but.
H
B
O
L
K
D
Would
have
input
from
your
your
boards
and
commissions
prior
to
having
that
study
session
on
those
those
key
issues.
We
would
go
out
to
the
community
and
have
additional
link
as
that
havoc
engagement,
and
then
that
council
public.
That
council
study
session
would
turn
into
a
public
hearing
and
would
really
be
looking
at
a
potential
path
forward.
With
those
key
issues
and
weighing
in
on
that
and.
D
Here
you
know
we
had
included
the
boards
at
this
stage
of
the
process,
but
really
this
would
be
kind
of
moved
up
up
here
and
that
and
that
may
include
the
open
space
board
if
they're,
given
that
there's
open
space
issues,
transportation,
advisory
board
and
so
on,
and
then
the
final
public
hearing
with
the
Planning
Board
and
council
so
too
bad.
We
can't
move
this
around
on
the
fly.
Yeah.
G
B
Maybe
you
guys
had
proposed
some
changes
and
to
me
the
word
smithing
is
less
important
and
then
the
concepts
that
you
want
it
to
change
and
I,
don't
know
if
the
discussions
that
we've
just
had
like
okay,
so
we're
not
doing
site
review,
but
we
want
more
detail
whether
that
affects
what
you're
proposing
or
not
but
either
way.
Maybe
you
could
talk
to
the
key
things
about
this
that
you
wanted
to
change
kind
of
at
the
principal
level,
not
like
every
word.
One.
F
Of
the
things
that
Sam
and
I
spoke
about
was
that
this
one,
the
purpose
of
this
process
is
to
annex
and
I.
You
know
that
is
something
that
that
the
public
would
react
to,
and
so
we
wanted
to
change
that
to
define
the
conditions
of
annexation,
as
opposed
to
presuming
the
end
result
before
it's
gone
through
a
process.
So
that's
one
of
the
major
things
and
then
the
language
that
followed
from
there
was
wood
instead
of
well.
F
E
So
we
had
written
the
response
to
this,
and,
and
really
it
was,
would
include,
but
not
be
limited
to
agreements
that
clearly
define
the
building
standards
and
uses
transportation,
access
and
connections,
flood
mitigation,
ecosystem
protection
and
land
stewardship
responsibilities.
All
of
that
is
something
that
we
wouldn't
want
to
define
in
the
annexation
process
itself.
We
would
want
to
agree
to
a
process
in
the
future
to
engage
the
city
in
providing
feedback
on
those
things
when
we
get
to
that
stage,
but
not
in
the
annexation
agreement
itself,
defining
those
standards
so.
E
E
B
H
B
B
S
I'll
jump
in
here,
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
think
what
you're
saying
Francis
and
what
Mary
is
saying
are
mutually
exclusive.
I
mean
I,
think
we
all
get
that
there
can
be
no
flood
mitigation
unless
there's
annexation,
so
I
think
I.
Think
the
assumption
is
that
this
will
end
up
in
an
annexation.
I
think
what
Mary
the
point
Mary's
trying
to
raise
is:
what
are
the?
What
are
the
terms
of
that
condemned
that
annexation
and
none
of
us
know
where
we've
talked
about
some
tonight?
S
I
So
maybe
I've
got
a
proposal
here,
which
is
I,
think
I,
think
you're
you're
in
Samms
initial
sentence
is
I,
think
broader
and
I
think
works
well
for
the
needs
of
the
process
and
and
in
general,
and
then
I
wonder
if
we
might
go
from
that.
First
sentence
back
to
the
original
purpose
statement
is
that
this
original
purpose
he
only
has
two
sentences,
and
so
maybe
we
take
your
first
sentence
and
then
the
original
purpose
statements
second
sentence,
which
dude
can
you
bring
that
back
back
up.
I
So
so
this
into
the
first,
like
half
of
that,
first
sense,
would
be
replaced
by
st.
Mary's
and
then
we
keep.
This
second
sentence,
which
has
this
sort
of
clear,
will
be
great:
guided
by
the
sea
of
South
guiding
principles,
and
then
it's
clear
that
it's
a
modified
annexation
process
that
provides
opportunities
to
influence
the
terms
so.
N
N
B
H
L
B
D
B
E
T
C
C
B
C
C
A
plan
area
two
and
now,
which
uses
you
select
other
areas
in
the
complan
and
then
we're
going
to
ask
you
to
narrow
the
potential
uses
so
before
I
go
further.
You
do
a
piece
of
paper
on
your
desk,
which
was
also
in
the
memo.
We're
gonna
ask
you
to
do
just
to
follow
along
and
to
help
yourselves
really
figure
out
what
you
want
to
do
as
we
go
through
each
use.
Think
about
whether
or
not
you
want
to
do
it
or
you
don't
want
to
do
it,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
it
later.
C
You
will
see
that
under
number
two
ecological
or
amenity
management
uses
use
for
it
already
says.
Yes,
that's
because
the
minimum,
that's
the
minimum,
that
we
feel
we
should
do
is
the
owner
of
this
property.
We
do
need
to
maintain
it.
So
we've
already
selected
that
at
least
we
have
to
do
that
through
the
general
fund.
So,
on
the
slide,
we
also
contained
a
very
short
description
of
what's
been
going
on
on
the
property
for
the
last
year.
C
As
you
well
know,
this
property
has
a
long
and
storied
history
that
we
are
not
going
into,
but
just
in
the
last
year
the
council
considered
an
annexation
application.
A
year
ago
it
was
ultimately
withdrawn
and
then
the
council
made
the
decision
for
the
city
to
purchase
the
property
and
we
have
been
carrying
through
with
that
in
the
early
parts
of
2018
and
the
property
was
ultimately
purchased
on
April
20th
we're
returning
now,
six
months
later,
with
some
ideas
for
its
use
not
to
the
next
slide.
So
our
questions
for
you
are
going
to
be.
C
First
of
all,
you
have
any
questions
about
what
we're
presenting,
but
then
do
you
have
any
suggestions
for
use
of
the
property
that
we
haven't.
Thought
of
that
there
are
probably
are
other
things
that
you
may
be
thinking
about.
Are
there
any
uses
that
we've
suggested
that
you
think
should
be
eliminated
and
then,
after
eliminating
on
the
ones
that
could
be
used?
Do
you
have
any
additional
information
that
you
want
us
to
provide
that
we
can
come
back
to
you
at
a
later
time?
C
And
then
do
you
have
any
specific
questions
about
the
potential
uses
so
on
we
go.
The
first
presenter
is
going
to
be
Dan
Burke
and
you
can
see
our
many
staff
members
lined
up
in
the
order
in
which
they're
going
to
present.
So
we've
asked
each
person
to
present
their
own
section
of
it
and
Dan
Burke
is
going
to
talk.
Talk
about
agricultural
and
ecological
uses.
Dan
thanks.
V
V
However,
staff
did
develop
an
approach
if
council
did
determine
that
Inka
cultural
use
is
the
highest
and
best
use
for
this
property,
and
what
this
would
look
like
is
that
this
approach
would
be
a
limited
agricultural
restoration
that
would
ultimately
result
in
small-scale
grazing
and
hay
production.
