►
From YouTube: Boulder City Planning Board Meeting 3-1-18
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).
A
A
B
C
A
E
D
B
I,
read
the
what
you
wrote
and
I
also
read
the
minutes,
and
it
seemed
like
it
pretty
much
conveyed
that
that
you
know
I
had
I
had
said
that
it
would
place
funds
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
you
corrected
me
and
then
I
agreed
with
your
correction.
So
I
was
okay
with
it
as
it
stands,
I
don't
know
if
you
felt
like
it
needed
to
be
rewarded.
I
thought.
F
B
B
Yeah
I
wasn't
sure
about
the
rewording
of
crystal
what,
if
it
just
said,
see
gray
stated
that
funds
would
be
placed
in
the
inclusionary
housing
program
unless
they
do
not
rebuild
within
three
years
and
then
I
agree
with
you.
We
just
changed.
The
word
disagreed
to
stated,
because
that's
a
true
fact:
okay,.
D
D
E
C
H
A
A
Next
item
we
have
on
our
agenda
tonight
is
public
participation
for
matters
not
subject
to
a
public
hearing.
So,
as
many
of
you
probably
know,
we
do
have
a
public
hearing
tonight
on
comprehensive
plan.
Land
use
map
designation
at
3:11
mapleton
will
have
a
separate
public
hearing
for
that.
But
if
any
would
like
to
address
the
board
on
anything
else,
now
would
be
the
time
to
do
that.
Cindy's.
Anyone
signed
up
to
do
that
No.
Would
anyone
like
to
address
the
board
on
issues
other
than
the
311
Mapleton
map
change?
A
A
C
Hi
welcome
so
my
question:
there
are
two
permits
under
this.
One
is
a
floodplain
development
permit
and
from
the
map
it
looks
like
that
is
downstream
of
us
36
between
36
and
south
boulder
road.
Is
that
right,
that's
correct
and
the
other
one
is
the
wetland
permit
and
that
spans
the
entire
Creek
length
from
highway
93
to
south
older
Road?
C
Yes,
approximately
okay,
so
I'm
wondering
my
main
question
is
about
what
assumptions
are
in
there
about
the
presence
of
the
dam
or
the
levee
CU
levee,
because
those
are
I
mean
what
what
happens
to
the
levee
and
what
happens
with
the
dam
will
modify
the
flow
regime
and,
if
you're,
calculating
flood
plains
and
I
kind
of
think
downstream
of
right
now,
they're,
not
there
when
they
are
there,
you'll
have
a
different
float
low
regime.
So
I'm
wondering.
Are
there
any
assumptions
about
that
in
there.
C
C
So
the
call
up
talks
about
restoring
stream,
channel
stability
and
sediment
transport
functionality,
but
I'm
just
wondering.
Has
there
been
any
discussion
about
putting
all
this
money
and
effort
into
that
kind
of
thing?
When
you
know
when
we
know
that
the
stream
could
change
dramatically
with
right.
I
So
this
is
a
project
that
our
open
space
and
mountain
parks
department
is
doing
and
they're
basically
wanting
to
just
go
in
there
and
clean
up
from
the
2013
flood
and
just
restore
the
channel
alignment
and
I
guess,
there's
some
high
spots
in
the
channel
now,
so
it's
not
flowing
or
allowing
fish
passage
very
well,
so
they're,
just
kind
of
wanting
to
clean
things
up
right
now,
they're
not
proposing
to
make
the
wetlands
better
or
anything
like
that.
It's
basically
a
restoration
project.
Okay,
all.
H
C
A
H
Well,
I
took
a
site
tour
and
walked
around
the
site.
I
did
take
Alan
delamare
back
on
April
9th,
provided
us
with
a
PowerPoint
that
I
think
everybody's
looked
at
I
did
take
that
with
me
on
an
iPad
so
that
I
could
have
his
little
advised
route.
I.
Don't
think
I
learned
anything
from
that
that
I
everybody
else
wouldn't
have
learned
otherwise
so
but
I
did
I
did
use
that
since
it
was
provided
to
us
openly.
H
Let's
see
that
I
haven't
had
any
expertise.
Conversations
I
did
watch
the
streaming
of
the
US
BT
meeting
from
the
14th
of
February.
Just
so
I
could
gather
some
additional
background
information
from
that
open
meeting
and
look
back
at
the
concept
review
minutes
from
2015
since
I
wasn't
on
the
board
at
that
point.
So,
but
that's
also
open
meeting
right.
B
A
D
I've
been
up
in
the
site
numerous
times,
I
served
on
the
board
during
the
concept
review.
I
was
on
the
open
space
board.
So
as
tours
and
orientations,
we
talked
about
the
Santos
Valley
and
the
lots
that
were
planted
before
the
city
bought
those
some
of
those
Lots
just
right
on
the
west
side
of
Dakota
Ridge
I
also
served
on
the
parks
board
when
the
substation
was
approved.
K
A
We
are
not
considering
tonight
what
a
future
use
of
this
particular
parcel
will
be.
We
know
that
there's
a
site
review
application,
that's
out
there
and
there
certainly
will
be
a
public
process
and
hearing
related
to
that.
But
our
decision
tonight
is
narrowly
based
on
the
criteria
in
the
comp
plan
related
to
that
amendment
and
not
necessarily
to
that
use,
and
so
we
don't
assume
any
particular
use,
or
indeed
any
use
at
all
in
the
future
related
to
that.
A
So
those
issues
will
come
up
tonight
and
our
discussion,
I
think,
will
be
focused
on
those
historical
issues
related
to
the
map
amendment.
So
the
way
things
will
work
tonight,
staff
will
first
provide
a
presentation
for
us
to
consider
that'll,
be
followed
by
some
board
discussion
or
questions
actually
just
questions
at
that
point.
To
clarify
and
better
understand
some
of
the
issues
and
questions
we
might
have.
That
will
be
followed,
then
by
the
public
hearing,
which
is
your
opportunity
to.
A
Let
us
know
what
you
think
and
we
definitely
are
very
interested
in
all
of
your
comments
tonight
and
I'll
talk
just
before.
We
start,
then
about
just
some
of
the
time
limits
and
ground
rules
and
that
sort
of
thing
just
because
we
do
want
to
keep
things
and
give
everybody
a
chance
to
weigh
in
on
the
subject
once
that
happens,
we'll
bring
it
back
to
the
board
for
a
conversation
and
decision
which
could
include
continuing
it,
but
probably
will
include
a
decision.
We
usually
try
to
get
that
done
in
the
same
evening.
L
Thank
you
good
evening.
Leslie
Ellis,
comprehensive
planning
manager
and
really
all
I'm
doing
is
handing
it
off
to
Phil
Chrysler
who's,
doing
the
presentation,
but
I
wanted
to
introduce
the
team.
So
we
also
have
Dan
Burke
and
Bethany
Collins
from
open
space
mountain
parks
and
we
have
Elaine
mcLaughlin,
also
from
planning.
Should
you
have
questions
for
them
great.
A
G
Phil
Chrysler
planning,
housing
and
sustainability.
This
presentation
will
attempt
to
be
brief
and
cover
some
of
the
high
points
from
the
materials
found
in
your
packet
in
regards
to
a
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan,
land
use,
designation
map,
error,
correction
for
311
Mapleton
Avenue.
The
staff
presentation
will
begin
with
a
few
notes
around
the
process
and
background
to
the
site.
Most
of
the
presentation
will
involve
the
analysis
and
we'll
conclude
with
the
staff
recommendation.
G
The
review
criteria
for
your
decision
this
evening
is
found
in
the
comprehensive
plan
of
the
comp
plan
and
it
states
that,
if
a
discrepancy
is
found
to
exist
within
the
comprehensive
plan
that
it's
clearly
a
drafting,
error,
mapping
discrepancy
or
clerical
mistake,
either
the
city
or
the
county,
after
after
referral
request
to
the
other
agency,
may
correct
such
error.
The
process
for
correcting
that
error
is
generally
outlined
here,
though,
that
we
have
taken
the
first
formal
step
when
you
find
an
error
in
the
comp
plan
is
a
referral
to
the
other
agency.
G
In
this
case,
that's
the
boulder
county
land
use
department.
The
boulder
county
Lanie's
department
then
has
30
days
to
review
and
comment
and
that
referral
comment
was
included
in
your
packet
this
evening.
We've
also
visited
with
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
three
times
on
this
matter.
Most
recently
on
February
14th,
we
held
a
public
hearing
where
they
provided
recommendation
to
the
Planning
Board
to
consider,
and
that
was
also
included
in
your
packet
since
the
property
is
within
area,
one
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
G
G
G
G
We
as
part
of
our
daily
work
work
plan
items,
do
not
proactively
look
at
comprehensive
map
errors
and
and
seek
to
correct
them,
but
when
we
receive
development
applications
that
clearly
have
a
mapping
error,
we
do
go
through
the
typical
process
of
bringing
this
forward
to
decision-makers
for
for
action.
Most
recently,
you
may
recall
the
1996
Arapaho
annexation
for
the
silver
saddle.
There
was
an
Oso
error
correction
as
bundled
up
with
that
annexation
petition.
That
was
I
believe
the
most
recent
one
that
you
all
have
looked
at.
G
In
this
case,
the
red
flag,
really
stemmed
from
an
underlying
tenant
of
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan,
and
that
is
a
compact
urban
city,
surrounded
by
open
space
and
Merle
land
uses,
and
that's
why?
One
of
the
reasons
why
the
open
space
other
designation
85%
of
it
is
outside
the
city
limits.
G
By
contrast,
this
particular
Oso
designation
is
within
the
city
limits
on
a
develop
portion
of
a
hospital
site,
and
so
when
we
saw
that
we
fight
frankly
kind
of
shook
our
scratched
our
heads
and
wondered
why
it
was
there
and
that's
when
we
realized
that
we
needed
to
do
some
more
analysis.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
we
found
that
it
was
an
error
and
presenting
that,
as
we
are
presenting
that
information
that
you
denied
really
for
two
reasons.
G
One
is
the
incorrect
location
of
the
Silver
Lake,
ditch
through
historical
maps,
which
is
generally
shown
here
in
yellow
or
orange.
&Amp;
2
is
the
written
documentation
produced
by
the
open
space
mountains
park
staff
through
extensive
research
dating
back
to
the
60s
and
70s,
and
so
what
we'd
like
to
do
now
for
the
next
few
minutes.
Just
give
you
a
rundown
of
some
of
those
maps
and
analysis
that
are
included
in
your
packet.
More
of
a
chronological
update,
and
so
it
starts
in
the
60s
and
the
770's.
G
G
Another
documented
priority
that
we
found
was
minutes
from
a
1976
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
meeting,
and
at
that
time
the
board
talked
at
detail
about
setting
an
eastern
boundary
of
open
space
priorities
for
this
area,
and
page
51
of
your
packet
begins.
That's
where
the
notes,
the
minutes
from
that
meeting,
began
and
included
in
that
packet.
Is
the
map
on
the
left,
the
black
line,
showing
staffs
depiction
geographically
of
the
motion
from
that
meeting
of
where,
but
we
believe
that
line
was
intended
to
be
drawn.
G
It
generally
follows
the
Silverlake
ditch
and
the
blue
line,
but
was
this,
but
what
was
discussed
was
the
southern
area,
and
that
was
discussed
at
length
and
these
meeting
minutes.
When
you
look
at
them,
it
talks
a
lot
about.
You
know
all
open
land
without
houses,
preserving
it
things
west
of
the
Silver
Lake,
ditch
and
also
gaining
the
subdivide
subdivided
Lots
owned
by
the
sanitarium
into
the
city's
open
space
inventory,
and
so
there's
a
lot
happening
on
this
map.
G
So
let
me
just
walk
you
through
it
and
for
just
a
second,
the
subdivided
Lots
owned
by
the
sanitarium
is
actually
geo
located
and
imported
into
this
map.
And
that's
what
you
see?
That's
actually
the
subdivision
plat
from
the
50s,
and
if
you
look
on
the
border
county,
assessor
site,
you
still
see
a
plaited
roadway
coming
up
here
like
hold
a
sack.
G
This
was
the
subdivided
Lots
in
place
that
we
believe
were
talked
about
during
that
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
meeting
and,
generally
speaking,
that
red
dotted
line
is
what
we
believe
does
it
be
intended.
It
was
intended
for
the
eastern
boundary
for
those
that
open
space
priority
area,
and
so
it
generally
follows
the
Silver
Lake,
ditch
until
it
approximately
intersects
the
subdivided
Lots
owned
by
the
sanitarium,
and
so
that's
that
orange
dot
there
and
then
says
and
and
was
clarified
from
the
point
of
the
Silver
Lake,
ditch
where
the
sanitarium
head
lands
head
west.
G
We
believe
that
that's
generally
this
area
where
the
Lots
head
west
and
then
it
continues
straight
south,
so
that
includes
the
ridge
to
the
north
line
of
Mapleton,
the
ridge.
In
this
case,
you
see
the
the
line
of
trees
to
the
north,
that
kind
of
comes
down
and
we
believe
it
kind
of
straddles
the
property
line
between
these
plotted
Lots
in
the
311
Mapleton
Avenue.
This
was
discussed
at
length
at
the
open
space
port
of
trustees.
G
We
wanted
to
provide
as
much
detail
as
we
had
to
the
to
the
Planning
Board
on
this
particular
item,
since
it
was
discussed
early
on
in
the
analysis,
we
also
received
some
old
parcel
maps
from
Boulder
County
dated
1979
1985,
and
this
was
one
of
the
things
that
began.
That
began
our
research
into
this
item,
because
we
know
that
the
silver
like
ditch
generally
follows
the
western
boundary
of
the
311
Mapleton
site.
This
is
a
very
crude
drawing
of
that
ditch.
G
But
what
we
saw
in
these
parcel
maps
was
the
Silver
Lake,
ditch
actually
going
through
the
311
Mapleton
site
and
once
we
overlay
the
boundary
in
that
open,
existing
open
space,
other
it
directly
aligned
with
that,
and
so,
if
you
see
there,
you'll
see
kind
of
a
line
on
the
eastern
boundary
of
that
open
space
other
and
it
says
Silver
Lake
ditch
on
it,
and
it
was
around
that
time
that
we
began
pulling
some
other
maps
and
doing
kind
of
a
similar
overlay.
And
that's
when
we
started
to
see
this
is
a
zoning
map.
G
G
Looking
at
the
1981
open
space
map.
You'll.
Remember
that
the
open
space,
other
definition
is
lands
designated
prior
to
1981.
This
is
a
portion
of
that
1981
map
with
the
cross
hatching
signifying
the
proposed
open
space
and
again
when
we
overlaid
the
boundary
and
the
open
space
author.
It
aligned
with
that
with
that
with
that
designation,
and
so
what
we
think
happened
in
this
case
was
that
the
city
was
interested
in
preserving
everything
west
of
the
Silver
Lake.
G
Ditch
the
Silver
Lake
ditch
was
mapped
in
the
wrong
location,
which
then
led
to
an
incorrect
designation,
odd
this
311
Mapleton
site.
That's
what
we
believe
happened
that
1981
map
of
that
proposed
open
space
was
a
friendship
eventually
brought
into
the
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan
land-use
map,
and
so
we
just
saw
the
proposed
open
space.
We
then
brought
that
into
the
comp
plan
map
as
our
open
space
layer
to
the
comp
plan
for
for
the
benefit
of
having
just
one
open
space
map
for
the
city.
The
two
different
shades
of
green
here
don't
signify
anything.
G
It
was
around
this
time
that
we
are
also
in
the
90s
looking
to
purchase
adjacent
present
land
for
the
city's
open
space
inventory.
I'm
included
in
the
packet
is
also
a
memo
from
I
believe
it's
1990
from
the
open
space
department
to
City
Council,
indicating
that
we
were
interested
in
reopening
discussions
with
the
hospital
staff
for
all
the
land
line
above
and
west
of
the
Silver
Lake.
G
Ditch
the
map
attached
to
that
City
Council
memo
memo
does
include
the
actual
location
of
the
ditch,
and
so
this
is
where
city
staff,
at
least
at
this
point,
were
interested
pretty
clearly
in
in
acquiring
that
land
outside
of
that
311
Mapleton
property.
We
purchased
that
land
adjacent
to
the
property
and
then
in
2000.
G
That
is
when
the
comprehensive
plan
open
space
designation
was
divided
into
three
separate
designations
that
we
have
today.
So
we
have
open
space
acquired
for
everything,
we've
purchased,
open
space
development
rights
for
things
with
conservation,
easements
and
so
on,
and
then
all
the
other
stuff
that
was
left
over
from
that
designation,
which
is
called
open
space
other
in
2000,
since
we
just
purchased
everything
adjacent
to
311
Mapleton,
that
was
reverted.
G
G
That
shows
the
ditch
location
further
to
the
east
and
it's
actual
location
city,
staffs.
Conclusion
that
the
Oso
designation
was
an
error
based
on
its
alignment
with
previous
incorrect
mapped
location
of
the
ditch
is
plausible.
However,
county
staff
did
not
find
evidence
that
the
incorrect,
ditch
mapping
is
the
definitive
case
of
the
open
space
other
land
use
designation.
Therefore,
the
county
staff
did
not
conclude
that
the
open
space
open
space
other
land
use
decks.
G
The
nation
is
clearly
a
mapping
error
in
addition
to
providing
comments,
they
also
did
provide
this
drum
map
from
1955,
showing
again
that
incorrect,
ditch
alignment
on
February
14th,
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustees
did
hold
a
public
hearing
and
provided
the
following
recommendation
to
the
Planning
Board
that
it
is
probably
but
not
clearly
a
mapping
error.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
during
that
meeting.
G
A
lot
of
discussion
around
the
word
clearly
in
the
comprehensive
plan
questions
around
some
of
the
historical
property
lines
and
interpretations
of
that
open
space
board
of
trustees,
minutes
from
the
70s
and
then
a
bit
of
conversation,
around
kind
of
looking
back
at
documents
and
minutes
from
40
years
ago
of
what's
knowable
and
what's
unknowable,
and
so
things
that
were
mentioned.
There
was
things
that
are
knowable
are
generally
that
the
maps
were
wrong
and-
and
there
was
little
contested,
there
was
general
agreement
about
the
maps
being
incorrect
at
that
time.
G
But
what
was
unknowable
was
if
the
OSB
t-thought,
when
referring
to
the
Silver
Lake,
ditch
that
it
was
if
they
were
referring
to
in
their
mind
as
the
correct,
ditch
location,
that's
on
the
ground
or
those
incorrect
mapped
locations,
and
so
there's
a
number
of
things
that
are
just
not
knowable,
and
so
they
recognized
that,
and
that
was
a
big
part
of
their
discussion.
And
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
providing
all
relevant
information
to
you.
G
The
second
part
of
their
meeting
involved
specific
guidance
to
the
open
space,
Mountain
Park
staff
regarding
their
review
of
the
development
application
moving
for
in
general,
they
supported
staffs
analysis
and
asked
that
they
continue
the
development
review
process
and
they
did
make
a
find
that
the
fee
title
acquisition
of
that
entire
Oso
area
was
not
not
recommended
at
this.
This
time,
and
that
brings
me
to
the
staff
recommendation,
which
is
to
find
that
a
discrepancy
exists
within
the
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan.
G
Regarding
the
land
use
map,
a
designation
and
I
won't
read
the
entire
thing,
because
it's
on
the
screen
a
couple
of
next
step
points,
April
19th,
it
looks
like
we
are
now
scheduled
to
bring
the
site
review
to
the
Planning
Board
on
April,
19th,
May,
15th
and
June
19th
Council
would
receive
those
applications.
Next
Monday
City
Council
has
indicated
that
they're
interested
in
having
a
matters.
A
discussion
under
matters
pertaining
to
the
schedule
of
the
other
development
applications
next
Monday
night-
and
that
concludes
my
presentation-
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
A
B
Phil,
first
of
all,
excellent
job,
very
clear
presentation:
I
just
I
have
two
questions
and
one
is
on
page
2.
It
says
that
if
Planning
Board
finds
that
an
error
does
exist
on
the
subject,
property
staff
expect
City
Council
to
then
consider
this
item
concurrently
with
the
development
applications
later
this
year.
L
I'll
jump
in
with
regard
to
date,
so
city
council
on
Monday
night,
is
actually
going
to
have
a
conversation
about
what
dates
they
might
consider.
First,
the
rezoning
the
first
hearing
for
the
rezoning
and
consider
a
call
up-
that's
the
date,
that's
tentatively
scheduled
for
May
15th
and
then
right
now,
it's
looking
as
though,
if
there
were
a
call
up
and
a
broader
public
hearing
around
the
rezoning
and
also
the
site
review,
call
up.
That
would
probably
be
June
19th.
L
However,
if
they
are
also
looking
at
this
land-use
item,
they'll
either
do
that
on
the
19th.
Come
with
that
hearing
or
they'll
find
another
date
for
that
two
separately
occur
so
probably
sometime
in
late
May
or
early
June,
and
that's
the
discussion.
They'll
have
Monday
night,
it's
about
the
scheduling
and.
M
I,
don't
think
there
has
been
any
indication
where
their
City
Council
is
interested
in
calling
up
the
site
review,
but
a
part
of
the
application
is
a
rezoning
request
and
that
automatically
goes
to
City,
Council
and
and
would
be
processed
parallel
to
the
site
review
application.
So
there
will
be
a
council
hearing
scheduled
on
this.
So.
M
B
You
know,
there's
a
fait
accompli,
that
this
was
going
to
be
a
called
up
item,
when,
in
fact,
final
authority
is
generally
with
the
Planning
Board
for
site
reviews,
so
also
I
think
it
did
have
a
made
me
feel
a
sense
of
politicization
of
the
development
applications
and
the
the
land-use
map
change
by
putting
them
together,
because
the
land-use
map
change
is
clearly
a
change.
That's
supposed
to
be
staff
generated
change
to
correct
a
mapping,
error
and
the
development
application
is.
D
A
H
Process
question:
if
this
had
been
done
as
part
of
a
like
the
2015
update
to
the
comp
plan,
we
wouldn't
necessarily
have
to
meet
a
clearly.
You
know
that
would
be
clearly
an
error.
There
could
be
other
reasons
to
put
it
in.
You
know,
because
the
whole
comp
plan
is
open
so
that
we
wouldn't
be
under
these
kind
of
tight
constraints
if
we,
if
we
could
have
done
it
at
that
point,
that's.
D
N
N
D
N
No,
no,
as
a
point
of
clarification,
there
was
no
definitive
statement
that
it
wasn't
an
error.
However,
it
was
after
May
5th
that
we
got
additional
information
from
parcel
mapping
from
the
county,
former
County
parcel
maps.
We
dug
deeper,
and
this
has
been
part
of
the
review
process
where
we
need
to
be
able
to
spend
time
looking
at
it.
But
at
the
time
we
were
considering
doing
it
as
a
comp
plan.
Land
use
part
of
the
update
and
then
given
the
timeline
of
that,
we
proceeded
with
continuing
on
through
the
site
review.
G
D
Thank
you,
sir
other.
D
F
D
D
O
D
A
O
It
is
shown
on
maps
because
it
is
a
it
is
an
access
point
onto
from
private
land
onto
city
land.
We
do
have
people
will
say
we
have
signage
and
garbage
cans,
they
are
on
city
property.
On
the
other
side
of
the
access
point
and
in
it
was,
it
is
likely
listed
on
maps
to
show
the
visitation
use.
At
the
time
the
west
trial
study
area
came
out
or
the
the
use
and
the
access
point
on
to
city
open
space
at
that
point,
and
it
is
anticipated
to
remain
as
part
of
this
development
that.
A
O
A
A
O
Do
not
that's
actually
the
last
segment,
so
we
did
negotiate
one
when
the
trailhead
subdivision
went
in
over
that
portion,
because
there
was
a
trail
easement,
but
the
trail
wasn't
actually
in
the
easement.
So
during
that
subdivision
we
did
negotiate
a
trail
easement
over
that
and
during
this,
during
our
comments
and
our
work
during
site
plan
review,
we
are
negotiating
with
the
applicant
and
they
have
agreed
to
convey
to
this
city
a
public
access
easement
over
both
that
segment,
as
well
as
an
informal
social
trail
that
right
now
parallels
the
Silverlake.
Ditch.
O
D
I
do
Bethany
I
was
on
an
open
space
board
from
1996
to
2001,
and
there
was
a
policy
that
there
would
not
be
acquisitions
in
area.
One
area,
one
being
the
annexed
areas
of
the
city
and
I
was
thinking
back.
I
can
only
remember
one
and
it
didn't
happen
when
I
was
on
the
open
space
board,
it
was
Prior
and
that
was
to
provide
a
trail
easement
up
to
a
Dakota,
Ridge
I
was
trying
I
couldn't
think
of.
It
was
what
it
was.
D
G
We
really
there
were
two
overarching
reasons
that
we've
we
felt
it
was
an
error.
One
was
the
the
ditch
mapping
and
the
other
was
really
came
down
to
OS
and
peas,
historical
knowledge
of
how
we
have
acquired
and
looked
at
open
space
acquisitions
and
the
written
documentation
around
those
decisions
leading
you
know
historically
in
this
area,
and
so
there's
not
one
piece
here
or
there.
It's
kind
of
50
pieces
that
to
us
make
it
clear
the.
K
H
G
H
H
D
It's
not
the
folder
Junior
Academy
site.
Where
is
the
Boulder
Junior
Academy
site
on
there?