To
do
this,
that
would
require
removing
the
current
structures,
adding
and
repairing
the
fencing,
repairing
the
irrigation
system,
which
is
dilapidated
and
relocate
the
prairie
dog
colony,
and
eventually
it
would
involve
renovating
the
pasture
grass
and
reducing
the
presence
of
invasive
weeds
on
the
property.
V
We
estimate
that
the
upfront
costs
for
this
to
get
it
ready
for
agricultural
use
could
be
as
high
as
about
two
hundred
and
forty
thousand
dollars
when
and
after
that,
with
annual
maintenance
costs
of
ranging
around
twelve
thousand
dollars
a
year.
So,
with
this
option,
with
this
limited
agricultural
use,
option,
agricultural
use
to
a
small
degree
could
be
reestablished,
the
aesthetics
of
the
property
could
be
improved
and
the
invasive
weeds
issue
would
be
addressed.
V
However,
this
option
would
be
expensive
and
we
will
likely
find
it
difficult
to
find
an
agricultural
lessee
or
tenant
a
rancher
or
farmer.
To
take
this
to
take
this
on
and
again
it
would
divert
our
limited
resources.
Our
cultural
staff
is
of
three
manages
our
15,000
acre
system
under
agricultural
portfolio,
which
is
actually
a
third
of
our
open
space
portfolio
as
it
exists
now.
Yeah.
V
V
Next
staff
assessed
its
ecological
or
and
amenity
management
conditions,
and
it's
very
similar
to
the
agricultural
aspects,
staff
determined
that
that
it
provides
low
potential
for
possessing
significant
ecological
benefits,
and
it's
relatively
and
that's
the
fact
that
is
due
to
that.
This,
it's
surrounded
by
residential
use
and
on
two
sides
and
urban
park
uses
on
the
third
side.
The
condition
of
the
property
and
and
the
extent
of
the
invasive
weeds,
really
limits
its
potential
and
its
current
conditions
of
ecological
viability
and
the
likelihood
that
only
generalists
wildlife
species
would
ever
exist
here.
V
Due
to
the
do
to
the
setting
of
the
property.
However,
staff
did
develop
four
possible
approaches
if
council
did
determine
that
managing
the
site
for
its
ecological
services,
the
highest
and
best
use
for
the
property,
so
I'll
briefly
go
through
those
four
first
option
is
a
limited
or
what
we
would
call
light
ecological
restoration
projects
that
would
be
under
the
auspices
of
open
space
in
mountain
parks,
and
this
would
require
removal
of
the
structures,
fencing,
repair
or
possible
replacement
and
mowing
of
the
weeds.
V
We
estimate
an
upfront
cost
of
about
sixty
five
thousand
out
of
up
to
sixty
five
thousand
dollars
to
do
this
restoration.
This
light
restoration
result
in
the
management
of
the
weeds
and
would
result
in
aesthetic
improvements
to
the
site.
However,
it
would
divert
staff
resources
away
from
higher
priority
restoration
projects
and,
in
the
end,
would
result
in
only
limited
ecological
benefits
due
to
the
prevailing
conditions
of
the
property.
V
The
second
option,
which
would
be
it
would
be
more
of
a
full
or
intensive
ecological
restoration
initiative
again
under
the
auspices
of
open
space
and
mountain
parks,
and
this
would
involve
many
of
the
scenarios
that
I
just
brought
up
under
the
light
under
the
minor
restoration,
but
it
would
also
involve
additional
activities
such
as
site,
grazing
plantings
and
wetland.
West
restoration
in
an
intensive
restoration
project
could
cost
as
much
as
four
hundred
ten
thousand
dollars
and
will
result
in
aesthetic
improvements
and
improved
habitat.
V
It
is
our
staffs
opinion
that
of
all
the
22
acres
that
incorporating
these
three
acres
into
the
system
makes
the
most
sense
due
to
its
connectivity
to
open
space
lands
that
are
adjacent
to
the
east.
There's
actually
about
75
feet
that
have
a
common
boundary
on
the
far
east
side
of
the
Hogan
pankot
property
and
under
this
scenario,
OSP
would
also
take
a
minor,
take
carryout
amount
of
restoration
project.
And
finally,
we
did
also
look
at
what
we
will
call
an
amenity
maintenance
of
the
property
and
Jayne
alluded
to
that.
V
However,
it
should
be
pointed
out
that,
even
with
amenity
maintenance,
they
that
would
divert
contracting
dollars
away
from
other
community
maintenance
needs,
but,
as
Jayne
did
allude,
that
probably
is
a
primary
responsibility
to
at
least
do
that
amenity
maintenance
on
the
property.
So
those
are
the
options
that
we
looked
at
and
sort
of
a
summary
of
staff's
assessment
of
the
property.
So
we
can
entertain
questions
on
on
this
section
at
this
time,.
A
Option
four:
can
you
just
tell
me
how
that
what
does
that
do
for
the
noxious
weeds
and
the
prairie
dogs?
If
you're
constantly
mowing
I
mean,
is
it
gonna
help
mitigate
the
weeds
and
is
it
going
to
impact
the
prairie
dogs
yeah.
V
J
W
I
So
in
terms
of
the
use
number
three,
given
those
three
acres-
the
open
space
system,
you
said
there's
about
a
75
foot
contiguity
on
the
eastern
side.
Is
there
any
other
private
land
use
to
the
east
of
that
parcel
to
the
east
of
55th
where's?
It
really
all
open
space,
as
you
kind
of
go
east
and
northeast
yeah.
V
V
H
G
H
Was
there
and
she
was
explaining
this
key
line?
Technique
that
had
been
very
is
seeming
to
be
very
successful
on
that
property
and,
in
fact,
to
the
point
that
it's
been
able
to
irrigate
the
soil
enough,
so
that
when
you
cover
it
with
a
cover
crop
or
a
variety
of
different
cover
crops,
which
is
I,
think
what
they
did
in
the
experiment
to
see
who's
who's
going
to
do
better.
V
My
understanding
of
the
pilot
project
on
the
Bennett
property,
which
is
just
the
single
project
that
is
that
is
going
on
right
now
and
we'd,
be
happy
to
update
the
Council
on
and
the
results
of
that
it's
a
couple
years
project,
but
we'll
be
starting
to
get
some
results
in
and
pretty
soon
and
we'd,
be
happy
to
update
the
council
on
that.
That
is
that
particular
site
was
selected
for
a
couple
of
different
of
all
it
had.
V
The
soils
were
were
blowing
away,
essentially
in
the
case
of
the
Hogan
pan
cost
there's
poor
rocky
soils,
but
that
is
generally
because
that's
the
condition
of
the
soils
in
general
in
that
area.
Being
in
that
location,
where
the
Bennett
property
is,
has
lost
a
lot
of
this
soil
cover
and
therefore
cannot
hold
any
irrigated
water
and
let
cetera
we
also
benefit
from
the
fact
that
the
adjoining
rancher
or
farmer
family
is
taking
on
a
lot
of
the
actual
work.
In
order
to
so
a
lot
of
the
people.
V
Powers
is
being
done
in
partnership
with
a
rancher.
So
it's
not
to
say
that
this
site
has
ruled
out
it
wouldn't
be.
It
could
be
considered
for
something
like
that,
but
there
are
certain
conditions
that
are
happening
on
the
Bennett
product
property
that
isn't
repeated
here,
but
in
talking
with
Brian
Anika
from
our
staff
who's
leading
that
project,
he
said
in
general,
there's
nothing
that
would
rule
out
this
site
for
a
potential
pilot
project
of
carbon
sequestration,
soil
rejuvenation
type
of
thing.
So
thank.
H
F
Yes,
so
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
heard
you
say
that,
basically,
the
only
part
of
this
parcel
that
could
become
open
space
is
the
ore
that
would
be
acceptable.
Open
space
would
is
the
part
on
the
other
side
of
55th
Street,
that
three
acres
and,
and
so
that
being
the
case,
it
sounds
like
the
other
options.
If
we
kept
it
in
area,
two
would
be
either
utilities
or
parks,
as
that
is
that.
B
V
Yeah
we'll
hear
about
all
the
options:
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
we
did
present
options,
one
and
two,
which
would
involve
the
full
22
acres,
but
staffs
assessment
is
that
the
most
appropriate
portion
of
the
property
to
be
incorporated
is
the
3
acres,
but
the
other
the
option,
one
and
option
2
that
we
purchased
as
well
as
the
agricultural
option,
would
involve
the
full
22
acres.
So
it's
I
wasn't
meaning
to
eliminate
open
spaces
ability
to
acquire
to
take
on
the
rest.
V
A
Just
one
other
question:
in
the
memo
it
stated
that
the
land
was,
as
Lisa
stated,
denuded
and
from
the
prairie
dog
racing
and
horse
great
grazing.
B
B
Hey
just
one
last
question
on
this:
it
seems
to
me
that
we
might
say
hey.
We
could
do
some
of
this.
Some
of
this
some
of
this
it's
a
big
site.
Would
it
be
appropriate
if
we
chose
some
of
these
uses
to
do
the
remainder,
restore
it
or
try
out
a
carbon
sequestered,
a
table
meant
with
compost
and
see.
If
you
couldn't
rebuild
the
sort
I
mean.
Is
there
a
aside
from
the
three
acres
for
the
rest
of
the
site?
Is
there
a
size
at
which
you
wouldn't
bother
yeah.
V
N
Have
a
question
about
this
specifically
because
it's
this
three
acres
of
land,
we
got
a
letter
from
someone
named
Joe
Kent,
who
talked
about
wishing
to
purchase
this
three
acres
and
saying
that
he
would
do
something
it
sounded
like
to
the
a
conservation
agreement.
Has
that
been
entertained?
I
mean
the
for
the
city
to
sell
that
if
there
is
in
conservation
easement
on
this.
C
I
T
Contestant
number
two
so
I'm
Jeff
Haley,
with
with
Parks
&,
Recreation
and
so
similar
to
open
space
in
mountain
parks.
We've
explored
a
lot
of
brainstorming
ideas
and,
as
we
were
just
mentioning,
a
lot
of
the
uses
we've
considered
would
complement
other
uses
or
be
standalone.
Probably
most
importantly,
we've
looked
at
the
adjacent,
miss
Boulder,
Community
Park.
To
see
what
uses
could
be
that
don't
exist.
There
now
could
be
improved
on
the
site.
So
just
to
start
to
a
brief
context.
T
Setting
this
area
of
Boulder
southeast
Boulder
is
actually
pretty
well
served
by
Parks
and
Rec
amenities,
the
rec
centers
they're,
the
East
Boulder
Community
Park,
several
different
neighborhood
parks
and
so
we're
meeting
all
of
our
service
criteria
about
proximity.
How
close
is
a
park
to
the
neighbors
that
sort
of
thing
you
know,
there's
other
parts
of
town
that
are
not
served
as
well,
most
notably
Gunbarrel
some
areas
in
North
Boulder.
T
T
We
really
do
have
this
goal
of
taking
care
of
what
we
have
it's
over
the
past
several
years
since
that
master
plan
was
adopted,
we've
been
spending
most
of
our
capital
dollars
on
taking
care
of
existing
assets.
I
simply
mention
that,
because
any
new
amenities
within
this
site
would
be
new
assets
that
we
would
need
to
understand
what
that
full
operational
cost
would
be.
As
the
slide
indicates,
we
look
at
cradle
to
grave
and
you'll
see
in
a
moment
we
included
capital
costs
as
well
as
what
it
would
take
to
operate
certain
types
of
amenities.
T
So
we
won't
always
keep
that
in
mind
as
we're
considering
capital
projects,
so
with
all
the
options
as
open
space
and
mountain
parks
described,
we've
also
looked
at
what
would
need
to
happen
with
each
of
these.
So,
regardless
of
the
option
presented
if
council
again
with
all
these
departments
presented,
if
there
was
interest,
we
would
need
to
look
in
much
much
more
in
depth
at
the
feasibility
related
to
the
site.
T
Each
one
of
these
options
may
require
additional
amenities,
such
as
parking
infrastructure
utilities,
that
sort
of
thing
and
again
what
the
the
capital
opportunities
would
be
in
terms
of
funding.
Are
we
building
an
amenity,
that's
already
planned
for
another
location
in
town,
what
that
impact
might
be
on
that
neighborhood
etc?
So,
for
all
of
those,
instead
of
repeating
that
over
and
over
that's
just
kind
of
the
overall
considerations,
we
explore
so
first
off
skate
parks
and
pump
tracks.
T
So,
there's
a
couple
of
different
amenities
that
we
don't
have
in
Boulder
that
much
a
scott
Carpenter
park.
We
do
have
a
skate
park
and,
of
course,
the
valmont
bike
park.
We
have
pump
tracks,
but
these
are
both
amenities
that
are
highly
desired
across
the
community.
They
serve
a
growing
population
of
all
ages.
A
lot
of
folks
in
our
community
are
asking
for
more
skate
parks
pump
tracks.
T
Basically,
these
are
opportunities
that
kids,
adults
etc
can
participate
in
sports
individually
or
with
groups,
and
so
these
are
opportunities
that
could
be
improved
on
the
site
and
serve
a
lot
of
those
needs
and
trends
that
we're
seeing.
These
are
improvements
that
are
planned
currently
for
valmont's
that
you
park
within
some
of
the
future
phases,
so
that
might
have
an
implication
on
how
quickly
we
get
to
that
plan
and
that
project.
But
in
general
we
look
at.
T
If
we
were
to
do
these
improvements,
it
would
be
about
1.7
million
in
terms
of
capital
costs
that
includes
the
skate
park,
the
pumptrack
and
a
lot
of
associated
infrastructure
and
likely
be
about
50,000
annually
to
operate.
That
and
again
these
are
rough
estimations
based
on
initial
analysis,
you're.
T
T
For
the
clarification,
okay,
disc,
golf
and
pickleball
courts,
so
again
just
a
supplement
or
complement
rather
the
East
Boulder
Community
Park
disc
golf
is
also
a
highly
valued
sport
within
our
community.