Oh
okay
right
there,
so
the
area
when
that
was
being
discussed
and
negotiated.
One
of
the
most
important
things
to
a
lot
of
people
was
that
that
steep,
that
that
sloped
area
not
have
any
buildings
encroaching
on
it
and
that
it
be
left
open.
And
so
it
seems
like
the
view
from
below,
like
east
of
4th
Street
was
important
when
some
of
these
things
were
being
designated
and
looked
at.
Is
that
true?
M
J
D
A
A
A
M
The
decision
tonight
does
not
have
anything
to
do
without,
but
there
are
based,
on
my
analysis,
no
access
rights
through
the
side.
It
is
private
property
and
in
the
site,
review
comes
down
to
SCI,
review
criteria,
application
and
then
also
an
analysis
looking
at
constitutional
implications
of
takings
and
is
the
development
creating
an
impact
that
requires
a
dedication
to
compensate
for
that
impact
and
I
suspect.
That's
not
a
strong
case
in
this
particular
case,
but.
A
D
M
Mean
the
site
review
has
to
be
decided
based
on
the
site
review
criteria.
So
there's
no
sorry,
credit
criterion
that
specifically
states
they
have
to
dedicate
open
space
and
right
and
the
site
review
criteria
we
have
also
have
to
be
interpreted
in
light
of
the
Constitution
and
and
what
main
it
may
not
be
required,
may
also
depend
on
the
type
of
development
proposed
on
a
particular
site
when.
M
O
Think
there's
some
hesitation
and
not
getting
into
the
site
plan
review
discussion,
of
course,
but
that
is
that
is
an
odd.
We
have
been
again
as
we
work
through
the
site
plan
review
process
been
discussing
those
trail
quarters
and
permanent
easements
over
the
trails
I
mentioned,
as
well
as
the
access
point
you
were
talking
about
so
far.
We
have.
We
have
talked
about
that
that
public
pedestrian
traffic
would
likely
be
allowed
to
and
from
the
site
at
that
access
point.
O
If
that
helps
answer
your
question,
it
would,
however,
be
subject
to
a
man,
a
private
management
plan
of
the
site,
so
they
could
close
it
down
in
the
evenings.
Open
it
up,
they
would
have
to
enforce
that
threshold,
basically
mm-hmm,
but
in
order
to
allow
their
residents
on
to
through
that
access
point,
we
also
would
require
the
public
to
be
able
to
go
the
other
way.
Yeah.
O
And
we
we
open
space
if
the
easement
along
the
ditch,
if
and
when
they
easement
along
the
ditch,
is
conveyed,
then
that
access
point
would
be
subject
to
open
space
rules
and
regs
because
it
would
be
within
the
managed,
easement
and
I
will
also
say
that
all
of
these
items
have
been
discussed
and
reviewed
with
and
without
consideration
for
this
land
use
designation.
So
it
would
be.
It
would
be
things
whether
that
green
was
there,
that
we
wouldn't
that
we
as
members
of
DRC
and
reviewers,
would
be
looking
at.
Thank.
A
F
A
Don't
worry!
Thank
you
great.
Thank
you.
Sorry
for
that
brief
interruption.
So
Cindy
was
just
handing
me
the
folks
who
are
signed
up
so
far
to
speak.
If
anybody
is
interested
join
the
gentlemen
with
what
looks
like
an
Amherst
sweatshirt
I
went
to
Williams,
so
I'm
not
sure
I
can
condone
that.
But
but
I
do
appreciate
you
joining
us,
but
if
anyone
else
would
like
to
sign
up,
please
do
follow
on
here.
So
what
we're
gonna
do
is
I'm
gonna
call
you
up
in
the
order
that
cindy
has
identified
I
understand.
A
A
number
of
you
have
worked
together
to
kind
of
have
a
continuous
presentation,
we're
gonna
kind
of
call
you
individually
up
on
that
and
then
the
PowerPoint
slides,
hopefully
will
work
in
sequence.
A
few
of
you
are
pooling
time
because
we
do
have
a
limit
of
three
minutes.
If
you
pool
with
somebody,
you
can
get
five.
A
There
may
be
opportunities
where
the
board
may
have
questions
and
we'll
just
kind
of
shout
out
when
we
do
so
just
know
that
that's
possibility
that's
out
there
and
then
once
we
do
go
through
the
rotation
I'll
do
a
last
call
to
see
if
anybody
else
would
like
to
speak
and
at
that
point
we'll
close
the
hearing
and
bring
it
back
to
the
board
for
their
deliberation.
A
couple
other
pieces
just
for
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
when
you
do
come
up.
A
If
you
can
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
I
know
we
have
it
on
here,
but
some
of
the
folks,
especially
watching
for
beyond
it's
good
to
know,
and
then
my
fellow
board
members,
don't
always
have
these
sheets.
So
it's
helpful
to
know
where
folks
are
from
and
then
for
everybody
in
the
audience.
We
really
do
care
to
hear
from
everybody
tonight,
and
so,
if
you
have
things
that
you're
thinking
about
with
the
speaker,
please
let's
keep
them
in
a
non
audio,
edit
or
e
sort
of
way.
A
You
know
if
you
want
to
wave
your
hands
because
you
like
it,
that's
great.
If
you
want
to
give
me
a
frowny
face,
that's
great
too,
but
just
as
a
matter
of
respect
and
to
make
sure
we
hear
everybody,
if
you
could
just
keep
it
silent,
that
would
be
greatly
appreciated.
So
no
clapping
booing
birdsongs
anything
else
like
that.
We
greatly
appreciate
it
so
with
that
I
think
the
person
who
is
leading
us
off
tonight
is
Wendy
baring-gould.
If
I
have
the
name
pronounced
correctly
and
if
I
don't
apologize,
yeah.
P
You
do
thank
you.
Thank
you
good
evening,
thanks
for
being
here,
my
name
is
Wendy.
Baring-Gould
and
I
live
at
5:36,
Maxwell,
Ave
and
I'm
here
tonight
to
introduce
our
group
and
set
the
stage
for
our
presentation,
and
it
comes
to
you
with
a
welcome
assist
from
Cindy
who's
been
fabulous
and,
first
of
all,
I
would
like
to
tell
you
who
we
are
not,
as
has
been
described
in
the
ever
colorful
opinion
section
of
the
daily
camera.
We
are
not
millionaires
who
object
to
multimillionaires
moving
into
the
neighborhood.
P
In
fact,
the
concept
of
a
congregate
care
facility
in
and
of
itself
is
not
objectionable,
though
we
would
prefer
that
if
it
is
to
be
built,
it
be
available
to
people
with
a
range
of
incomes.
We
are
not
entitled
oldies,
who
want
to
have
our
own
private
parking
lot
at
Dakota
Ridge.
In
fact,
we
walk
from
our
homes,
it's
the
parents
and
little
kids
and
those
that
live
at
a
distance
from
Newlands,
east
Boulder
or
other
points
that
use
the
Maxwell
Street
access
in
the
parking
lot.
P
We
are
not
disgruntled
neighbors
drumming
up
falsehoods
to
derail
a
much-needed
senior
housing
complex.
Rather,
we
are
an
evolving
collection
of
neighbors
who
have
been
working
to
address
the
negative
impacts
of
this
project.
Census
was
introduced
in
2015.
We
represent
the
concerns
of
many
many
individuals
and
groups
from
Boulder
and
beyond
who
strenuously
object
to
this
project
as
proposed.
The
idea
is
not
a
problem,
it
never
has
been
it's
the
implementation
this
place
is
enormous.
Can
I
have
my
slide
here?
P
Okay,
so
there
we
go
there,
we
go
Cindy
found
it
yeah,
they're,
great
okay,
so
the
place
is
enormous.
It
has
32
buildings,
it's
four
times
bigger
than
the
Academy
on
Aurora.
It
dwarfs
with
Chautauqua
in
both
size
and
scale,
and
proposes
to
create
a
total
footprint
of
built
environment
that
will
be
equivalent
in
area
to
five
and
a
half
football
fields
and
that's
not
including
the
underground
parking
garages.
The
enormity
is
staggering
and
we
feel
it's
egregious.
P
The
Oso
issue
on
the
table
tonight
is
only
one
of
the
numerous
overreaches
assumed
by
these
developers
to
achieve
their
aggressive
business
model,
which
we
feel
is
predicated
on
personal
profit
at
the
expense
of
public
good,
there's
more
and
we'll
be
back
in
April
to
address
other
issues,
but
we're
here
tonight
to
affirm
the
accuracy
of
the
Oso
boundary,
as
defined
since
the
70s
to
reaffirm
both
the
open
space
values
and
the
deeply
felt
public
benefit
of
this
parcel
we
hold.
We
have
not
come
to
these
conclusions
lightly
or
hastily.
P
Our
evidence
is
the
result
of
hundreds
of
hours
of
research
and
Asian
drawn
from
the
Carnegie
Library
Archives
from
our
neighbors.
At
the
seventh-day
Adventist
Church,
the
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan,
the
city
called
an
untaught
untold
time,
exploring
the
site
itself,
though
some
of
our
views
differ
from
those
of
the
staff.
We
feel
that
they
are
well
founded
and
they
serve
the
broad
interests
of
our
community,
our
inner
art,
in
accordance
with
our
city
code,
which
provides
that
the
public
interests
are
favored
over
those
or
private
individuals.
So
we
thank
you
for
listening.
Thank.
A
A
R
Evening,
I'm
Russell
Henrickson,
my
wife
and
I,
live
at
6:45
Concord,
the
eastern
boundary
of
Dakota
Ridge
stretches
from
the
flat
lands
of
our
city
westward
to
the
mountain
parks.
It
serves
as
us
above
her.
Both
ecological
and
visual,
the
open
space
pioneers
knew
the
city
backdrop
was
vital
to
our
town
and
needed
to
be
protected
in
1970
over
2800
citizens
petition
City
Council
to
protect
coda
Ridge
from
linden
to
Mapleton
avenues.
R
This
included
the
four
acres
of
Oso
in
September
1976,
the
OS
Beatty
met
on
a
non-binding
resolution
discussed
by
fellow
Heisler
on
page
four
of
Jim
Robertson's
letter
to
this
board.
That
motion
was
described
as
having
been
quote
confusing
language
that
could
have
been
interpreted
different
ways,
so
we
agree
and
in
focus
instead
on
the
binding,
1977
Boulder
alley
comprehensive
plan,
which
was
revised
in
1978.
R
The
actions
by
the
OS
Beatty
became
irrelevant
when
the
four
bodies
passed
this
plan,
the
joint
agreement
firmly
established
the
area's
intended
for
preservation
or
long
Dakota
Ridge.
The
map
and
legend
of
the
comp
plan
is
shown
on
the
left
in
an
enlarged
section
on
the
right.
The
proposed
areas
for
open
space
stretched
from
linden
to
Mapleton
all
the
way
down
to
third
Street.
The
311
site
is
outlined
in
red.
R
A
substantial
portion
of
the
proposed
open
space
is
east
of
the
ditch,
there's
no
indication
that
the
ditch
had
any
meaning
in
open
space
decisions
that
would
affect
311
Mapleton
1977-78
comp
plan
affirms
the
intentions
of
the
city.
To
protect
the
mountain
backdrop,
these
intentions
were
confirmed
by
the
city's
actions
in
the
ensuing
years.
R
City's
2018
EMAP
shows
the
early
plans
to
protect
the
mountain
backdrop
were
accomplished:
a
quiet,
her
property
to
the
north
from
forest
to
alpine
they
place
Oso
and
OS.
D
are
designations
on
the
western
portion
of
all
28
Lots
is
outlined
in
purple.
These
are
developed
Lots,
just
like
the
four
acres
of
Oso.
R
Next
between
alpine
and
311
Mapleton,
they
acquire
acquired
the
land
east
of
the
ditch,
as
outlined
in
paint,
and
finally,
they
place
the
Oso
designation,
four
acres
in
311
Mapleton.
Collectively
these
actions
were
used
to
preserve
Dakota,
Ridge
and
further
development,
so
I
did
in
the
city,
acquire
the
four
acres
in
the
1976
trustee
meeting.
Mr.
Walker's
stated
quote:
if
we
approach
an
owner
and
he
does
not
want
to
sell
and
there's
no
threat
of
development,
we'll
put
it
on
the
back
shelf.
R
Well,
there's
been
no
threat
of
development
on
these
four
acres
for
over
70
years,
and
residents
have
had
access
through
the
property
and
use
of
the
parking
lot
so
with
no
motivation
to
acquire
the
four
acre
set
on
the
back
shelf.
All
that
changed
with
the
recent
owners
development
plans.
So
what
do
we
know?
We
know
that
the
1977-78
comp
plan
that
the
Silverlight
ditch
is
not
the
eastern
boundary
between
alpine
and
Mapleton.
This
makes
any
mapping
error
of
the
ditch
irrelevant.