We
have
a
course
at
Harlow,
Platts,
Community
Park
as
well
as
Valmont,
but
again
this
is
a
sport
that
could
be
provided
or
accommodated
here
on
the
site,
neither
a
nine
hole
or
an
18
hole
course.
T
Basically,
nine
holes
would
require
about
10
to
12
acres.
18
holes
require
closer
to
20
acres,
so
it
takes
a
fair
amount
of
land
both
of
these
sports
that
similar
to
skateboarding
and
pump
tracks
with
bike
tracks.
These
are
new,
not
necessarily
new,
but
current
trends
and
sports
and
activities
within
Boulder
and
really
across
the
nation.
Again.
Each
of
these
amenities
would
complement
the
community
park
right
next
to
the
north
and
what
we've
looked
at
for
the
cost
on
there
would
be
about
two
million,
probably
for
capital.
T
Now
that
sounds
like
a
lot,
but
that
really
incorporates
design
permitting
infrastructure
utilities.
Some
small
parking
area,
plazas
some
shelter
drinking
fountains.
All
these
types
of
amenities
that
go
along
just
to
get
the
infrastructure
completed
and
then
about
40,000
annually
for
court
repairs
and
maintenance,
keeping
the
baskets
updated
and
that
sort
of
thing.
B
T
B
T
In
fact,
right
now
we
we
provide
pickleball
at
the
rec
centers,
so
we
striped
the
indoor
courts,
the
basketball
courts
and
allow
folks
to
use
that
there's
a
strong
desire
and
demand
for
pickleball
courts,
a
specific
courts
within
the
community.
We
we
do
some
retrofitting
of
tennis
courts
to
provide
that,
but
this
would
be
a
new
area
where
we
provide
full
on
pickleball
that
don't
that
doesn't
exist.
No,
we
do
have.
B
T
Would
have
to
explore
that
that
goes
into
some
of
the
feasibility,
so
we
would
have
to
look
at
the
ground
water
situation,
the
soils
report
at
a
minimum.
We
would
likely
be
him
excavating
and
importing
fill
to
have
the
appropriate
soil
content
for
quartz
and
I
think
it
could
be
provided
here
with
further
analysis.
H
T
I'm
so
mentioning
the
the
rectangular
fields,
that's
actually
another
option
we've
considered.
Currently
there
are
two
turf
fields
at
the
East
Boulder
Community
Park,
as
well
as
a
couple
different,
just
multi-use
turf
fields.
We
did
an
athletic
field
study
a
few
years
ago
and
looked
at
the
demand
and
provision
of
all
of
our
fields,
both
diamonds
and
rectangles.
There
is
a
need
and
desire
for
additional
fields.
As
always,
Pleasant
View
provides
a
lot
of
opportunities.
That's
our
premier
field,
but
this
can
certainly
be
another
option
for
the
site,
just
to
give
a
sense.
The
scale.
F
T
P
S
T
We
with
this
option,
we
basically
looked
at
rectangle,
just
given
the
constraints
of
the
site,
and
given
that
there's
already
a
lot
of
rectangular
sports
occurring
with
the
other
two,
it
would
make
sense
to
have
another
rectangle
just
because
you
have
them
all
those
sports
happening
there.
We
could
explore,
depending
on
the
size
and
the
arrangement
of
that
it
takes
quite
a
bit
more
room,
but
we
we
didn't
provide
that
in
this
option,
but
that's
certainly
if
council
would
like
we
could
explore
this
as
well.
You.
S
X
Good
evening
Council
Yvette,
Bowden,
Parks
and
Rec.
In
addition,
oh,
my
goodness.
In
addition,
we
did
look
at
the
need
for
one
large
diamond
in
the
city.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
large
capacity
diamonds,
the
things
about
diamonds
to
consider,
aside
from
the
amount
of
space
that
it
takes
up,
much
to
what
Hayley
was
pointing
out
is
it
has
a
very
limited
use
if
you're
going
strictly
for
baseball,
the
entire
area
would
also
have
to
be
irrigated
differently
and
managed
differently.
X
We
would
need
fencing
around
and
so
a
lot
of
the
infrastructure
requirements
are
the
same.
You
are
correct.
The
athletic
field
study
does
call
for
a
diamond
and
that
initially
in
our
plans,
was
something
we
were
looking
at
Adam
Watson,
and
we
also
want
to
consider
kind
of
the
implications
that
go
along
with
who's
using
diamonds
today
and
where
they're
using
them.
So
I
would
want
to
look
at
that
as
well.
Thank
you.
T
So
another
option
is
a
running
track,
and
so
this
we
don't
currently
have
a
public
running
track
in
Boulder
associated
with
our
department.
Cu
provides
tracks.
Boulder,
High,
School
District
has
tracks
increasingly
we're
hearing
from
the
residents
of
Boulder
and
our
customers,
basically
that
access
to
those
tracks
is
being
more
and
more
limited,
so
this
could
be
an
option.
In
fact,
back
to
the
Belmont
City
Park
plan,
there
is
a
track
on
that
current
concept
plan
to
serve
the
community.
T
We
have
a
lot
of
runners
in
the
community,
as
you
know,
and
and
other
field
athletes.
So
this
could
be
an
option.
However,
it
is
expensive
likely
about
two
two
and
a
half
million
dollars
to
construct
a
track
again.
There's
a
track
nearby,
Manhattan
middle
school
I
believe
in
fact
the
exhibit
behind
you
over
here.
You
can
see
it.
They
actually
just
improve
that
this
year,
so
there's
one
nearby.
But
again,
this
is
just
in
terms
of
brainstorming
ideas.
This
is
another
option
to
consider.
It
would
take
up
a
fair
amount
of
the
site.
H
T
So
then,
the
final
option
that
we've
explored,
obviously
community
gardens,
are
an
option
that
we
could
consider
in
most
sites
across
Boulder.
There
are
community
gardens
in
the
general
area
of
southeast
Boulder
that
are
managed
by
the
neighborhoods
or
by
growing
gardens
other
organizations,
but
typically
this
is
a
amenity
that
could
be
improved
and
provided
to
the
site.
We
estimated
likely
to
be
about
half
a
million
dollars
to
build
a
nice
garden
area,
similar
to
what
you
see
a
Hills,
Community
Park
or,
of
course,
the
Long's
Gardens.
The
area
where
growing
gardens
is
located.
T
As
we
were
mentioning
earlier
about
the
soils
and
some
of
those
discussions,
we
would
likely
have
to
bring
in
a
lot
of
good
topsoil
or
do
the
raised
beds,
like
you
see,
most
importantly,
with
this
option.
We'd
really
as
a
department
would
seek
to
partner
with
an
agency
or
the
neighbors
or
whomever
to
really
program
and
really
make
this
successful.
That's
when
we
see
obviously
community
gardens
be
the
most
successful
is
when
they
are
managed
and
operated
by
the
community.
T
M
F
My
question
is:
is
so
I
worked
for
growing
gardens
and
actually
put
in
the
gardens
designed
and
put
them
in
so
I
was
wondering
you
these.
Typically,
he
need
irrigation
and
they're.
Typically,
you
put
in
just
faucets
to
to
serve
a
couple
of
plots
and
stuff.
So
what
I'm
wondering
is
the
groundwater
is
really
high
in
this
area
and
could
that
groundwater
be
used
as
the
water
source
as
opposed
to
city,
water,
I.
Q
Q
V
Mary,
the
property
has
been
acquired
with
three
shares
of
Dry
Creek,
ditch
number
number
two:
that
is
a
fairly
good
water
right.
It
would
turn
on
around
May.
First,
it
typically
would
turn
off
in
late
July.
Sometimes
it
would
extend
into
early
August,
so
it
would
be
appropriate
for
especially
for
early
season,
vegetables-
maybe
a
marginal
for
late
season,
but
it
does
have
water
rights
associated
with
the
property.
R
T
H
T
S
H
B
Agree
on
that,
more
than
zero,
all
right,
okay,
I
think
we
have
been
asking
recreational
issues,
I
guess
one!
The
question
I
have
is
all
of
these
like
if
you
added
a
field,
you
know
you
said
Oh
we'll
need
bathrooms,
and
it's
right
next
to
the
rec
center
right.
So
you
you
wouldn't
necessarily
if
we
were
just
gonna
hog
meant
with
one
add
more
field
and
I
guess
this
is
a
question.
It
depends
if
we
were
gonna,
create
lots
of
baseball
diamonds.
T
Could
certainly
explore
that
it's
interesting
how
people
don't
want
to
walk
too
far
and
get
to
restrooms
and
parking,
but
certainly
if
council
would
like,
we
could
explore
what
the
minimum
cost
would
be
and
look
at
how
we
could
get
those
fields
such
as
close
to
the
park
as
possible,
but
just
to
clean
and
that's
just
general
park
design
and
planning.
We
look
at
you
know
when
you
have
a
certain
amenity,
all
the
associated
features
that
go
with
it.
Just
based
on
you
know,
what's
accessible
to.
Y
Good
evening,
Council
I'm
Kurt
for
an
hour
director
of
Housing
and
Human
Services,
so
I'll
be
talking
about
four
different
options
for
housing
and
this
it's
really
based
on
sort
of
a
concept
of
trying
to
do
a
lighter
touch.
Some
of
the
earlier
developments
that
were
proposed
we're
really
trying
to
maximize
the
land
with
with
the
housing
and
so
we're
taking
a
lighter
touch
on
both
the
land,
as
well
as
ensuring
that
any
any
approaches
would
would
be
good
uses
of
the
energy
for
them
as
well.
Y
Y
H
Y
So
the
first
one
we
looked
at
a
tiny
home
village,
there's
sort
of
two
different
categories
of
tiny
homes,
there's
the
small
ones
and
then
there's
the
smaller
ones
and
typically
the
the
ones
800
to
200
square
feet.
Often
don't
have
plumbing
in
them
or
they
don't
they
don't
have
kitchens.
The
larger
ones
will
have
smaller
kitchens
and
bathrooms.
The
idea
around
tiny
homes,
though
it's
really
a
it's
really.
A
social
community
approach
to
housing,
where
the
the
tiny
homes
are
often
integrated
with
some
sort
of
common
facility.
Where
you
could
have.
Y
So
there
would
be
there's
some
examples
there.
So
you
can
see
they
vary
widely
when
under
the
definition
of
tiny
homes,
but
if
they're
fixed
foundations,
one
of
the
considerations
would
be
that
we
would
have
to
look
at
the
codes
and
regulations
around
that
particularly
minimum
sizes.
If
they're
on,
if
they're
not
on
fixed
foundations,
they
actually
fit
under
sort
of
a
a
state
requirement
for
the
for
the
codes
and
that
not
the
city
requirements,
because
it
gives
them
a
lot
more
flexibility
and
they
can
serve
many
different
population
types.
Y
Y
Y
You
know
six
or
seven
acres,
what
I
found
typically
in
working
with
Co
housing
type
communities,
that
an
ideal
community
is
typically
between
about
20
and
35
homes
once
you
start
getting
larger
than
that
it
works,
but
they
you
start
creating
almost
sub
communities,
and
so
the
council
could
consider
you
know
different
types
of
sub
sub
communities.
One
set
of
tiny
home
one
tiny
home
village
could
be
seniors.
R
K
It's
not
a
comment
either.
It's
not
like
opining
I,
just
was
like
sharing
of
information
that
I
didn't
have
time
to
do
on.
High
Line
is
that
okay,
yeah,
just
really
quick
I,
didn't
have
time
to
shows,
but
I
just
met
with
a
group
of
elder
orphans
who
are
defined
by
anyone,
55
and
older,
who
have
no
spouse.
No
children,
no
parents,
no
siblings,
so
no
one
would
care
for
them
and
totally
unrelated
to
this
idea.
This
meeting
was,
and
they
said
we
have-
they
have
like
documents
already
a
group.
K
It's
actually
all
women
who
have
all
come
together.
They
want
to
create
a
tiny
home
village
in
Boulder
that
they
would
live
in
and
to
move.
The
houses
would
be
for
free
for
a
caretaker
and
they've
got
all
the
people
signed
up
all
the
plans.
Hoa
fee
I
mean
everything
dialed
in
they
would
upon
death
leave
their
home
to
like
it
would
be
free,
go
back
to
the
city,
so
it
rolls
over,
and
she
said
you
know
the
leader
of
his
group
said:
is
there
any
possibility
for
us
to
do
this?
K
This
is
we're
also
low-income
and
she
said,
look
at
you
know.
I'm
wild
sage
is
the
only
co
housing
for
seniors
in
our
community
and
the
home
prices
are
650
to
899
and
there's
a
few
affordable
ones,
but
they're
really
few
and
far
between
so
I
just
thought.
Keep
that
in
your
minds
as
you're.
Listening
to
this
there's,
there's
a
group
already
formed
and
so
excited
and
they're
all
they're
orphans,
especially.
J
Y
So
we
also
looked
at
modular
housing,
and
this
this
is
a
very
broad
category.
You
can
build
apartment
buildings
with
modular
housing.
You
can
build
mobile
home
communities
with
modular
housing.
One
of
the
interesting
approaches
to
this
is
you
can
actually
create.
You
know:
Net
Zero
type
housing
units
with
this
approach,
but
because
it's
such
a
wide
variety,
it's
it's.
Y
We
also
looked
at
mobile
homes
and
City
Council
has
a
long
history
of
supporting
the
concept
of
mobile
homes.
One
of
the
challenges
we
face,
though,
there's
there's
different
components
of
a
mobile
home
community,
there's
the
land,
the
infrastructure
and
the
housing,
and
if
we
don't
control
the
land,
we
also
don't
control
the
infrastructure.
We
don't
control
the
costs
of
renting
within
a
mobile
home
community
at
Mapleton.
You
know
the
city
came
in
and
purchased
that
we're
working
in
partnership
with
thistle
on
that
property,
but
it's
very
difficult
to
secure
it
as
permanently
affordable
housing.
Y
It's
also
difficult
to
have
influence
on
the
quality
of
the
housing.
So
this
would
be
a
unique
opportunity
to
create
a
mobile
home
community
from
the
beginning
and
get
a
lot
of
those
ingredients
right,
there's
different
ownership
types
we
mentioned
cooperatives,
condominiums
and
and
nonprofits
ownership.