R
R
R
The
map,
above
and
to
the
left,
shows
proposed
open
space
in
1978.
How
can
the
proposed
open
space
within
the
311
site
in
red
be
created
a
year
before
the
map
was
made?
Thank
you
so
much.
Let
me
just
point
what
other
thing
out
the
notion
that
the
ditch
error
came
first
and
then
the
Oso
was
placed
on
it.
It's
just
as
likely
that
the
Oso
with
various
incarnations
of
open
space
planning
came
first
and
then
someone
erroneously
thought
that
the
eastern
side
of
that
green
thing
would
be
the
ditch.
R
S
They
found
that
in
their
application
and
this,
the
center
of
the
dispute
and
discussions
over
the
last
year
had
with
staff,
has
been
the
assertion
that,
as
we
see
in
the
in
the
letter
to
the
county,
that
there
was
an
erroneous
parcel
map
that
caused
the
boundary
of
the
open
space
to
be
defined
and,
as
shown,
County
refuted
that
and
said
that
they
were
not
clear
and
resubmitted
the
drum
map
as
an
alternative
map.
And
tonight
we
have
actually
a
third
map
in
the
presentation
from
Phil
here.
S
S
There
tried
to
recreate
the
boundary
based
on
the
current
GIS
map,
but
yet
all
during
this
past
year,
Phil
and
the
staff
have
emphatically
promoted
that
the
boundary
was
created
due
to
a
mapping
error.
So
now,
at
this
presentation
we
have
not
only
the
mapping
error
from
staff,
but
the
current
GIS
map
and
we
have
the
drum
map
from
the
county.
So
what
this
results
in
is
uncertainty
and
the
the
other
key
factor
in
in
that
uncertainty
is
that
the
open
space
boundary
doesn't
actually
follow.
I.
A
S
Doesn't
actually
follow
the
any
of
the
the
maps
and
Silverlake
Phil
Nell
Amir
did
the
analysis.
It
follows
segmented
lines
surveyed
lines,
so
why
would
the
actual
GIS
map
follow
surveyed
lines
if
it
was
in
there?
Somebody
purposely
surveyed
the
open
space
designation
that
exists
in
our
Maps
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
T
T
T
Second
retention,
as
Oso
is
consistent
with
the
open
state,
open
space
mission
statement
and
the
city
charter
and
third,
a
vote
to
repeal
this
designation
is
a
vote
to
permanently
abandon
critically
needed
safe
parking.
It's
an
ax
toss.
The
boulder
valor
valley
comp
plan
authorizes
this
board
to
abandon
an
Oso
designation
only
on
only
upon
concluding
that
the
designation
is
clearly
a
drafting
error,
mapping
discrepancy
or
clerical
error
that
clear
error
standard
has
not
been
met
with
respect
to
this
parcel
for
three
reasons.
T
Second,
as
was
mentioned,
the
boulder
county
staff
carefully
reviewed
this
issue
and
concluded
that,
although,
although
it
was
plausible
that
the
Oso
designation
may
have
been
due
to
a
mapping
error,
they
were
unable
to
conclude
that
this
designation
was
clearly
an
error.
They
studied
it
carefully.
They
couldn't
reach
that
conclusion.
Third,
as
was
mentioned,
the
open
space
trustees
after
reviewing
the
same
40
page
memo
submitted
to
you
and
hearing
public
testimony,
were
unwilling
to
endorse
the
staff
recommendation
that
the
Oso
designation
was
a
clear
error.
T
In
fact,
the
motion
that
passed
the
trustees,
as
was
shown
on
the
board
here,
just
as
the
county,
had
concluded
that
the
designation
was
quote
probably
but
not
clearly
a
mapping
error.
In
quote
based
upon
these
facts,
the
record
establishes
that
the
clear
error
requirement
for
abandoning
the
Oso
designation
for
this
parcel
has
not
been
met.
A
vote,
otherwise
risks
being
found
arbitrary
and
capricious
from
it
have
been
an
administrative
law
standpoint.
T
The
second
reason
the
Oso
designation,
should
be
as
the
City
&
County
determined.
This
parcel
was
consistent
with
the
open
space
mission
and
city
charter
when
it
was
designated
in
the
60s
and
70s,
and
that
oso
designation
remains
consistent
with
the
guiding
principles.
Today
again,
if
the
oso
designation
resulted
from
a
clear
error,
one
would
expect
that
designation
and
the
character
of
the
underlying
land
to
be
inconsistent
with
a
mission
and
charter.
In
fact,
the
Oso
designation
fits
nicely
within
the
preservation
and
land
management
goals
captured
by
these
documents.
T
I
had
the
privilege,
as
did
two
others
on
the
board
in
front
of
me,
of
serving
as
a
trustee
for
boulders,
open
spaced,
mountain
parks
from
2002
to
2007
and
I
have
the
highest
regard
for
the
staff
in
their
work.
However,
it's
my
opinion
that
preserving
this
parcel
as
Oso
is
consistent
with
both
of
mission,
the
open
space
mission
and
city
charter.
T
My
written
submission,
as
well
as
subsequent
presenters,
will
articulate
the
ways
that
preserving
this
designation
will
serve
the
required
open
space
purposes
and,
lastly,
the
third
reason
this
board
should
not
vote
to
abandon
the
Oso
designation
is
it
would
increase
the
danger
to
open
space
visitors
arising
from
the
critical
shortage
of
safe
parking
nurse
and
the
sanitized
public
safely.
Safety
has
appropriately
been
the
most
critical
variable
and
land
management
decisions
in
Boulder
and
is
highly
relevant
to
your
decision
on
whether
to
abandon
the
Oso
designation.
T
For
this
parcel
again,
subsequent
presenters
will
describe
the
parking
dangers
arising
from
the
abandonment
of
the
Oso
designation.
Thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
describe
the
three.
We
think
compelling
reasons
for
your
consideration
on
why
you
should
not
vote
to
abandon
the
Oso
designation
for
this
parcel.
First,
the
clear
error
legal
standard
has
not
been
met.
Second
retention
is
consistent
with
the
open
space
mission
statement
and
the
city
charter,
and
third,
critical
and
immediate
safety
concerns
arising
from
a
shortage
of
safe
parking
at
San.
Itas
will
be
exacerbated
by
abandoning
the
Oso
designation.
T
T
U
Good
evening
my
name
is
Randy
Stroh
and
I
live
at
821
Mapleton
Avenue
I've
lived
in
Boulder
since
1973.
All
of
that
time,
west
of
ninth
Street
I
am
very
familiar
with
the
evolution
of
Santa
toss
in
my
years
here
and
the
corresponding
issues
surrounding
public
access
to
the
trail
system.
I
have
witnessed
the
steady
increase
in
popularity
of
scientist
in
the
surrounding
area
and
enjoyed
the
wide
spectrum
of
users
and
visitors
who
are
drawn
here.
The
Boulder
seventh-day
Adventist
Church
has
been
happy
to
share
daytime
parking
on
a
311
Mapleton
site.
U
Ever
since
it
built
the
sanitarium
and
when
Boulder
Memorial
Hospital
was
in
full
use,
it
was
opened
a
time
parking
all
the
time
as
well,
with
the
current
site
review
application.
All
of
that
public
parking
goes
away.
The
upper
also
the
upper
parking
lot
on
the
311
Oso,
which
has
been
used
regularly
by
senate-house
hikers
for
such
a
long
time,
would
know
also
no
longer
be
available.
This
complete
flip
from
open
to
fully
closed
vehicular
access
would
leave
sanitized
parking
to
only
include
a
few
striped
spots
near
the
fourth
and
mapleton
trailhead.
U
The
Centennial
parking
lot
at
the
base
of
Settlers
park,
a
lot
which
is
full
by
8
a.m.
most
days,
including
weekdays
and
street
parking
in
the
nearby
naval
residential
neighborhoods
parking
along
sunshine.
Canyon
Road
is
unsafe
because
of
the
narrow
shoulders
and
winding
curves
at
the
bottom,
and
thus
the
concept
of
improving
baseline
to
ease
parking
at
Chautauqua
simply
is
not
a
feasible
idea
here.
U
The
website,
your
Boulder,
the
Boulder
County
Colorado
lifestyle
referred
in
2015
mounts
a
notice,
as
quote
everybody's
mountain
for
many
locals
past
and
present
it
quoted
mount
sana
toss
is
the
very
heart
of
Boulder,
open
space.
You
are
hearing
tonight
how
and
why
you
have
many
other
true
and
very
legitimate
reasons
to
keep
this
311
Oso
designation
intact,
but
please
also
consider
the
irreversible
consequences
that
would
result
if
you
vote
to
change
how
this
parcel
functions
now
and
if
you
eliminate
the
potential
which
307
311
Oso
holds
for
the
future.
U
V
This
oliso
parcel
has
valuable
assets
that
benefit
the
public
view.
The
mountain
backdrop,
access
to
public
trails,
containment
of
a
steep
slope
undisturbed
by
development,
access
to
us
historic
sites,
including
the
stone
shelter,
the
bench,
the
bridge,
the
arch
folly
in
Silver
Lake,
ditch
36
existing
parking
spaces,
which
more
than
doubles
the
32
spaces
instead
Centanni
a
lot
of
sunshine
Canyon,
those
are
existing
parking
spaces
and
the
1933
story,
brick
building
described
by
winter
and
company,
as
quote
distinction
in
the
development
of
the
community
of
Boulder
associated
with
health,
natural
foods
and
wellness.
V
Now,
there's
something
to
get
excited
about.
The
Maxwell
building
is
part
of
a
fascinating
legacy
of
health
and
wellness.
In
the
years
after
it
was
built,
hundreds
of
nursing
students
gratefully
moved
from
tents
and
unheated
cottages
to
the
comfort
of
this
building.
At
the
turn
of
the
century,
Boulder
sanitarium
founder,
dr.
Kellogg
had
invented
cornflakes
and
granola,
and
today
we
are
a
city
bursting
with
health,
food
entrepreneurs
and
investors,
health
care,
practitioners,
professional
athletes
and
active
citizens.
V
Let's
imagine
how
this
site
might
help
enhance
this
wonderful
reputation
or
consider
the
building's
possibilities
as
an
educational
center,
our
beloved
Chautauqua
Ranger
cottage
is
overflowing.
The
Maxwell
building
could
provide
needed
space
for
exhibits
and
programs
by
Rangers
and
volunteers.
You've
already
heard
that
County
planning
staff
could
not
quite
go
along
with
a
ditch
theory.
It
just
didn't
hold
water.
The
open
space
board
of
trustees
could
not
really
confirm
a
clear
error
and
nearly
a
thousand
citizens,
many
of
whom
are
watching
now
on
channel
8
signed.
V
Our
petition,
which
will
be
presented
to
you
tonight,
want
this
open
space
other
parcel
to
remain
protected,
as
is,
hopefully,
you
will
decide
to
do
no
harm
leave
things
the
way
they
have
been
for
decades.
Open
space
and
mountain
parks
department
just
launched
their
master
plan,
focusing
on
best
uses
for
land
throughout
the
system.
Right
now
they
are
seeking
robust
public
engagement.
Well,
here
we
are.
V
Q
You
good
evening,
I'm
Rebecca,
trapped,
in'
and
I
live
on
4th
Street
Russell
Henrickson
has
presented
definitive
proof
of
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
Oso
land
on
Dakota
Ridge,
promoting
our
mountain
backdrop,
a
number-one
priority
for
the
city
of
Boulder.
His
story
began
more
than
50
years
ago,
but
my
story
begins
even
further.
A
hundred
years
ago
in
1910
Frederick
Law
Olmstead
Jr,
who
you
will
see,
Frederick
Olmsted
jr.,
the
greatest
designer
of
Park
systems
in
American
landscape
history
delivered
a
report
to
the
Boulder
City
Improvement
Association,
but
Olmstead
jr.
Q
Q
The
depth
of
the
valleys
and
the
breadth
of
the
sweeping
outlook
over
miles
a
varied
open
plain
there
is
beyond
all
and
a
sense
of
escape
from
the
tiresome
evidences
of
the
human
management
of
everything
in
sight,
which
pervades
all
civilized
life
and
especially
life
in
cities.
The
more
highly
civilized
our
life
becomes,
and
the
more
skillfully
and
perfectly
all
our
affairs
are
managed
by
human
agencies.
Q
The
more
we
come
to
value
the
means
of
securing
occasional
relief
from
the
insistent
pressure
of
human
contact
and
control.
Therefore,
the
one
principle
before
all
others
that
should
control
the
management.
A
boulder
city
forest
in
the
foothills
is
to
avoid
every
single
thing
that
would
obtrude
the
idea
of
human
control
of
the
scenery.
Q
When
Olmstead
concludes
his
remarks,
he
exhorts
that
we
not
quote
ruin
the
highest
value
possessed
by
the
whole
city
forest,
namely
that
when
you
get
into
it,
you
pass
into
a
different
world
from
the
city
into
a
place
of
quiet,
mountain
scenery,
remote
and
vast,
where
the
weary
can
find
peace.