The
land
really
becomes.
The
approach
that
you
use
for
controlling
the
the
the
permanent
affordability
aspect
of
the
project.
I
would
also
add
that
a
mobile
home
community
could
be
integrated
with
a
tiny
home
community
on
the
same
site.
Y
Y
I'm
sorry
I,
don't
know
that
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
this
is
Tim
yeah
Jen
yep.
That
would
make
sense.
The
other
thing
that
I
add
about
about
mobile
homes
is
if
you're
gonna.
If
you're
going
to
invest
and
go
down
the
road
of
creating
a
new
community,
there
needs
to
be
some
scale
to
it.
If
you're
doing
you
know
20
mobile
homes,
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
and
the
infrastructure
costs
become
quite
high.
Y
Y
So
the
other
yeah.
So
that's
what
I've
just
mentioned
here,
the
other
thing
that
I
would
add
about
all
of
these
housing
options.
They
would
all
require
storm
sewers
because
it's
a
it
is
a
development,
so
you're
increasing
the
ability
to
control
stormwater
the
other.
The
other
common
theme
that
you
will
have
seen
here
is
that
we're
looking
for
something
on
as
a
light
touch
on
the
land,
so
mobile
homes
don't
have
to
be
on
fixed
foundations,
tiny
homes
don't
either,
but
even
if
they
are
in
fixed
foundations,
it's
a
light
touch
to
the
land.
Y
H
Have
youth
so
I
know
in
the
previous
proposal
that
was
before
us
that
didn't
ever
come
before
us?
Finally,
they
had
houses
with
no
basements
trying
to
do
this
lighter
touch,
but
they
also
had
quite
dense
or
wasn't
I
think
was
LR
but
I
guess.
My
question
is:
have
you
thought
about
roads
and
the
infrastructure
and
how
that
would
affect
the
light
touch.
Y
Yeah
so
and
again
it
depends
on
how
much
of
the
site
you
do
develop.
Obviously,
roads
would
be
required
for
each
of
these
developments,
but
because
the
number
of
units
would
be
substantially
less
than
what
was
there
before
the
amount
of
roads
would
be
would
certainly
be
less
than
the
previous
developments
that
were
put
forward
and.
K
H
Y
I
Water,
mostly,
doesn't
flow
out
very
good,
so
you
mentioned
the
storm
sewers
that
supportive
housing
villain
died
out.
Look
at
Jeff
here
if
you
were
putting
some
of
these
uses
on
the
eastern
portion
still
west
of
55th,
but
the
eastern
portion
of
this
site
would
the
there
be
the
ability
to
route
that
water
into
the
creek?
Where,
where
would
storm
sewers
ago
from
here?
Do
you
think.
Q
Q
It
would
so
the
terrain
generally
in
the
city
slopes
northeast
right,
so
Boulder,
Creek
and
south
polar
Creek
converge
and
run
into
the
South
Plaza
everything
sort
of
tips.
That
way.
So,
presumably
you
would
try
to
get.
If
you
were
toward
the
east
side
of
the
site,
you
would
try
to
get
that
to
south
Boulder
Creek.
If
you
were
along
the
western
portion,
you
might
be
able
to
go
north
or
or
north
okay.
Y
So
the
the
last
option
that
we'll
look
at-
and
the
reason
we
put
this
in
as
a
light
touch-
is
because
you
could
do
something
like
this
on
just
a
couple:
acres
of
land.
So
again
this
could
actually
interface
with
or
integrate
with
other
housing
types.
So
the
example
we
gave
was
the
the
high
Mar
senior
housing,
which
is
just
up
the
road
from
here.
Q
So,
presumably
there
would
also
be
water
and
sewer
typically
when
you
can
construct
utilities
in
areas
with
high
ground
water.
The
challenge
becomes
that
when
you
dig
those
trenches,
it
creates
a
path
for
the
water
to
follow.
So
you
actually
end
up
with
more
a
challenge
of
how
does
it
deal
water?
So
if
you
put
a
sewer
line
in
and
you
you
dig
up
soil,
that's
been
there
for
a
long
time.
It's
you're,
probably
not
gonna,
get
it
compacted
back
to
the
level
it
was
before.
Q
Q
So
I'm
gonna
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
existing
flood
zones
on
the
site
and
potential
utility
uses
and
want
to
clarify
up
front
that
what
we'll
be
discussing
is
based
on
the
existing
conditions
on
the
site
and
does
not
reflect
the
direction
we
received
a
few
weeks
ago
related
to
upstream
mitigation.
So
the
tale
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
we
might
unpack
that,
but
just
for
clarification.
This
is
existing
conditions,
so
this
map
shows
the
regulatory
100-year
flood
plains
on
the
site.
Q
The
dark
blue
is
the
100-year
floodplain,
which
is
a
1%
chance
of
happening
in
any
given
year,
and
you
can
see
on
this
site.
It
is
the
far
left
on
the
western
side.
There
is
an
area
of
100-year
floodplain
and
then
on
the
far
east
side.
There
is
also
an
area
of
100-year
floodplain,
so
development
in
the
hundred
year,
flood
plain
for
residential.
It
requires
that
the
lowest
finished
floor
be
elevated,
2
feet
above
the
base,
flood
of
elevation
for
non-residential.
Q
It's
the
same
elevation,
but
there's
also
an
option
to
build
things
to
be
flood
resistant,
so
it's
either
elevated
or
it
has
to
be
flood
proofed.
The
city
also
regulates
two
additional
zones
within
the
100-year
floodplain.
One
of
those
is
the
high
hazard
zone
and
simplest
way
to
explain
that
is
they
took
a
bunch
of
people
up
to
a
flume
in
Fort,
Collins
and
basically
experimental.
Q
The
other
zone
that
we
consider
is
what's
called
the
conveyance
zone
or
the
floodway,
and
that
is
basically,
if
you
can
imagine
that
you
took
the
floodplain,
you
just
started,
squeezing
it
in
from
either
side
in
basically
by
adding
filler
structures
and
whatever
it
would
take
to
cause
that
water
level
to
rise
six
inches.
That
would
be
where
you
would
draw
those
lines,
and
so
basically,
areas
that
are
in
the
conveyance
zone
is
where
there
is
a
greater
standard
around
development,
because
it
has
potential
to
cause
impacts
to
other
properties.
Q
The
conveyance
zone
on
this
site
is
live
into
a
small
portion
of
the
blue
area
on
the
far
eastern
side,
east
of
55th.
So
the
other
area
is
under
our
current
regulations.
You
could
add,
fill
you
could
add
structures
and
you
would
not
have
to
provide
offsetting
flood
capacity
based
on
the
existing
mapping.
The
other
thing
that's
shown
on
here
is
the
500-year
floodplain,
and
those
are
areas
that
have
a
point
two
percent
chance
of
being
flooded
in
any
given
year.
Q
The
city
has
a
critical
facilities,
ordinance,
that's
the
only
regulation
we
have
in
the
500-year
and
basically
that
requires
certain
uses.