I
implore
you
to
heed
this
wisdom,
respect
the
decisions
our
visionary
city
leaders
made
50
years
ago,
protect
every
acre
of
every
designation
of
open
space
land
forever.
W
W
In
less
than
a
month
we
have
collected
over
900
signatures
with
respondents
from
zip
codes
across
Boulder
into
the
surrounding
communities.
The
numbers
are
growing.
These
signers
are
in
the
room
with
us.
Their
voices
are
here
and
must
be
heard.
The
petition
reads
to
the
members
of
the
Boulder
City
Council
Planning
Board
and
open
space
trustees,
February
2018.
W
W
Honor
the
rest,
the
resolution
to
preserve
all
Dakota
Ridge
from
Mapleton
to
linden
avenues
which
was
adopted
in
the
in
the
nineteen
seventy
in
the
1970s
by
City
Council,
at
the
request
of
the
Dakota
Ridge
Committee,
and
the
two
thousand
eight
hundred
and
fifty-seven
petitioners
support
the
ongoing
public
use
of
the
parcel
for
vehicular
and
pedestrian
access
that
Maxwell
Street
festive.
Fourth
Street
maintain
the
upper
parking
lot
to
alleviate
pressure
on
the
street
parking
in
adjacent
neighborhoods
utilize.
W
This
parcel
to
shape
the
development
of
the
city,
to
limit
urban
sprawl
and
to
discipline
growth,
prevent
excavation
and
development
of
the
steep
slope
and
to
minimize
the
danger
of
mudslides
on
those
homes
below
sustain
existing
cultural
and
environmental
resources.
On
this
historic
portion
of
the
Dakota
Ridge
open
space,
protect,
though
there's
iconic
mountain
backdrop
preserve
this
land
for
its
continued
eight
continued
contribution.
Excuse
me
to
the
quality
of
life
of
the
community
city
of
Boulder
charter,
1986,
open
space
purposes,
open
space
land.
Thank
you.
W
So
we
urge
you
to
please
do
no
harm
maintain
the
Oso
protective
status.
Let
the
master
fan
plan
on
that
considered
and
legitimate
and
legitimate
decisions
can
be
made
about
the
ways
this
parcel
can
best
be
used
to
benefit
the
whole
boulder
community.
Thank
you
for
your
time
in
your
consideration.
Thank.
A
X
You
I've
lived
in
Boulder
for
60
years.
I
was
asked
to
speak
tonight
as
a
longtime
member
of
the
Adventist
community
in
Boulder.
Adventists
have
had
a
long
association
with
Mapleton
Hill.
The
boulder
colorado
sanitarium
was
completed
in
1896,
with
strong
support
from
dr.
John
Harvey
Kellogg
of
Battle
Creek
Michigan
before
the
establishment
of
the
border
sanitarium.
The
first
seventh-day
Adventist
Church
in
Colorado,
was
built
in
1880
at
Broadway
and
Mapleton.
The
second
location
in
Boulder
was
at
7th
and
Highland.
The
third
present
location
is
at
4th
and
Mapleton.
X
My
mother
moved
to
Nebraska
in
1959
to
work
at
what
had
become
Boulder
Memorial
Hospital.
The
name
change
was
only
a
couple
of
years
before,
but
people
still
called
it
the
sand.
We
found
this
ball
among
my
mother's
belongings
on
one
side
is
printed
sanitarium
dairy,
Boulder
Colorado.
On
the
other
side
it
says
cottage
cheese,
so
I've
chosen
to
focus
on
the
dairy
tonight.
X
The
concrete
ruins
on
the
shelf
above
trailhead
subdivision
are
the
remains
of
the
dairy
barn.
The
ruins
are
on
the
three
acre
parcel
below
Silverlake,
ditch
next
to
the
four
acre
parcel
being
discussed
tonight
and
are
pertinent
to
the
discussion
recently
Dale
Williams
son,
a
longtime
member
of
the
Boulder
Adventist
Church,
shared
with
me,
his
recollections
about
the
dairy
mm-hmm.
He
may
be.
The
last
living
person
worked
at
the
dairy.
X
He
worked
there
as
a
teenager
and
performed
all
the
tasks
associated
with
the
dairy,
including
washing
the
milk
cans
that
were
used
to
deliver
milk
to
the
sanitarium
and
to
watts
Hardy
dairy.
The
heimo
had
a
hardwood
floor
unusual
for
a
barn.
The
barn
was
torn
down
about
1953.
The
hardwood
was
then
used
by
the
buyer
in
a
couple
of
new
houses.
The
rest
of
the
lumber
was
purchased
by
one
of
the
pioneer
families
south
of
Boulder.
X
The
concrete
that
remains
was
where
the
milking
took
place
and
represents
only
the
north
half
of
the
original
barn.
When
it
was
time
in
the
evening
to
bring
the
cows
to
the
barn,
they
were
usually
in
the
farthest
part
of
the
pasture,
but
it
was
pleasant
riding
along
and
a
horse
behind
them,
as
the
cows
made
their
way
back
to
the
barn
in
single
file.
When
Dale
first
worked
there,
the
dairy
had
two
boys
and
the
sturdy
steel
pen,
the
neighborhood
boys
liked
to
tease
the
Bulls
and
get
them
riled.
X
The
dairy
sold
the
Bulls
because
of
safety
concerns.
Everyone
I've
talked
to
associated
with
the
church
is
pleased
that
the
plans
call
for
keeping
the
smokestack.
I
would
like
to
see
the
barn
ruins
protected,
stabilized
and
improved.
An
explanatory
sign
would
be
great,
so
I
encourage
you
as
the
city
and
for
the
developers
to
preserve
as
much
of
that
remaining
heritage
of
the
sanitarium
as
possible.
Thanks
thank.
Y
Y
The
development
plans
for
the
oldest
Adventist
Hospital
site
on
Mapleton
I
urge
you
to
maintain
the
open
space
designation
on
the
four
acre
section
on
the
northwest
of
the
15
acres
slated
for
development.
Folks,
you
know
the
value
of
open
space
for
wildlife
and
humans.
It
seems
like
both
our
staff
is
working
for
development
and
developers
with
their
37
page
report,
urging
us
o
be
abandoned.
I
suddenly,
don't
see
it
as
a
mapping
error,
the
developers
had
ample
opportunity
to
challenge
the
map
and
Oso
designation
before
they
purchased
the
15
acre
parcel.
Y
There
are
lots
of
space
designated
open
space
along
the
edge,
but
now
that
there
are
big
bucks
in
a
project
does
it
become
an
error?
I,
don't
think
that
there
are
words
in
the
documents
associated
with
this
parcel
indicate
that
the
dish
is
the
eastern
edge
of
the
parcel
I'd
say
that
the
map
is
the
final
indicator:
they're
marking
the
open
space
other
and
there's
no
reason
to
call
an
error.
Z
Good
evening,
I'm
si
thank
you
for
being
here:
I'm
Suzie,
Andalusia,
86,
Mineola
court,
I
think
I'm
the
first
person
from
outside
of
the
neighborhood
to
speak,
but
I
am
a
petition.
Signer
and
several
of
my
neighbors
have
joined
us.
They
chose
not
to
speak
tonight.
You
probably
knew
us
from
the
CEPA
Hogan
pan
cost
situation.
Z
We
were
fearful
that
those
errors
would
have
played
into
it.
So
that
was
an
impetus
to
come,
but
there's
a
lot
of
pressure
on
development
and
some
areas
should
just
be
kept
as
minimally
developed
as
possible.
This
is
one
of
them.
It's
one
of
the
most
popular
areas
in
town
developers
often
call
the
people
surrounding
the
area
who
are
fighting
at
NIMBYs
and
I.
Don't
think
that's
the
case
at
all.
These
are
people
who
care
about
it.
There's
real
community
benefit
to
keeping
this
area
as
nature
friendly,
open,
as
cetera
as
possible.
Z
It's
already
too
busy
putting
more
people
more
pressure
on
the
land,
taking
it
away
complicating
the
parking
isn't
going
to
help
I'm
a
cyclist
and
I
come
down
barreling
down
sunshine
Canyon,
sometimes,
and
if
we
put
more
people
on
that
road,
somebody
is
going
to
get
very
hurt
or
killed.
I
was
amazed
on
mr.
Olmstead
Jr's
words
and
I.
Ask
you
to
honor
them.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
AA
Okay,
cool
I
have
a
brief,
Michael
Bosma
1885
quints
I
am
a
representative
of
the
ownership
group.
While
this
isn't
an
issue
that
was
brought
forward
by
us.
I
do
feel
that
it
is
something
that
should
be
cleared
up
and
I.
Think
staff
has
done
a
great
job
in
their
analysis
of
the
site,
so
what
I
did
is
I
put
together?
AA
It
wouldn't
be
possible
for
the
ditch
to
be
located
there,
but
what
we
do
see
is
that
in
high
and
yellow
is
the
actual
location
of
the
ditch,
okay
and
then
number
and
in
blue
is
the
highlighted.
What
we
call
the
the
subdivided
Lots
so
I
want
you
to
remember
those
because
I'll
talk
to
him
a
little
bit
and
I
know
folded.
AA
This
is
clearly
a
mapping
error.
We
don't
have
to
be
professionals
or
surveyors
to
notice
that
the
ditch
never
has
been
there.
It
is
clearly
an
error,
so
if
we
go
over
the
next
page
I'm
gonna
take.
This
is
directly
from
the
description
from
the
1976
September
29th
open-space
Board
of
Trustees
meeting,
where
they're
describing
the
boundaries
for
what
they
want.
Open
space
to
be
so
highlighted
in
pink
at
Forest
Avenue
to
the
east.
AA
Boundary
would
then
become
the
blue
line,
which
is
here
and
understood
as
being
150
feet,
west
of
the
center
line
of
3rd
Street,
since
following
the
blue
line
south
to
the
west
line
of
Alpine,
which
would
be
150
feet,
east
of
the
southeast
corner
of
the
Hertz
or
property.
So
this
gets
to
the
question
about
these
Lots
long
3rd
Street.
If
you
go
and
look
at
the
comp
plan
map,
those
actually
are
mostly
an
area
3.
The
back
half
of
their
Lots
in
are
not
in
the
city
and
they're,
either.
AA
That's
that's
come
up
about
the
stuff
to
the
north,
so
then
there's
a
little
space
there,
since
it
would
go
directly
south
to
that
point
at
which
intersects
the
east
bank
of
the
Silver
Lake,
ditch
small
little
area
there
in
yellow,
and
it's
highlighted
with
video
and
then
orange
fence
following
Silver
Lake,
ditch
to
a
point
where
it
approximately
intersects
the
subdivided
Lots
owned
by
the
sanitarium,
and
that
designation
would
include
those
Lots.
It
clearly
was
the
intent
for
open
space
everything
west
of
the
ditch.
AA
So
if
the
ditch
was
clearly
in
a
wrong
location,
I
believe
that
that
is
the
result
of
this
open
space.
Other
error
to
further
that
there's
a
memorandum
from
staff
on
the
following
page
that
once
again
highlights-
and
this
is
from
1990-
that
they
are
looking
at
everything
west
of
the
Silver
Lake-
ditch
visual
and
passive
recreational
qualities,
everything
west
of
the
ditch.
AA
So,
once
again,
if
you
go
to
the
final
page,
it
then
is
an
attachment
to
their
exhibit
and
Phil
showed
this
earlier,
showing
everything
west
of
the
ditch
and
what
they
want
to
acquire.
So
it's
very
easy
to
see
that
we
clearly
had
a
mapping
error
and
the
intent
was
to
be
west
of
the
ditch
which
caused
this
this
air
to
take
place.
AA
So
I
do
want
to
clear
up
a
few
things
since
it
has
come
up,
we
are
proposing
our
site
review
and
you
will
see
it.
There's
a
city
drafted
access
easement
across
the
Dakota
Ridge
trail
that
we're
proposing
we've
submitted
with
our
application
and
will
be
part
of
it.
We
are
continuing
to
preserve
access
the
open
space.
Other
designation,
as
it
says
today
as
much
as
people
would
like
to
to
think
it
does
not
guarantee
parking
on
the
site.
It
does
not
guarantee
access
to
the
site
as
it
exists.
AA
AB
Kathryn
Schweiger
6:28
Maxwell
in
my
40
years
of
standing
at
this
podium
advocating
for
my
neighborhood
I'm,
going
to
do
something
different
tonight
and
I'm
going
to
advocate
for
a
position
that
could
be
construed
to
favor.
The
developer
tonight's
agenda
item
is
not
about
development
is
about
open
space
when
I
was
working
as
a
landscape
architect
and
had
to
switch.
My
hat
to
the
Hat
of
a
draftsman
I
was
much
relieved
and
I
determined
that
my
Maps
did
not
need
to
be
preserved
for
posterity.
AB
I
could
map
with
a
pencil
on
trash
and
taken
the
electric
eraser
to
my
maps
and
correct
them.
Mapping
errors
happen.
So
that's
one
question
that
you
need
to
look
at
tonight.
The
second
one
you
need
to
look
at
is
whether
this
parcel
is
appropriate
for
the
open
space
portfolio
and
it
is
not.
It
is
a
developed
parcel.
AB
The
parcels
that
have
been
mentioned
before
that
we
required
to
the
north
have
no
development
on
them,
so
this
parcel
doesn't
belong
in
the
open
space
portfolio
and
it
is
perfectly
appropriate
for
you
to
change
the
designation
on
it.
I
hope
what
I
have
lacked
in
eloquence
I
have
made
up
for
it
with
brevity.
Thank
you
thank.
AC
You
I'm
Pamela,
Dennis
I,
live
on
no
wood
drive
adjacent
to
the
311
project,
I've
lived
in
Boulder
for
40
years,
I'm
past
president
of
historic
Boulder,
I'm
retired
business
owner
and
in
Boulder,
and
an
international
business
consultant.
I
attended
the
open
space
Board
of
Trustee
meeting
a
couple
weeks
ago
and
for
the
first
time,
I
felt
compelled
to
say
something
in
a
public
forum,
then
and
again
tonight.
My
comments
tonight
are
not
about
the
details
of
maps
they're,
not
about
the
details
of
the
values
of
open
space.
AC
AC
AC
Second,
after
years
of
research,
the
Surgeon
General's
Office
concluded
long
ago
that
cigarette
smoking
was
a
cause
of
lung
cancer.
Their
primary
interest
was
the
general
welfare
of
United
States
citizens.
The
tobacco
industry,
supported
scientific
research,
presented
alternative
facts
and
stand
and
stating
the
opposite.
Their
interests
were
not
as
noble
I
encourage
you
to
support
the
integrity
of
your
planning
staff
to
propose
to
produce
unbiased
work
versus
clearly
passionate
neighborhood
activists,
whose
first
and
foremost
concern
is
I,
have
a
pooled
yeah,
but.
AC
Yet
those
are
now
beautiful
additions
to
their
surrounding
neighborhoods
and
contributors
to
many
nonprofit
endeavors
in
Boulder,
the
311
property
owners
have
shown
no
less
exemplary
collaboration
and
respect
for
the
values
of
open
space
and
Historic
Preservation,
as
evidenced
by
their
offer
of
easements
and
the
preservation
of
the
dormitory
building
this
issue
of
integrity.
This
is
an
issue
of
integrity
and
I
urge
you
to
rectify
the
error
in
the
open
space
designation
of
this
piece
of
property
and
allow
the
311
project
to
move
forward
into
the
next
phase
of
review.
AD
Right
Craig
here
twenty-five
thirty-five,
seventh
Street
I've,
been
reading
this
book
called
breeding
sweet
grass
and
the
point
is
made
that
we
used
to
treat
land
differently.
We
treated
it
as
a
gift
and
when
I
was
a
kid
I'd
ride
my
bike
up
to
this
area-
and
you
know
I
just
leave
my
bike
on
the
side
and
walk
up
there
and
I
put
my
hand
up
one
time
while
I
was
climbing
up
on
the
rocks
and
my
hand
sat
on
to
a
Indian
Arrowhead,
and
it
was
just
so
amazing.
You
know
was
clearly
for
me.
AD
A
gift
from
this
area
that
I
was
in
instead
saw
that
when
he
said
what
beautiful
nature
has
provided
the
idea
of
providing
something
for
us,
it's
not
like
they
were
asking
anything
of
us,
so
we're
providing
it
I
think
that's
the
spirit
of
open
space,
the
idea
that
we
can
shift
our
belief
that
land
is
commodity
and
clearly
open
space
is
buying
it
for
everyone.
But
it
is
a
gift
to
everyone.
So
I
would
ask
like
Tolstoy
asked
how
much
land
does
a
man
need.
This
is
a
mammoth
area.
AE
That's
probably
more
correct
than
the
way
I
pronounce
it
so
Mark
Shawn,
Hall's,
20,
186,
Knollwood
Drive,
so
I
was
also
at
the
open
space
board
meeting
a
little
while
ago,
and
the
thing
that
I
was
talking
about
was
you
know
where
right
now
we're
talking
about
a
mapping
error-
and
you
know,
I
also
have
implemented
filled
in
and
I'll
compliment
him
again.
His
work
was
excellent
and
I
wish
I
could
get
my
guys
to
do
that
level
of
work.
AE
So
the
you
know
that
this
whole
thing
about
changing
things
that
are,
you
know,
treasured
by
Boulder.
There
was
an
example
just
a
couple
years
ago,
which
was
the
blue
line,
so
that
was
changed
and
it
was
changed
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
You
know
consistency
and,
to
kind
of
you
know
accommodate
reality
of
what
Boulder
is
today.
AE
So
you
know
that
was
the
reflecting
reality
and
it's
establishing
consistency
seemed
to
be
a
primary
thing
for
the
blue
line.
So
looking
at
this
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
open
space
and
everybody
loves
open
space.
That's
great,
but
you
know
the
reality
is
here.
There
are
some
realities
that
we
need
to
also
be
you
know
reflecting
reality.
That
was
another
theme,
so
the
realities
here
are
you
know
it's
private
property
is
zone
P.
They
also
designation
overlay
on
that
doesn't
mean
you
can't
develop
right.
AE
I
mean
that's,
that's
something
that
hasn't
really
been
talked
about
today,
I
mean
you
could
conceptually
just
leave
it
Oso
and
they
and
still
have
the
site
plan
approved.
There's
nothing
saying
that
you
can't
do
that.
I
think
it
would
just
be
more
convenient
for
everybody,
because
there's
it's
not
just
this
property.
It's
you
know,
there's
they've
got
a
companion
project
to
go
with
affordable
housing
or
affordable
housing
on
a
different
property.
So
I
mean
this
in
the
big
picture.
This
isn't
about
one
thing:
that's
about
many
and
I.
Think
that
this
would
be.
AE
Another
thing
you
know
I'm
sitting
back
there
thinking
you
know
what
kind
of
problems
are
we
trying
to
solve
here.
I
mean
this
open
space,
oso
designation
overlay
on
private
property.
What
is
really
at
risk
here
and-
and
the
developers
already
said,
he's
going
to
give
easements
or
there
they
will
provide
easements
or
actually
they're
going
to
agree
to
the
easements.
That
city
has
already
drafted.
AE
So
I
can't
be
access,
I
mean
most
everybody
accesses
it
already
from
the
4th
from
4th
Street.
They
don't
go
up
through
the
property.
I
mean
I
guarantee
you.
If
you
did
a
study
that
it
would,
it
would
dwarf
the
fourth
read:
access
would
dwarf
coming
up
through
the
property
there
to
311,
and
so
you
know,
I
mean
I.
Just
this
whole
thing
to
me
seems
to
be
ready
for
thought,
yeah
ready
for
a
decision.
I
think
everybody
would
appreciate
that
Thanks
Thank.
K
AF
Q
A
AF
You
thank
you
for
very
much
for
having
me
and
letting
me
speak.
I
wanted
to
pick
up
on
two
things
that
I've
heard
in
the
earlier
conversations
miss
gray
your
comment
about
the
steep
slopes
and
protecting
steep
slopes
and
also
the
comment
that
we
just
heard
about
climate
change.
One
of
the
co-benefits
of
open
space
is
that
it's
defensible
space
for
fire
and
particularly
on
those
steep
slopes.
AF
You
know
this
is
the
part
of
the
co-benefit
we
get
from
our
open
space
up
against
the
mountains
is
defensible
space
and
looking
at
it
from
a
climate
change
perspective.
As
a
climate
change,
scientist
and
resilience
specialist,
we
want
to
maintain
that
our
fire
risk
is
going
up.
I'm
involved
with
resilience
work
through.
You
know,
sort
of
100
resilient
cities,
not
in
not
in
Boulder
and
I.
Certainly,
don't
speak
for
the
Boulder
Brazilians
are,
but
we
are
one
of
the
hundred
resilient
cities.
What
we
do
here
is
being
watched.
AF
I
have
huge
concerns
about
the
idea
of
putting
an
assisted
living
facility
in
the
red
zone.
I
know
that's
not
what
we're
discussing
tonight
and
so
I'm
not
gonna.
Go
there.
I
will
be
showing
up
at
later
hearings
about
this.
However,
if
it
goes
forward,
but
if
this
land
is
currently
open
space,
that's
part
of
what
the
open
space
designation
was.
It
was
view
scapes.
It
was
recreation,
but
it's
also
defensible
space.
It's
avoiding
space,
that's
prone
to
landslides.
AF
There
are
reasons
that
we
chose
to
leave
this
open
and
not
develop
on
it,
and
it's
kept
us
safe.
It's
part
of
why
we
haven't
had
the
sorts
of
fires
that
we
saw
in
Colorado
Springs
a
few
years
ago,
and
it's
certainly
a
piece
that
we
want
to
maintain.
So
we
don't
see
the
sorts
of
fires
that
they
had
in
Santa
Rosa
this
year,
and
so
just
as
as
you
think
about
what
the
intention
is,
I
mean
the
earlier
maps
that
were
shown
to
me.
AF
It
looks
pretty
clear
that
this
parcel
was
purchased
before
they
started
with
the
open
space
designation,
and
so
we
carefully
have
open
space
that
moves
around
the
parcel
and
because
the
parcel
was
lightly
developed
because
it
had
a
dairy
and
cows,
because
there
weren't
a
lot
of
buildings,
because
it
was
a
sanitarium
and
was
providing
a
public
benefit
it.
It
didn't
get
rolled
into
the
open
space
designation,
but
now,
if
it's
designated
open
space,
if
there
is
reasonable
reason
to
assume
that
it
is
not
a
mapping
error,
why
would
we
change
that
I?
AG
I'm
Jane,
Ashton,
Brenner
and
I
live
at
2695
Kalmia,
so
not
right.
Next
to
311
Mapleton
a
long
time
ago,
my
manager
asked
me
to
look
into
a
proposal
and
make
a
recommendation
what
we
should
do
about
it.
So
I
did
the
math
and
I
ran
the
statistics
and
then
I
went
back
to
her
and
I
said.
What
do
you
want?
AG
The
conclusion
to
be
because,
even
though
statistics
are
mathematical
and
they're,
not
emotional
I
could
make
the
statistics
say
whatever
one
wanted
them
to
say:
I'm
impressed
with
both
sides
tonight
because
have
you
done
tons
of
research
and
a
lot
of
good
reasoning
to
come
to
there
inclusions
of
whether
or
not
this
should
this
was
meant
to
have
open
space.
Oh
designation
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
integrity
on
both
the
size
of
the
citizens
who
worked
hard
and
the
staff.
AG
AG
Absolutely
clear
reason:
I
start
questioning
open
space
and
my
faith
is
eroded
and
I've
listened,
listened
to
all
the
arguments
tonight
think
what
it's
like
for
the
other
people
in
Boulder
who
haven't
listened
to
the
arguments
and
don't
understand
that
it
clearly
is
a
mapping
err,
so
I
would
ask
for
all
the
citizens
in
Boulder
that
you
not
change
this
designation.
Thank
you.
Thank.
AH
If
you
want
to
go
to
Bear
Lake-
and
you
know
you
got
little
kids,
you
got
a
hurry,
hurry,
hurry,
rush,
rush,
rush
to
get
to
the
park
and
you're
talking
about
access,
but
you're,
not
talking
about.
Where
are
people
going
to
park
when
they
come
and
I
from
Michigan
I
call
its
Anita's,
but
anyway,
I,
don't
know
where
they're
gonna
Park
it's
hard
enough
now
and
you
talk
about
access.
Well,
it's
not
going
to
do
people
any
good
to
be
able
to
access
it
if
they
can't
drive
there
and
park
somewhere.
AH
So
as
you
talked
about
access
and
this
you're
still
gonna
have
access,
you've
got
to
have
a
place
for
people
to
be
able
to
park
their
cars,
I'm
thinking
and
and
just
that,
it's
open
space
think
a
hundred
years
from
now.
You
know,
there's
gonna,
be
more
people
here
and
wanting
to
hike
and
if
they
don't
have
access
and
parking
they're
not
going
to
come
there.
A
A
A
E
K
A
H
H
F
B
M
Yeah,
so
that
would
be
one
way
if
there
was
an
approval
it
could
be
approved
in
that
way,
but
just
having
an
Oso
designation
also
doesn't
prohibit
development,
the
most
properties
in
the
city,
the
land
use
map
designation
for
those
properties
doesn't
at
all
get
taken
into
consideration
in
development
and
the
the
reason
it
comes
up
here
is
that
this
property
is
subject
to
say
you
and
the
site
review
criteria
refer
to
the
land-use
map.