If
we
were
going
to
consider
a
school
or
a
fire
station,
we
would
look
to
have
the
lowest
finish
floor
of
that
or
elevated
one
feet
above
the
five
one
foot
above
the
500-year
elevation
and
Jeff.
Q
Q
So
so,
anyway,
with
any
of
these
scenarios
we've
talked
about,
they
would
need
to
meet
the
existing
floodplain
regulations.
So
the
next
slide
down
please.
So
this
is
zoomed
out
a
little
farther
and
provides
some
context
about
where
this
property
sits
relative
to
the
South
Boulder
Creek
floodplain.
So
the
main
stem
of
South
Boulder
Creek
is
to
the
east
of
it,
and
then
the
site
is
also
impacted
by
the
West
Valley
overflow.
Q
That
we've
recently
talked
a
lot
about
on
the
other
side,
so
the
South
Boulder
Creek
mitigation
study
that
was
adopted
in
2015
looked
at
two
potential
opportunities
in
this
area.
So
one
is
that
blue
arrow
that's
going
north
to
south
and
that
was
identified
as
improvements
to
dry
creek,
ditch
number
two.
Q
The
other
thing
that
was
considered
was
a
detention
facility
and
that
study
recommended
that
facility
be
in
the
general
area
of
Manhattan
middle
school
and
then
the
red
dots
to
the
north
of
that
are
the
structures
that
were
expected
to
be
removed
based
on
that
mitigation,
so
just
to
clarify
that
that
location
is
based
on
protecting
structures
downstream
and
not
those
structures
upstream
and
adjacent
to
this
property.
Some
chip.
I
Q
So
so,
when
the
mitigation
study
was
done
at
that
point,
we
were
looking
at
option
D
and
100-year
flood
mitigation,
and
so
we
have
not
gone
back
and
revisited
that
at
this
point,
because
we
don't
actually
have
enough
data
about
the
option
we're
pursuing
so
to
maybe
cut
to
the
tail
end
of
this.
One
thing
we
might
want
to
consider
is:
we
are
anticipating
that
the
consultants
working
on
phase
one
will
have
an
analysis
to
bring
that
concept
up
to
the
standard
of
the
other
options.
Q
You've
looked
at,
hopefully
in
December,
and
we
could
take
that
analysis.
Give
it
to
another
consultant
and
have
them
go
revisit
the
mitigation
study
and
figure
out
how
that
may
impact
Phase
two
and
it
could
cut
a
couple
of
different
ways
it
might.
It
might
make
phase
two
unnecessary.
It
might
change
the
amount
of
this
site
that
that
would
be
logical
for
detention
facilities.
Q
So
what
we
have
from
the
2015
study
and
what's
described
in
the
memo,
is
we
had
pretty
good
confidence
that
we
have
an
interest
in
doing
something
along
dry
creek,
ditch
number
two,
regardless
of
how
the
rest
of
this
plays
out.
That's
a
flow
path
and
could
use
some
investment,
and
we've
proposed
a
hundred-year
100-foot
easement
through
that
corridor.
H
So
I
have
a
question
about
middle
school
and
it
was
the
same
one
that
I
asked
Jeff
and
I'm
familiar
with
the
synthetic
turf,
because
I
live
right
next
to
one
and
it's
a
mess
when
it
rains
and
I
and
running
field
with
it
is
a
mess
too
and
there's
some
real
concerns
about
flooding
on
that
and
so
I'm
curious
in
this
particular
situation
with
Manhattan
middle
school.
That
study
was
done
before
the
fields
were
put
in.
Q
The
other
end
of
that
dilemma
is
is
that
this
project
is
not
in
the
six
year.
Cip
I
couldn't
necessarily
say
that
it
will
make
the
cut
for
the
20
year.
Cip
we've
got
probably
a
hundred
years
worth
of
projects
and
about
170
million
dollars
worth
of
stuff
in
the
queue
so
the
concern,
and
so
what
would
happen
is
if,
at
some
point
in
the
future,
we
had
funding
in
the
CIP.
We
would
go
through
a
see
process.
We
would
look
at
conditions
at
that
time
and
we'll
look
at
a
range
of
options.
Q
That
that's
exactly
the
thought
is
that
particularly
given,
if,
if
with
the
500-year
mitigation
to
the
higher
standard,
the
concept
that
we
landed
on
involves
some
arrangements
with
VA
channel
and
Dry
Creek
digit
number
to
feel
like
it
would
be
worth
at
least
looking
at
yeah.
Before
we
go.
Do
that?
Should
we
look
at
some
of
these
phase
2
elements?
It
seems
reasonable
to
also
look
at
how
much
water
will
be
there
and
does
that
change
where
the
recommended
location
may
be.
Q
So
one
of
the
considerations
with
the
preference
for
the
Manhattan
site
versus
Logan
pan
cast
area
was.
It
was
arguably
better
aligned
with
the
flow
paths
under
current
conditions,
but
with
the
upstream
detention
that
may
not
be
the
case
and
hogan
pan
fest
might
be
more
suitable
in
that
scenario,
or
we
may
need
less
detention
or
not
need
detention
in
that
corridor.
We
just
given
that
it's
new
information
and
the
engineer
hasn't
really
even
turned
the
crank
on
right
phase.
B
Q
B
Q
Would
probably
send
it
back
to
CH
to
him
he'll
that
did
the
2015
study,
because
they
could
hit
the
ground
running
there.
They
have
the
the
modeling
set
up.
They
would
take
the
new
information
from
rjh
and
see
if
it
changes
their
previous
recommendations
and
would
at
least
be
able
to
give
you
some
idea.
High-Level
I
mean
the
other
thing
that
may
come
out
of.
This
is
some
of
these
flood
risks
that
are
identified
on
the
site
with
500
mitigation
may
also
be
reduced,
and.
F
So
I
think
that
considering
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
that
map
that
you
sent
today.
Thank
you
that
overlays,
the
the
the
jurisdictional
non-jurisdictional
wetlands
on
the
2013
flood,
extents
kind
of
shows
that
at
least
in
the
2013
flood
there
was
flooding,
looks
like
dry,
creek,
ditch
number
two
on
to
hope
and
panko.
Q
I
think
caught
most
of
what
I
had
left,
the
only
thing
I
was
gonna,
add
and
we
actually
covered
a
little
bit
earlier
was
dry
creek,
ditch
number
two.
We
picked
up
some
shares
in
that
through
the
purchase
from
a
utilities
perspective,
a
potential
use
for
those
might
be
to
go
through
water
court
and
change
those
to
be
able
to
use
for
in
streams
flows
in
south
Boulder
Creek
South,
Boulder
Creek
gets
super
dry
in
the
summer.
You
know
and
we've
we
have
an
in-stream
flow
program
on
Boulder
Creek.
Q
Basically,
you
end
up
decreasing
the
the
rights
over
to
the
state,
because
there
are
the
only
ones
that
are
allowed
to
manage
that,
and
you
have
a
kind
of
a
contractual
arrangement
where
you
could
get
them
back
for
their
purposes,
but
if
it
ended
up
that
we
were
gonna
use
the
site
for
something
that
would
have
used
for
for
ditch
water
on
site.
That
would
be
a
reasonable
option
as
well.