So
that's
the
only
reason
it
comes
in.
M
So
it's
not
a
general
development
prohibition,
and
when
you
read
the
land-use
map
description
in
the
comp
plan,
it
acknowledges
that,
while
in
private
ownership,
the
use
of
the
land
may
not
be
open
to
open
space
and
that
preservation
may
not
be
occurring
at
that
point
in
time.
So
during
the
site
review,
it
would
be
upon
you
to
interpret
whether
or
not
the
site
plan
would
be
consistent
with
the
land
use
map
designation
and
in
the
past
it's
been
interpreted
to
be
a
designation.
M
That
shows
that
the
city
would
like
to
purchase
fee
ownership
or
some
of
that
kind
of
development
restrictions
or
preservation
rights
such
as
conservation
easements,
or
they
have
been
some
other
development,
restricting
agreements
and
covenants
put
on
properties.
But
in
such
a
way
that
the
designation
indicates
that
the
city
would
like
to
place
the
property
under
management,
on
control,
of
open
space,
of
the
open
space
department
in
some
kind
of
fashion
or
form,
but
not
as
a
regulatory
restriction
for
hitting
development
of
the
property.
D
D
Prime,
it's
Underground
goes
through
the
target
property,
that's
underground,
I,
think
I'm
right
there
that's
right,
and
then
it
goes
through
the
Google,
the
new
Google
building,
which
it's
de
lighted
and
it
goes
across
30th
Street
and
then
into
the
Rev
project,
where
it's
going
to
be
de
lighted
and
I,
bring
it
up
because
that's
a
open-space
other,
that's
a
designation
and-
and
we
took
that
into
consideration
for
the
Revd
project
and
the
Google
project,
and
people
can
see
the
bike
path
now.
That
is
not
managed
in
any
way
by
the
open
space
department.
D
M
It
does
I
think
I
think
the
designations
occurred
on
the
map,
because
that
was
anticipated,
that
it
would
be
preserved
in
that
manner
and
yet
rolled
through
that
department,
but
you're
right
there.
There
are
many
areas
and
and
I
remember
the
Bank
of
America
I,
hadn't,
thought
of
Google
and
yeah,
and
the
Rev
yeah
and
those
areas
have
more
developed
as
well
and-
and
you
took
the
designation
into
consideration.
D
And
one
thing
I
want
to
say
about
the
Bank
America
project
when
it
came
to
us
in
concept
plan.
The
building
was
actually
sited
on
the
open
space
other
portion
and
they
moved
it.
I
believe
it
was
one
or
two
feet
for
the
site
for
the
final
site
review.
Now
we
didn't
mandate
them
to
move
it,
but
they
listened
to
the
discussion
about
open
space
other
and
they
just
volunteered
Carolee
moved
it,
but
it's
still
in
a
pipe
under
there,
but
anyway,
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up
that
not
all
open
space
other.
A
H
I
do
have
one
more
question,
so
the
1976
minutes
describing
the
the
line
heading
south
till
it
meets
the
east
side
of
the
ditch.
Would
we
consider
this
I
mean
to
have
the
legal
heft
of
say
a
Platt
or
or
a
lot
description
or
or
is
it
more
of
you
know
a
description
that
was
voted
on
in
in
public
meetings,
so
it
has
that
kind
of
you.
Can
you
just
comment
a
little
bit
about?
Is
that
the
ultimate
description
of
where
that
line
would
go.
G
Hello
may
may
want
to
elaborate,
but
I
definitely
wouldn't
call
it
a
legal
description
and
I
think
it
was
probably
something
where,
if
you
were
attempting
to
do
that
at
the
Dyess,
you
could
do
describe
an
area
such
as
that,
but
in
terms
of
a
legal,
precise
description,
I,
don't
think
I
would
categorize
it
as
that.
I
also
say
that
the
the
maps
at
that
time
I
can
kamini
one
map
and
the
comp
plan
maps
did
have
a
disclaimer
on
it.
That
said,
something
along
the
lines
of
due
to
the
scale
of
the
map.
B
If
there
are
none,
I,
just
have
to
fulfill
in
one
for
hella,
did
I'd
like
to
hear
answers
to
these
before
we
deliberate.
So
one
is
how
do
you
address
a
certain
assertion
around
the
1978
Oh
SNP
map,
including
Louis
Oh
portion,
but
the
mapping
error
not
occurring
until
the
1979
parcel
map,
or
that's
for
you,
Phil
yeah,.
G
B
O
I
was
confirming
what
Phil
had
said.
Those
were
the
the
oldest
maps
that
the
county
had
provided
to
us
when
we
were
researching
this
matter,
but
older
maps
likely
older
parcel
maps
likely
do
exist,
that's
just
the
oldest
that
that
we
were
provided
again.
They
then
furnished
a
1955,
dramatic
map
that
shows
the
ditch
in
the
same
location.
So
the.
B
Same
in
correct
location,
okay,
so
the
second
question
is:
how
do
we
address
I
heard
I
heard
an
assertion
that
the
line
that
is
supposedly
an
error
was
surveyed
with
metes
and
bounds
that
that
there
is
some
some
metes
and
bounds,
legal
description
that
describes
the
border
of
the
Oso
and
somehow
that's
more
persuasive,
I.
Don't
I
didn't
see
any
metes
and
bounds
anywhere,
except
in
the
resolutions
of
the
OS
MP
OS
b.
T
yeah.
O
B
You
thank
you
and
then
my
last
question
is
just
we
heard
a
lot
of
conversation
about
the
clear
error
standard
and
and
how
I
just
you
know
my
my
understanding,
my
kind
of
law,
school
understanding
of
clear
error
is
that
it's
the
middle
ground
between
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
and
preponderance
of
the
evidence
and
it's
the
hardest
one
to
figure
out
because
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt,
it's
almost
absolute
and
preponderance
just
means
tip
the
scale
to
51%.
But
people
disagree
on
what
clearer
is
it
65%
Shore?
Is
it
eighty
percent
certainty?
B
M
That's
a
good
question:
I
see
it
more
as
a
word
as
well.
I
think
I
think
it's
very
similar
to
probably
to
the
clear,
clear
error
standard
that
you're
referencing
that
might
be
used
by
a
court,
but
we're
looking
at
interpreting
this
comp
plan
and
and
I
looked
at
the
comp
plan
and
and
the
IGA
and
there's
not
really
any
other
indication
of
what
it
might
mean.
There's,
certainly
no
definition,
that's
provided,
and
so
I
would
just
recommend
to
go
with
the
plain
and
ordinary
meaning.
Okay,.
A
Other
questions
I
had
one,
maybe
for
you
Helen,
maybe
for
you
Phil.
There
was
also
discussion
about
whether
preserving
this
designation
would
preserve
public
access
either
to
park
or
to
kind
of
cross
over
in
that
area,
and
does
this
designation
provide
any
right
to
the
public
to
go
through
or
is
that
something
that
the
property
owner
could
cut
off
anytime
yeah.
M
A
Right,
thank
you
any
last
questions.
So
we
have
a
fairly
as
opposed
to
what
we
usually
have
fairly
simple
question.
It's
really
just
one
question,
which
is
whether
there
is
that
clear
mapping,
error
or
other
issue
on
that
front
and
so
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
subdivision
of
issues
that
we
can
talk
about.
There's
really
just
one.
So
I
would
like
to
recommend
that
we
just
move
down
the
panel
here
and
have
folks
offer
their
opinion.
A
H
I
will
apply
integrity
that
to
that
and
integrity
to
me
says:
okay,
maybe
if
I
read
those
words,
I
could
possibly
say
that
it's
clear
that
there's
a
mapping
error.
However,
it's
also
very
clear
to
me
that
we,
the
50
years
that
that
has
been
there,
has
existed
and
I,
would
like
that
clear
to
be
really
clear
and,
as
a
result,
I'm
kind
of
reluctant
to
to
let
it
raise
to
that
level.
For
me
at
this
point,
I
would
like
to
deliberate
a
bit
and
see
what
others
think.
H
But
at
this
point
given
the
given
the
moving
parts,
given
the
fact
that
you
know
that
a
lot
of
the
extraneous
stuff
can't
be
guaranteed
anyway,
I
really
am
not
so
sure
that
I
would
want
to
and
and
the
fact
that
two
bodies
came
with
language.
That
said,
the
county
said
plausible
and
the
opens
OS
BT
folks
said,
probably
they
didn't
say
clearly
I
kind
of
I'm
kind
of
on
their
page
right
now,
and
that's
where
I'm
sitting
thanks.
B
David
Harmon,
so
some
of
the
things
that
that
I'm,
considering
are
the
oso
designation,
generally
being
four
parcels
which,
in
which
the
the
city
has
an
interest
in
purchasing
some
sort
of
an
ownership
or
a
right,
and
here
the
city
never
has
I,
think
that
there's
there's
not
just
the
city,
but
just
in
general
planning
terms,
municipalities,
frown
on
split
land
use
designations.
This
parcel
has
a
split
land
use
designation,
but
there's
never
been
any
subdivision
of
the
parcel.
B
A
A
That
being
said,
I
think
some
of
the
factors
that
are
critical
here
is
this
designation
as
a
particular
shape
and
I
can't
find
any
justification
for
that
shape
other
than
the
mislabeled
ditch
location.
If
there
was
a
broader
desire
to
protect
the
Dakota,
Ridge
I
think
it
would
add
a
different
shape
than
that,
and
that's
not
what
we
have
here
and
I
do
especially
loving
the
open
space
and
having
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
the
open
space
board,
having
acquired
a
lot
of
land.
A
You
know
this
is
developed
property
and
not
open
space,
and
it
hasn't
been
open
space
for
a
very
long
time,
because
it's
had
that
developed
use
and
I
certainly
hear
you
a
lot
of
the
points
made
by
the
community
about
steep
slope.
Fire
protection
access,
all
those
things
which
I
think
are
important
considerations
that
our
site
review
criteria
do
address,
and
we
should
definitely
consider
those
in
the
site
review
and
may
result
in
no
development
or
modified
development.
A
Any
of
those
things
are
possible,
I
think
under
our
site
review,
but
I,
don't
think
they
inform
the
question
about
whether
this
is
open
space
or
intended
to
be
open
space
on
that
front,
I.
Think,
given
the
fact,
a
few
things,
one,
it's
not
in
our
acquisition
plan
hasn't
been
in
our
acquisition
plan
and
we
generally
don't
acquire
fully
developed
parcels
like
this
and
parking
lots.
It's
also
not
included
as
part
of
our
parking
plan.
We
went
through
a
very
extensive
public
process
in
the
West
trail
study
area.
A
Looking
at
places
where
parking
and
trail
heads
would
be.
This
was
not
one
of
them.
We
have
limited
resources
in
the
open
space
program
and
we
did
identify
I
think
the
critical
areas
again.
This
was
not
one
of
those
places
that
was
identified,
and
indeed,
we
put
investment
in
other
locations
to
improve
trail
heads
because
we
didn't
own
it
and
it
wasn't
identified
as
an
acquisition
target.
So,
as
a
result,
I
do
believe
that
it
hits
that
clearly
line
I.
Think
it's
also
one.
J
Yeah
I
agree
with
most
of
everything
that
gives
up
said
and
David
your
hesitancy
to
sort
have
it
rise
that
level,
for
you
is
totally
respectable
and
I
feel
that
to
me,
it's
really
more
about.
What's
the
observable
landmark
that
was
involved
with
the
shaping
of
this
and
I
think
it
finds
it
with
what
you're
saying
John
is,
that
was
the
ditch.
There
isn't
another
geometry
that
would
create
this
out
there
other
than
a
Miss
drawn
line.
J
I
feel
like
it's
really
tempting
for
us
all
of
us
actually
to
look
at
all
the
things
that
are
outside
of
this
particular
question.
This
is
a
map
change
for
us,
not
site,
review,
site
review
is
where
we
will
look
at
access.
We
will
look
at
the
easement
that
will
provide
trail
continuity
from
existing
places
to
across
the
site.
The
question
of
whether
there
could
be
parking
there
is
going
to
be
a
part
of
the
site
review
question.
So
it's
not
part
of
what
we're
talking
about
tonight.
J
The
question
of
whether
historic
structures
are
going
to
be
preserved
is
a
question
for
seven
odd
part
of
what
we're
doing
tonight.
So
all
of
those
things
I
have
to
put
out
of
my
head
and
think
about
like
does
it
make
sense
that
this
was
a
map
error
or
not,
and
I
really
can't
for
the
life
of
me
find
anything
else
that
would
lead
to
it
other
than
a
mapper
and
I'm.
You
know
I'm
an
architect
and
I've
spent
a
lot
of
time.