H
U
Carl
gather
with
planting
now
that
the
council
has
heard
all
the
potential
land
use
options
on
the
site.
I'm
gonna
touch
upon
what
the
regulatory
paths
forward
look
like
just
so
the
council
has
a
sense
of
what
would
need
to
happen
to
make
these
uses
happen
on
the
site.
So,
just
as
a
reminder
in
the
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan,
we
have
the
three
area
designation,
so
planning
area.
One
is
basically
urbanized
areas
within
the
city
limits
of
the
city
area,
to
our
areas
that
are
eligible
for
annexation
and
then
area.
U
Three
are
those
areas
that
we
call
rural
preservation
areas
so
looking
at
the
first
option,
this
is
what
we're
calling
kind
of
the
land
banking
option.
This
is
where
the
council
could
leave
the
property
and
its
current
use
for
the
next
couple
years,
or
so
it
would
remain
in
agricultural
use.
In
our
day
it
would
have,
it
would
be
still
be
subject
to
Boulder
County
land
use
regulations,
so
there
would
be
potential
if
the
city
wanted
to
to
allow
the
development
of
two
single-family
homes
under
the
county
zoning.
U
U
The
option
number
two
that
we
have
up
there
is
if
we
were
moving
towards
developing
the
site
with
permanent,
affordable
housing,
the
recreational
uses
that
were
discussed
as
well
as
the
utility
purposes,
some
of
which
that
Jeff
talked
about
so
this
would
require
annexation
of
the
property.
This
would
go
through
a
process
similar
to
what
we've
seen
on
the
site
before,
except
that
the
city
would
be
the
applicant.
There
would
be
an
annexation
agreement
drafted
up
as
part
of
the
whole
process
and
engagement
with
the
neighborhood's.
U
This
could
be
done
at
any
time,
so
that's
that
would
ultimately
result
in
the
site
being
planning
area.
One
another
option
would
be
to
explore
or
move
towards
the
open
space
uses,
some
of
which
that
Dan
talked
about
this
would
make
it
more
like
the
open
space
areas
around
the
city.
So
this
would
be
what
we
call
a
service
area
contraction
that
would
ultimately
result
in
it
being
planning
area
3.
This
is
a
slightly
different
process
and
that
it
would
have
to
be
done
during
a
midterm
update.
U
So
another
option
an
option.
Number
four
is:
if
the
council
wanted
to
move
towards
designating
the
site,
the
planning
planning
reserve.
So
the
council
is
aware
that
there's
a
there's,
an
area
east
of
us
36
that
we
have,
as
as
the
planning
reserve.
This
is
an
area,
that's
like
a
rural
preservation
area,
but
it's
designated
for
a
possible
location
in
the
future
for
future
uses
that
the
city
finds
to
be
compelling
enough
and
a
priority
enough
that
the
use
cannot
be
met
within
the
service
area
of
the
city.
U
So
this
is
basically
a
pretty
high
bar
if
the
council
wanted
to
call
this
site
the
Planning
Reserve.
This
is
something
that
would
have
to
meet
certain
criteria
and
there
would
have
to
be
a
lot
of
evaluation
and,
depending
on
the
use.
So
this
again
would
leave
the
site
open
for
potential
future
housing,
recreational
or
utility
purposes,
and
the
other
thing
to
consider
for
putting
it
in
the
planning
Reserve
is
that
this
can
only
be
done
during
a
major
update.
U
U
Is
that,
depending
on
whatever
land
use
the
council
chooses
there,
we
would
expect
that
there
would
have
to
be
a
land-use
map
change,
designating
the
chosen
land
uses
on
the
site,
so
that
could
result
in
a
public
land
use,
open
space,
land
use
or
potentially
residential
land
use.
So
it's
kind
of
a
high-level
review
of
the
potential
options
and
can
answer
some
questions.
There's.
U
I
In
terms
of
next
steps
and
Jeff
what
you
could
present
it
about
the
updating,
the
the
flood
study
based
on
our
new
flood
mitigation
option
that
we've
chosen
and
then
looking
at
the
implications
for
Phase.
Two
to
me,
it
seems
like
is
the
critical
next
step
before
we
think
about
what
to
do
here,
because
if
this
turns
out
to
be
a
really
workable
place
for
Phase
two
flood
detention,
then
to
me
that's
clear,
highest
and
best
use
of
the
land
and
if
it
simply
doesn't
work
to
put
flood
detention
here.
I
Well,
then,
that's
really
important
to
know
to
think
about
what
else
we
might
do
here
instead
or
what
the
flow
levels
would
be
to
say
how
much
flood
detention
would
you
need.
So,
to
my
mind,
it
seems
like
that
we
really
need
that
information
before
taking
a
real
next
step.
So
to
see
what
council
thinks
about
that,
I.
H
B
Q
F
N
Yes,
very
that's
what
I
was
going
to
suggest.
I
basically
agree
with
Lisa
and
Erin,
and
you
and
I'd
like
to
see
it
explored
before
we
talk
about
moving
it
into
open
space.
If
we
can
put
conditions
on
it
and
Bobby
even
had
an
asking
price
so
that
we
would
really
expect
that
we
would
explore
that
very
carefully
so
that
we
at
least
it
went.
Oh,
is
it
down
to
a
smaller
part?
N
B
V
Typically,
if
it
was
a
conservation
easement
that
probably
I
look
to
Jane
but
probably
would
be
overseen
by
open
space
mountain
parks,
we
would
probably
hold
the
conservation
easement
when
it
was
being
considered
for
development.
Those
three
acres
were
on
the
table
for
that
as
well,
and
we
were
exploring
both
the
conservation,
easement
concept
or
an
ownership,
and
so
we
were
at
that
time,
exploring
the
conservation,
easement
concept
even
three
years
ago.
Well,.
N
The
balls
in
your
court
I
have
one
other
thing,
I'd
like
to
say
which
I
really
like
Kurt's
presentation
on
this
small,
tiny
houses,
village
concept,
and
there
were
regulatory
issues
in
there-
they're
not
existent
the
so
the
city
I
take
it
doesn't
allow
those
kinds
of
things
at
this
point
in
time.
Or
did
you
mean
with
that
specific?
No.
U
I
mean
in
the
land
use
covered
right
now.
The
tiny
homes
are
necessarily
defined.
We
don't
have
any
specific
regulations
for
them.
I
think
the
way
the
zoning
code
would
look
at
it
at
this
point
is
like
a
single-family
house.
I
think
there
might
be
some
building
code
issues
and
I'm,
not
necessarily
familiar
with
that.
We
would
have
to
look
at
further,
but
the
other
consideration
to
take
into
account.
As
you
know,
as
an
annexation,
we
would
be
able
to
address
some
of
those
concerns.
N
N
B
Okay,
because
we
have
a
long
list
on
there,
housing,
okay,
the
other
thing
I
just
was-
and
this
is
just
a
really
quick
one.
There
was
nothing
mentioned
in
here
about
putting
up
solar
or
you
know,
using
and
I'm
just
curious.
Is
that
because
it
wasn't
thought
of
or
just
you
know,
we
don't
need
it
here.
They
have
that's
the
only
thing
that
I
was
surprised
not
to
see
we.