J
D
I
actually
think
that
there
is
no
clear
error
and
I
agree
with
David's
comments
that
he
started
out
on
this,
and
thank
you
for
mentioning
the
county's
letter
and
the
open
space
boards
letter.
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
open
space.
Other
open
space
other
doesn't
never
shows
up
on
the
city's
acquisition
plan.
It's
within
the
area,
one.
D
D
Convincing
argument
for
me
and
mr.
Koenig
brought
that
up
also
that
that
it
was
evidence
of
a
purposeful
intention
that
there
was
an
intention
to
preserve
open
space
in
that
area.
I
thought
ken
done
well,
so
many
people
made
so
many
good
I'm,
not
gonna,
go
through
everyone's
names,
but
made
such
good
comments
on
both
sides
of
this
issue,
but
I
thought
Ken
done
raised.
The
legal
standard
has
not
been
meant,
not
a
clear
error,
and
he
also
mentioned
retention
as
open
space.
D
Other
is
consistent
with
long-standing
mission
statement
of
the
city
charter
and
he
brought
up
some
safety
concerns.
The
one
thing
I
didn't
look
at
and
I
should
have
I
have
this
map
hanging
on
my
living
room
wall?
It's
the
Frederick,
Law
Olmstead
company's
1910,
planned
for
the
city
of
Boulder
I
meant
to
take
a
picture
of
it
to
see
where
this
stood.
That
I
didn't
didn't,
get
it
together
in
time,
but
I
will
go
home
and
do
that
and
it
might
be
interesting
when
you
go
to
council
with
this.
I
also
wanted
to
bring
up.
D
We
have
another
hospital
in
town,
Boulder,
Community,
Health,
and
when
that
was
developed,
they
actually
preserved
a
large
portion
of
that
site
for
open
space.
That
would
floodplain
issues
and
things
like
that,
and
that
is
you
know,
that's
a
that's
something
that
a
lot
of
people
have
done
in
town
when
they
have
a
special
piece
of
property,
but
I
am
NOT
going
to
support
the
staff
recommendation,
but
the
staff
did
a
super
job.
I
was
just
really
glued
to
your
memo.
Reading
the
history
of
the
open
space
meetings.
W
K
K
J
I'd
like
to
make
just
a
quick
comment
that
I've
forgot
to
make
before,
which
is
that
open
space?
Oh
there
is
a
really
difficult
land
use
in
our
mapping
system.
It
goes
down
valmont
through
strip
malls
and
apartment
buildings.
It
goes
through
trailer
parks.
It
goes
through
all
of
the
warehouses
along
47th
way.
It
cuts
a
huge
wide
swath
through
developed,
absolutely
not
open
space
land
through
the
city
of
Boulder
and
a
lot
of
that
follows
ditches,
and
you
know
it's
kinda
interesting.
J
Look
at
it
because
if
you
track
it
through
town,
it'll
be
really
skinny
here
and
then
it'll
cross
the
street
and
get
super
fat
and
the
it's
really
clear
that
it
there's
a
lot
of
slop
and
this
organization
to
the
way
it
was
applied.
So
that's
one
of
things
that
to
me
like
makes
me
feel
like
well
there's
a
lot
of
like
junk
in
this
whole
system,
and
this
is
another
part
of
it.
That's
all
I
want
to
say.
D
I
mean
Brian
and
I
have
a
choice:
no,
no,
no
Brian
and
I've
been
kind
of
looking
at
maps
here
and
and
he's
exactly
right
it.
The
boulder
Slough
is
such
a
good
example,
but
think
of
the
potential
for
the
boulder
Slough
if
it
had
been,
if
that
land
hadn't
been
developed
now
in
2018
we'd
be
saying,
of
course,
this
is
how
we
want
to
treat
some
of
our
waterways
and
drainages,
and
things
like
that.
D
H
David
since
I
went
first,
Oh
got
a
few
things.
I
heard
what
you
all
said.
I
do
agree
that
the
contour
thing
doesn't
correlate
at
all
with
me,
because
I
see
that
it
has
to
go
up
across
contour
lines
either
earlier
later.
However,
the
ditch
the
ditch
does
argue
for
the
clearly
side
of
the
equation.
It's
just
that
it
doesn't
rise
to
that
level.
H
I,
just
like
I,
really
don't
think
I
can
go
back
50
years
and
try
to
go
through
this
and
say
well
clearly
to
me
this
was
an
error,
so
I'm
gonna
I'm,
going
to
not
support
and
I
and
I
also
want
to
say.
Thank
you
for
a
great
analysis.
It
was
very
clear-
and
it
was
very
thorough,
but
I
won't
be
supporting
this
one.
A
Other
thoughts
I'll
offer
just
one
more,
which
I
think
feeds
into
some
of
the
same
place
and
talks
about
consequences
of
the
decision
we
have
to
make,
and
then
counsel
ultimately
will
make,
which
is
the
best
way
for
this
to
have
been
dealt
with.
What
a
benefit
had
been
caught
earlier
and
had
been
included
in
the
comp
plan
update
or
it
still
could
be,
and
so
even
if
we
were
to
die
or
council
were
to
deny
it
my
suspicion
is.
A
This
issue
will
be
back
back
to
us,
and
so
one
of
the
considerations
would
be
do
we
want
it?
Have
it
go
out
on
the
error
question
or
go
back
to
the
amendment
I
believe
it's
there
just
because
we
didn't
if
we
have
a
lot
of
things
to
do
in
those
comp
plan
updates,
it's
took
a
lot
of
time,
a
lot
of
staff
effort,
a
lot
of
community
effort
and
it's
hard
to
focus
on
all
the
other
parcels.
When
you
have
those
places
I'm
still
convinced
there
was
a
clear
error
here.
A
B
J
Page
six
cool,
my
move
that
we
find
the
discrepancy
exists
within
the
bv
CP
regarding
land
use,
map,
designation
on
the
311
Mapleton
property.
That's
clearly
the
result
of
a
drafting
error,
mapping
discrepancy
or
a
clerical
mistake
to
end
to
correct
the
land
use
map
and
doesn't
it
the
entire
311
Mapleton
property
as
public.
J
Ahead
and
beak
to
it
really
briefly,
we
just
it.
The
last
thing
you
said
I
think
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
It
would
make
a
huge
difference
if
we
were
not
looking
at
these
things
in
the
context
of
looming
development
or
anything
like
that,
thinks
that
I'm
a
lot
more
difficult
to
have
the
discourse
around
it
be
really
objective,
and
so
to
that
end,
I'd
love
to
see
us
take
on
fixing
some
of
this
open
space.
J
Other
stuff
sometime
soon
would
be
great
before
we
have
to
do
this
again,
I
think
on
the
time
I've
been
on
the
board.
This
is
like
the
sixth
or
seventh
time,
so
it
would
be
awesome
to
not
keep
doing
it.
Thanks,
though,.
A
Other
other
comments
on
the
motion:
I'll
offer
just
very
brief
ones
myself,
which
is
to
go
back
to
the
point
that
I
think.
A
lot
of
the
points
raised
tonight
are
totally
germane
to
that
site.
Review
application
and
nothing
I
have
to
say
tonight
prejudges
any
of
that,
because
I
do
think
there
are
significant
questions
about
defensible
space
and
the
steep
slopes
and
other
sort
of
issues,
but
that's
not
what's
in
front
of
us
tonight,
but
we
can
deal
with
that
and
indeed
I
think
under
the
site
review
criteria.
A
B
On
that
you
know,
I
just
want
to
exhort.
Should
this
go
forward
to
site
review
the
applicant
and
staff
to
do
things
that
are
befitting
of
Boulder
to
do
things
that
are
sensitive
and
and
sensible
uses
of
land?
An
idea
is
in
a
situation
where
you
have
folks
living
in
an
old-age
home
type
scenario:
you've
people
who
have
cars
that
rarely
move
them.
We
have
a
baking
Sun
and
lots
of
snow.
B
A
A
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
We
still
have
some
other
business
on
our
agenda
tonight,
so
we'll
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
6,
which
is
matters
from
the
Planning
Board
planning,
director
and
city
attorney,
and
actually
why
don't?
We
just
give
a
moment
folks
to
clear
out.
Everyone
is
welcome
to
continue
to
join
us.
No.
AB
AB
A
D
I
want
to
thank
Bethany
also
as
a
former
open
space
board
member,
but
also
as
a
member
of
the
public.
You
know
that
we
have
such
good
staff,
so
I
appreciate
that
and
by
the
way
one
of
the
people
in
the
minutes
of
1970
was
at
6:00.
Dr.
McCarty
told
me
that
it's
called
Santos
and
he
wrote
the
climbing
book
called
high
over
Boulder
so
and
he
said
all
the
old-timers
call
it
Santa
toss
now
that
was
in
1976.
He
told
me
so
now
I'm
one
of
the
old-timers
calling
it
and
Anytus.
H
A
A
Then
I'll
bring
it
back
to
the
board
any
matters
from
the
board.
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
all
of
you
for
making
this
exceptionally
rewarding
board
that
it's
been.
Staff
is
first
class
and
you
do
a
huge
amount
to
support
us
and
it
makes
it
a
lot
easier
because
it
is
often
difficult,
but,
more
importantly,
I,
think
pleasurable
and
intellectually
satisfying
and
important
work
goes
on
here.
That
is
possible
because
of
all
of
you,
so
I
really
deeply
appreciate
it
and
once
again,
incredibly
proud
of
our
city
and
I'm
proud
of
you.
A
We
have
a
national
reputation
and
it's
because
if
you
know
the
hard
work,
as
well
as
the
engagement
from
the
board,
the
public
and
everybody
else,
so
this
is
probably
my
last
meeting
because
I'm
scheduled
to
be
out
of
town
on
the
15th
there's
an
outside
chance
that
won't
be,
in
which
case
I'll
I'll
just
show
up
speech
again
actually
word
for
word,
I'm
sure
so
I
didn't
want
to
thank
everybody.
We
have
to
buy
you
another
card
and
the.
J
D
Wanted
to
say,
I
was
on
City
Council
when
John
was
on
open
space
board
and
to
to
the
person
we
all
looked
at
you
as
such
a
steady
hand,
and
really
he
was
an
example
of
what
I
felt
an
open
space.
Board
of
Trustee
should
be,
and
that's
to
really
be
looking
out
for
the
health
of
the
open
space
system
on
behalf
of
current
residents
and
future
residents,
and
then
we
both
applied
for
planning
board
together
and
we
got
appointed
and
I
was
really
thrilled
to
serve
with
John.
D
He
was
really
wonderful
and
but
our
first
meeting
with
Hogan
pankov
that
we
had
it
was
a
three-day
meeting
and
I
just
think.
It's
really
fitting
that
the
cities
now
buying
Hogan
pankov,
and
you
kind
of
have
this
nice
bookend
around
your
term,
and
you
were
such
a
good
chairman
and
you
were
so
respectful
of
the
public
always
and
that
that's
really
important
I
know
to
all
of
us
on
Planning
Board
and
the
staff,
and
especially
the
public.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
A
H
Completing
my
first
year,
I'm,
planning
board
I,
would
really
call
you
a
mentor
and
a
great
example
of
what
we
all
can
live
up
to
on
this
board.
I've
been
you
know,
I
was
just
blown
away
on
the
first
few
meetings
about
how
you
would
kind
of
summarize
everything
at
the
end
so
fairly
and
in
just
the
right
number
of
words.
It
wasn't
like
this
constant
volume
of
stuff,
so
really
getting
everybody's
input
and
then
being
able
to
kind
of
summarize
it
and
make
everybody
feel.
H
A
L
Can't
let
you
get
away
without
thanking
you
from
staff
to
you've
really
been
an
exceptional
chair
and
member
of
the
board.
We
really
appreciate
your
service
and
you've
guided
us
through
some
big
projects
that
Comprehensive
Plan
Update
and
many
challenging
other
cases
and
have
just
done
it
brilliantly.
So
we
really
appreciate
your
service
well,.
B
Give
me
30
seconds:
yeah,
no
David,
you
said
it
beautifully
and
Leslie
I
said
it
beautifully,
but
I
also
just
wanted
to
say:
I've
served
on
a
bunch
of
boards
and
and
some
of
them
have
even
been
planning
commissions
and
boards
and
there's
a
special
level
of
respect
and
dignity
to
this
board
and
I
appreciate
coming
here
and
serving
with
you
and
with
all
the
other
planning
board.
Members
and
you've
played
a
big
part
in
creating
that
sense
of
real
care
and
decency
and
I.
B
Think
we,
you
know,
we
don't
always
make
the
most
popular
decisions.
Sometimes
people
like
some
people,
like
the
decisions
and
other
people,
don't
and
it's
a
tough
place
for
all
of
us
to
be
and
to
come
here
and
and
feel
a
sense
of
safety
and
dignity,
while
we're
doing
it
is
a
gift
and
and
for
the
major
part
of
that
gift
that
you've.
Given
us
I
appreciate
you.
Thank
you.